January 31, 2011 at 9:29 pm
LOL @ global warming. I'm still waiting for us here in Australia to come up with "The hottest day ever" - we always seem to be having "hottest day since 1908" etc etc. Nothing new here. Believe it or not, we've even had floods before, and bushfires. Mind you - a couple of years ago, we came within about .2 of a degree (C) of the hottest temperature ever recorded in Melbourne. Still not a winner though.
Am I (and other sceptics) to believe that (a) no temp recording devices that contribute to these 'averages' have been moved, (b) have had cities built around them? (c) new devices have been put in new locations?
You can only compare apples with apples, but if you are going to insist on comparing them with oranges, then you'd better make sure that your formulae stand up to robust peer reviews - and the global warming farce doesn't.
January 31, 2011 at 9:59 pm
niall.baird (1/31/2011)
Am I (and other sceptics) to believe that (a) no temp recording devices that contribute to these 'averages' have been moved, (b) have had cities built around them? (c) new devices have been put in new locations?You can only compare apples with apples, but if you are going to insist on comparing them with oranges, then you'd better make sure that your formulae stand up to robust peer reviews - and the global warming farce doesn't.
Yes....hmmm... there's a bit of hot air produced in Australia.
niall, if these are the main issues which you use as the basis for your skepticism, why don't you find out if a), b) or c) are true? Or false? Or what the scientific method has been - if you so inclined to dismiss this hypothesis as a farce? You seem conent with your belief that the science isn't true - but what have you offered in response to what the cause is? Nothing tangible - like a lot of skeptics. Willing to say anything that takes a pot shot at the work that's being done - not willing or able to address any tangible item when it comes to their own views.
Well, maybe that's your style, and if so, I hope that people can instead but credence to the work of people trying to figure out this question of the cause and rammifications of the current climate change which is occurring.
February 1, 2011 at 4:37 am
pflipper (1/31/2011)
Another detraction is your vitriolic tone
Just read through your own posts. You have insulted pretty well everyone to whom you have responded. You pay no attention to the arguments, just repeat your own ignorant views in response to anything that's said. You treat every-one who disagrees with you with utter contempt. I happen to be on the side of doing serious investigation and taking sensible precautionary measures on this issue, as would be 100% clear if you bothered to absorb the content of my comments, but I can't support the sort of bigoted blindness that is displayed by you and by many others for whom MMGW appears to be a matter of undisputable faith. And as a professional mathematician I am disgusted by what's being done with the data and by the sloppiness of the modeling.
How can I take this post seriously, Tom, if you don't have enough attention to detail to correct your own spelling mistakes. That kind of lack of attention to detail really detracts from your post, and points again to the need for those on the opposite side of the climate change argument to pay more attention to the details.
You can be as rude as you like about my spelling of English when you are willing to attempt to post in Gàidhlig and let me criticize your spelling. Until then (which I imagine will not be before hell freezes over) I shall happily continue to refrain from correcting all my typing errors, and trust (well, I'm lying when I say this, but never mind) that you will do me the courtesy of not using them as an excuse to ignore anything I have to say.
Tom
February 1, 2011 at 10:06 am
I am genuinely interested in the topic of energy efficiency in the IT industry and would love to hear (and contribute) ideas about a government's proper role, or lack of one, in encouraging it. That is the topic we are supposed to be discussing.
This is not a proper forum for debates about global warming. Please take that debate somewhere else. Redgate is sponsoring, and Steve is running, and Phil (along with others) is contributing to a great site that provides a valuable service to the database community. Let's keep it that way.
February 1, 2011 at 10:17 am
My feeling is that government ought to develop a framework for both more efficient energy generation, and energy efficiency in our use. It only makes sense that we try to better use our resources over time, whether they will last for 10 years or 1000.
This might be incentives for newer machines that use less power, and perhaps slowly changing requirements for manufacturing to use less power over time. By slowly changing the requirements, we can allow companies to upgrade over time, and take advantage of more efficiency in newer products.
I don't think we want to force everyone in the next 5 years to upgrade to some xx level of efficiency, but we ought to slowly move it across a decade or two. And we ought to be piloting different types of changes, using newer data centers or technologies in spaces that try and examine how ideas can actually work. Seeing MS use ambient air for cooling is a neat idea, but I want to see it work for a decade before I recommend it to my company.
February 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
Shifting gears a bit... I've always thought it to be absolutely ridiculous that one would run coolers for a data center... in 15oF weather. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
February 1, 2011 at 11:27 am
Jeff Moden (2/1/2011)
Shifting gears a bit... I've always thought it to be absolutely ridiculous that one would run coolers for a data center... in 15oF weather. 😉
I think it's more that systems aren't well designed to take advantage of that. We ought to be experimenting with heat exchangers that can use ambient air when it's cool to cool the interior air.
February 1, 2011 at 11:30 am
Larry Gonick has been very intrigued by the problems of data-centres and their energy requirements. These cartoons were based on real stories. I wonder what he'll make of the data centre run on cow manure.
See here Raw Materials - Data Mine[/url]
Raw Materials - Alternative Energy[/url]
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
February 1, 2011 at 10:37 pm
"Even though neither the science nor politics of climate change is fully established yet..."
Have you read the IPCC papers? The science is actually quite firmly established.
Perhaps not the politics, which is the real problem here. Because it is politics that has progressed society. Never science.
February 1, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Phil Factor (1/31/2011)
A great deal of space in the internet is being taken up with he debate about climate change. It isn't really a database topic, and I don't think we'll even change anyone's opinions by debating it, let alone belittling anyone with contrary views. It's off-topic.I'm just trying to point out that we need to deal with the problem of the escalating energy consumption of data centres as soon as possible, otherwise we'll be awash with legislation imposed on us, to make us do so. It is as simple as that. Offshoring this problem won't help.
I'm sorry, but you brought up climate change in your editorial. It is very much on-topic to debate it here, given that you brought it up in such a controversial way!
February 2, 2011 at 5:21 am
ta.bu.shi.da.yu (2/1/2011)
"Even though neither the science nor politics of climate change is fully established yet..."Have you read the IPCC papers? The science is actually quite firmly established.
There's a pseudo-scientific adjunct to the politics that is firmly established. The real science is unclear, has no good models, and no solid evidence, and anyone who attempts to improve that situation is labelled a "denialist" and denigrated by political "scientists" who believe their current theories are already perfect.
It's clear that climate change is taking place, as it has done throughout the planet's life. We may be nearing the end of the current ice age, or the end of the current interglacial (another glacial period would be as unwelcome as an end to the ice age); ice ages have ended several times before and on none of those occasions was their ending cause by man made global warming, interglacials have ended before, many times more often that have ice ages, and none of those were caused by man made effects on the climate either.
We ought to be studying this stuff, trying to improve the models, taking out some of the more bizarre counter-factual assumptions built into some of the models, avoiding cherry picking and manipulation of data (and disowning it clearly and strongly when it does happen, even if it was done to support a theory that we favour), not claiming that the science is already solid and trying to stifle all attempts to do real science by flinging about this stupid "denialist" tag.
And we ought to be taking sensible precautionary measures - reasonable measures, not half-baked political nonsense like "carbon trading" - because if we are heading towards the end of the current ice age, whether or not MMGW is a significant factor pushing us towards that end, we need to do what we reasonably can in order to delay us getting there because at our current technology level ending the ice age would be fairly catastrophic (in human terms; it wouldn't much bother most of the biomass on the planet).
--edit (belatedly) fix quote tag
Tom
February 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Though data centers do require a lot of energy, I think they are doing a good job of tackling the issue.
I have been to a few where they are energy conscientious and it makes a diff. So long as the energy is there to do the job and do it well, I am in favor of greener measures.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply