General discussion


IT (Infrastructure) not being very green

By sunshine47 ·
Hands up all you infrastructure people who have got a web server plus a firewall and what the heck a file server running at home in your house, just waiting for you to login and open an e-mail or pull down a file! Come on there must be a few.

I admit it I do the same. Leave multiple servers running at home in my house doing nothing for 95% of the day. This waste of energy must be burning a huge hole in the ozone.

I do the same at work. Leaving test networks running because if I shut the damn thing down for long enough then there goes the AD(tombstone).

The reason I do it is because I have to keep my skills up to date with the latest release of Exchange or Windows OS.

Can someone tell Bill to stop releasing OS and application changes every three years!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Guilty as charged........

by Choppit In reply to IT (Infrastructure) not b ...

I leave my machines running too but always use power saving setting where possible. Have you considered using virtual servers (VMWare etc?)

Collapse -

Confusion of Ozone problem and climate change

by mhtaylor In reply to IT (Infrastructure) not b ...

Killapool is right to be concerned about energy usage. But he muddles the ozone problem and climate change. CO2 emissions cause climate change. The Ozone problem is related to the emission of CFCs and similar compounds and the effect is increased UV causing skine cancer eetc. It is being solved by stopping the use of CFCs.

Climate change is much more serious. We have to move our whole economies away from oxidising fossil, carbon containing fuels.

Killapool. Please read up on climate change and the Persuade your president to accept the Kyoto Protocol as we in the UK have done. I leave my computer on, but my account is balanced, joule for joule with non fossil fuel energy in an attempt to stimulate the renewable energy market. I pay a little more for the peace of mind as I leave my computer running (and running BOINC on a climate change model.

Collapse -

Did you prepare for the Ice Age in the 1950's?

by R. Neil In reply to Confusion of Ozone proble ...

Kyoto does not address the fastest growing, and largest population, generator of "greenhouse gases" -- China.
Bravo for salving your conscience but have you studied the climate changes which have been occuring on this planet, not just in the last century but in the last million or so years?
Can you remember the prophets of doom from the 1950's who forecast the imminent coming of an Ice Age?
How do you think scientists obtain grant money (their lifeblood)? just like news organizations, through sensationalism. (They have an edge because we want to think that they are educated and not prejudiced.)

Collapse -

Climate Change for real

by mhtaylor In reply to Did you prepare for the I ...

Replying to n.fisher.
About China. Yes!
Changes over long time. Yes, and when slow over hundreds of thousands of years, adaptation and evolution. But we are talking of less than 1 years. Wwhen rapid we have the past mass extinctions! Yes, we expect an ice age if we haven't drastically changed things first. It's all a matter of TIME SCALE. Rapid Climate is our threat.
Conspiracy theory of scientists motivation. No!

Collapse -

global warming is fake

by jchapple In reply to Climate Change for real

If your only source of "science facts" are 15 seconds of news sound bites, then you have a problem.

Global warming is not new, and not the end of the world. The temperature has gone up .2 degrees C in the past 20 years. That is not anything to worry about. If it were 2 degrees in 20 years, I might start to worry. But unless you are Christian, the Earth is very old and it has been warmer in the past, at times with less CO2 in the atmosphere. (A recent study in Antartica showed more carbon in the newer ice than in the old ice.) So if you were to argue global warming to me, do it in a way where you are concerned that this .2 degrees is a trend going upward at an alarming rate. But beware, you will have to have a serious degree in Atmospheric Science before I will listen.

Collapse -


by Grolan In reply to global warming is fake

And if your only source of "science facts" is Rush Limbaugh's bloviating, then you have a problem.

Global warming is a fact. You don't have to look any farther than the world's glaciers and icecaps (98% of which are in accelerating retreat) to realize the world is warming. The only serious debate now is how much is due to natural cycles, and how much is due to human activity. The latest serious estimate I've seen is 30-40% due to increased solar radiation, with the rest due to human activity.

Yes, the Earth has been warmer in eons past. So what? That doesn't mean it would be conducive to modern civilization. Yes, the Earth was warmer with less CO2 than we're currently pumping into it. That is a fact of great concern. If less CO2 led to higher temps, then putting in more CO2 (as we are doing) will lead to even higher temps. It's simple chemistry - adding greenhouse gases to an atmosphere increases heat retention. That's why they're called greenhouse gases. There is a lag between the time you pollute the atmosphere and the time of maximum temperature increase. i.e., if we were to totally stop burning fossil fuels today, the Earth would continue to warm for at least another century. The CO2 would not cycle out again completely for thousands of years - it is a very persistent gas. 0.2 in 20 years? Shrug. That's actually a lot, and it's going to get a lot hotter. The Earth has not seen change this rapid in known history, short of an asteroid strike.

But the salient fact isn't the number of degrees warmer it is or will be - it's the effect all that extra energy will have on climate (and 0.2 degrees warmer represents a HUGE amount of energy, on a planetary scale), and hence on crucial human activities like agriculture. The world population is over 6 billion and still climbing rapidly - headed for at least 9 or 10 billion before leveling off. That is simply too many for a healthy ecosystem to support, let alone one under stress by climate change. That large population is completely dependent on modern intensive agriculture. If agriculture is disrupted in any serious way (and it will be, it's merely the details we cannot be certain about), lots of people are going to starve. But they won't just lie down and die quietly - first they'll demand a share of what's left. Mass migrations, war - think about it.

Agriculture aside, the bottom line is if natural food chains collapse (which we have seen disturbing signs of in recent years), then we die too. It's that simple. We're not separate or apart from nature.

Ultimately, however much of the warming is due to natural vs. human factors doesn't really matter - the only rational decision is the same. It makes no sense - it is in fact dangerous, foolish, and irrational - to pile a significant human contribution on top of an already occuring natural warming. There are positive feedback mechanisms (dark surfaces absorbing even more heat after the ice is gone; massive release of methane, an even more dangerous greenhouse gas, from melting tundra; disruption of ocean currents due to changing salinity levels, etc.) that will make the result not merely additive, but multiplicative.

A species that would risk the consequences of inaction simply because it's too myopic and self centered to change its lifestyle - is simply insane.

So yes, do what you can to mitigate your contribution to warming. Shut off the equipment if you're not using it.

Collapse -

"Global Warming" threatens agriculture?

by R. Neil In reply to Hardly

Hardly, the actual case seems to be that Global Warming would increase agricultural output. Recession of coastal lines is a little more worrisome; however, if the geologists are correct, even the Sahara would flower. Also, coastal retreat is quite the norm on the Atlantic coast of the America's.

Collapse -

The sky is falling

by jchapple In reply to Hardly

Oh my what a rant, sounds like you have a lot of fear of the unknown. I hope I can give you some facts that can help make smart decisions that can make a difference. By the way, Rush Limbaugh is not the source of any of my facts, as I do not source anybody who's primary function is ratings. Just like a corporations first product is thier stock price, a non-profit's first product is publicity, and an American "journalist's" first job is ratings.

I am for conservation of resources, in fact I am a member of Ducks Unlimited, and often work with the forestry service to restore forest land. There is a differece between global warming and the green house effect, and I should have been clearer about my point. Gloal warming arguing the CO2 effect on the atmosphere is only a correlation, not causation. In other words, there is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming. It is more likely it is one small piece in a much, much bigger puzzle.

The fact they call it the green house effect is because plants will grow better. Thus I think starvation of millions is not likely. Second, green houses do not pump in CO2 to keep them warm so the name is misleading. Third, plants grow better in rich CO2 environments, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, and putting it back into the ground. Where else would all the oil in the ground come from? Forth, a warmer climate will be "moister" causing an increase in clouds, increases in rain, and thus start to cool the Earth again. So eventually there will again be balance in the CO2 cycle.

Since you list yourself as living in MN, and if you are really concerned about CO2 cycle, I recommend you purchase an E85 vehicle (Chevy and Ford have many models and most are the popular models). E85 is better than hybrid vehicles as they are cheaper to run, burn cleaner. I have two. A Ford Taurus, and a Chevy Silverado. 85% of the fuel was corn last year taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. My car puts that CO2 back into the atmosphere, and corn next year takes it back out. Nice and eco-friendly year-to-year.

R. Neil is correct. Starting in 1944 until the late 50's, earth was significantly cooling, and glaciers were growing. In fact many were growing until the 70s and starting in about 1984, they started to shrink. Glaciers are highly fuid and dynamic. They retreat to acheive a balance in mass. Look it up on the Wikipedia. But the facts are a 1 degree C increase in temperatures near a glacier is like the glacier receiving 25% less snowfall, or receiving 30% more sunshine. However, looking at glaciers in a 20 year, or 100 year period is not correct. Glaciers age at 1000s of years. And glaciers come and go, just like oceans do. Look at Arizona's desert. It used to be ocean. But there is no net loss of glaciers worldwide, as areas in Western Norway and New Zealand growing in depth and advancing very fast. The global changes we are seeing are normal, expected, and not primarily caused by man.

Some areas the glaciers reside in are getting 50% less precipitation in recent years. If global warming were real, the amount of precipitation falling would actually increase. (As a global measuer, precipitation has actually remained constant). In the worse case precipitation would fall as rain melting the glaciers fast and causing a lot of run-off. However, precipitation continues to fall as snow.

Grolan, you mentioned the .2 degree increase as being a great concern because of the amount of energy it represents. In a way you are correct, but you are wrong. What is happening is some of the glaciers are getting thinner caused by the increase in sunlight hitting them ( This causes a little more melting, but a lot more sublimation. Which is one reason why Lake Mead is getting shallower even theough the glaciers feeding it are "melting away".

Deep breath...The earth is receiving more light from the sun in recent years. That is a provable fact and everybody studying it agrees. You said it yourself, Grolan, darker surfaces make the atmosphere warmer. I agree. Every rooftop, every road, every lawn absorbs heat and slowly releases it back to the atmosphere at night keeping the nights warmer, and thus making it easier for the sun to heat the temperature the next day. The loss of the rain forests in the world is most likely the cause of the majority of the warming. If you are looking to make mankind responsible, go for something that is more likely the cause like the removal of plant life in mass quantities. Thus reducing the reflectivity of the Earth's surface.

It does not matter how much energy has been added to the atmosphere. It is only enough to reaise the air temperature (a relatively easy thing to do) .2 degrees. It is the amount of heat energy the ground releases back to the atmosphere at night.

As for my computer creating a net increase in CO2 by consuming electricty? It does not. I pay extra for Excel energy to provide my electricity from Wind power. Even if this were not the case, replacing a halogen lamp (500W) with a flourecent (24W) would do more to reduce energy consumption since my PC (300W) is already Energy Star compliant.

Finally, how do you explain global warming on Mars happening at the same time? Mars has little atmosphere, and the melting of the Martian Ice pack is due to the increase in output of the sun in the past 1000 years or so. As of yet, there has been no life found on Mars.

So in conclusion, CO2 creating global warming is a small piece of a ever increasing puzzle. Glaciers melt and expand over 1000s of years, and this is normal and expected. E85 is a better fuel to use than gas regardless if CO2 is actually a concern. Compact flourecent light bulbs save more energy than turning off your computer. The sun is warmer, causing warming trends on Earth and Mars. Increasing the refectivity of the Earth's surface 1% will reduce the average temperature by 1 degree C. And do not forget to plant trees instead of having big lawns, and help save the rain forests.

Collapse -

Correct on the ozone but

by JustAnotherGuy In reply to Confusion of Ozone proble ...

have you considered the effect of how much a variation in just a few percentage points in solar energy and/or the earth's magnetic field has on the earth's climate.
All the crap people are supposed to be doing to cause global warming can be pretty much wiped out by one Mount Pinatubo - remember the cooling that occurred after that?

Collapse -

The Kyoto Protocol is Useless

by jcovey In reply to Confusion of Ozone proble ...

Climate scientists who know what they are talking about admit that, even if all countries were to adopt the Kyoto Protocol, it would have a negligible effect on the climate but a disastrous effect on economies and human wellbeing.

Related Discussions

Related Forums