I'm positive that just about everyone has heard about global warming and the deadly effects it will have on future generations. We've all seen the scientific facts - the photos of the melting North Pole and rising water levels - NASA even announced that October 2008 was the hottest October ever recorded. The world has replied in a bold way. Just about everywhere we look, green energy, green fuel, and even green computing is easily found.Green energy has taken the world by storm. Coal power plants of the 20th century are now seen as the number one threat to the world. The focus is now on squeezing every single watt out of renewable energy. While global warming is a real and serious issue, it sometimes occurs to me that half of the developments made in renewable energy are just fictional concepts. Solar panels are one thing, but solar grass which can be planted everywhere is another. Hawaii is building wave-farms off-shore, with many other coastal regions soon getting their own implementations. There are even ideas to turn Japanese subway turnstiles into electricity generating machines. While the ideas are great, not many of them are cost and time effective.
Alternate fuel has also taken off and continues to become more popular. Those large, gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups getting 15 miles per gallon are now targets of activist groups as ethanol (E-85), electric, hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell, and even concepts of bacteria-powered (I don't know the details) cars are becoming a reality. Once again, all of these alternate fuels are great and promise to end global warming, but are impractical. Honda, developer of the hydrogen Accord is only deploying a small batch in California, which already has filling stations unlike much of the world. Implementation of these alternate fuels will also have to be checked and done so it can be cost-effective - which is why the concept fuels of today might turn out just like concept cars - a fantasy.
Green computing is something that really took me by surprise. Originally, I planned to put my computer into standby more often or hibernating, but entire product lines aiming for lowest power consumption have been introduced. Western Digital has a line of GreenPower hard drives. In the web-hosting community, green hosting is becoming popular too. Netbooks are also pushing green power in a subliminal way - companies are pitching netbooks as tools for e-mail and light browsing and effectively saying that you don't need a 3.06GHz Quad-core processor. Are the drives and netbooks cost-effective? For some people, netbooks might really be all they need, other might need the extra horsepower of a multicore processor. The RPM and read/write speed conscious might not find GreenPower drives to yield great performance, but casual users might find them to be sufficient.
Green-ness is a revolution in collaboration and people working together for a common cause, but it needs to stay in check. But, in my opinion, pulling every single watt of energy out of everywhere might be over-hyped and just as ineffective as not being green at all. So, before you build a glass greenhouse (no pun intended) to live in, make sure your stones don't break it.
The last two years have been linear declines, and all the while during this entire global warming crock the Southern Ocean ice sheet has been advancing. Hell, they even said the Alaskan glaciers advanced this year, for the first time in 200 years!
"Lie" is an extremely strong word here. I think you mean "was mistaken".
You cannot point to a few specific examples of where it may be getting colder as if that disproves it getting warmer everywhere else. It would be entirely normal for that to occur.
The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Also apparently what we are actually heading for another full blown Ice Age. Once again though no one really knows what is going on, this might happen regardless of whether human's existed or perhaps human activity accelerated it and brought it sooner then it was naturally going to occur.
The whole global warming thing governments and such are carrying on about, is mainly scare mongering (by been blown out of proportion) to get people to change their ways. People won't change for the sake of it, but if you preach a cataclysm will happen if you don't...suddenly people get more motivated
Yeah, exactly. They just don't know why yet.
Hell for all we know this could of even been how the dinosaurs were really wiped out. Just as it is now, "global warming" back then could of triggered a massive release of methane into the atmosphere resulting in mass extinction (which is pretty much what scientists are saying *might* happen if the gas escapes now) of cause this is a wild speculation and I decided to share it for people to ponder over if they so wish. Obviously, take it with a grain of salt!
As to the story itself, I agree with theyarecomingforyou - you can't be over green. Squeezing every last watt from everything is a very good thing. Any wasted power is dissipated (generally in the form of heat). Squeezing every last watt means approaching 100% efficiency, which would make the device in question perfect - no wasted energy.
As to the story itself, I agree with theyarecomingforyou - you can't be over green. Squeezing every last watt from everything is a very good thing. Any wasted power is dissipated (generally in the form of heat). Squeezing every last watt means approaching 100% efficiency, which would make the device in question perfect - no wasted energy.
except that according to the fundamental laws of the thermodynamics it is impossible to ever reach 100% efficiency. In fact we can't even come close
As for the editorial, I'm sorry, but it's just a lot of non-sensical, incoherent ramblings
I would hope you do it for more reasons than just dependency on other countries.
Last edited by Typhon on 17 Nov 2008 - 14:59
Yes... climate change was just invented by some random people who decided they don't like America and want all their "indestris"
*rolls eyes*
*rolls eyes*
Could you not understand I was talking about how they make climate change to be bad. Warmer is better colder is worser. Is that more easy for you to understand? Ill be saying I told you so when your jobless with no home. Then you can roll your eyes as you die of starvation.
Sure isn't, the "devil" is methane and there is literally tons and tons of it trapped in ground (in tundra mostly). If the tundra is warmed up enough to let the methane escape, we're in BIG trouble.
EDIT: To give you an idea on how noxious methane is, as a "greenhouse gas" methane is 20x stronger then CO2. This could just be more scare mongering I dunno, but scientists think if the methane escapes from the tundra, it could cause catastrophic climate change that has the potential of wiping out most of the life on Earth. Yikes.
Last edited by Xerxes on 18 Nov 2008 - 00:04
*rolls eyes*
Could you not understand I was talking about how they make climate change to be bad. Warmer is better colder is worser. Is that more easy for you to understand? Ill be saying I told you so when your jobless with no home. Then you can roll your eyes as you die of starvation.
Well, I don't live in the US, so according to you, I won't be the one losing my job/home...
Climate change is bad (whether or not man made), whether or not Earth is getting warmer or cooler, doesn't matter. Either way will affect world economies negatively, not just targeting America. Going green is creating NEW jobs in NEW industries in NEW areas of growth, both in the US and overseas. So no, I don't understand what you are talking about, most likely because you seem to just be talking crap...
I do agree that ending fossil fuel dependency and becoming a more efficient society is good no matter what though.
rise in CO2 levels do not increase temperatures as environmentalists would point out. in fact its the opposite... the rise in temperature increases CO2 levels. we can do all we want with not being green and not even harm the enviroment
There's absolutely no denying that recent (last few years) weather events have not been indiciative of "usual" weather patterns. I think it's safe to say we HAVE done damage and we SHOULD be more conservative.
I do agree however that we can be "over green" - this happens when you expend MORE energy than you are going to save.
Now concerning your article, the reason we are seeing "E" this and "E" that is mainly because of greed. People will do whatever they feel is necessary to make a buck and the "E Train" is the ticket to riches right now. Once that train runs out of track they will find some other thing to push to the extremes to make more money. Kinda like the "i train" (iphone,ipod,idunno,...)
I for one will do my part to help keep our world in good working order and I have. But I am not buying into this "religion" of global warming.
-PK
PS. Any truth taken to an extreme can fall into error.
Who are you commenting on, and what are you on about?
The post (quite a good one btw Mike) was about green technologies, not "E" things (wtf?).
Did you read what I wrote or just see "E" and jump to a conclusion based on an assumption?
Did you read what I wrote or just see "E" and jump to a conclusion based on an assumption?
Greed makes the world go round. It creates jobs, wealth and pays taxes. Anything to go 'green' as in reducing carbon emissions is good for Earth. Even if global warming is not real, or is not man made (I believe that it is, however), reducing energy consumption and becoming more efficient can only be good, as the world does not have infinite resources.
I don't see anyone complaining about the invention and promotion of the iPhone...
Maybe with the impending economic rationalisation people will realise that getting a computer that does the job is all that is needed instead of getting a machine which is little more than a trophy piece.
As for me, I save electricity - not because of the environment (80% of NZ power comes from hydro) but because I'd sooner save the money and put it wards something useful besides lining the pockets of the big electricity companies.
Except that a new dual core processor is more energy efficient than an old pentium 4 processor ...
Heard of this wondering concept called 'supply and demand' - customers demand, and the businesses supply, ergo, the source of these energy hungry monsters is the consumer not the company. The company is merely reacting to market demand.
[little kid]mommy mommmy, can I go outside and play!?"[/little kid]
[mommy]im sorry billy, not today the sky is too black and theres not enough oxygen to play[/mommy]
[little kid]but why not! *sad face*[/little kid]
[mommy]oh no worries, it just wasn't cost effective to help save the enviroment considering all that has happened[/mommy]
[mommy]but don't worry billy, there working on plans to fix it! *happy face*[/mommy]
And I resent that! My SUV gets 11MPG thank you very much, hmph.
Green or No Green, its completely obvious the enviroment is changing. And resolving those changes isn't something money gets involved in.
Last edited by Klownicle on 17 Nov 2008 - 13:52
Completely obvious? i dont see how it's so obvious... i really havent noticed anything in my entire lifetime that's changed in the environment... cities change, technology changes, trends change... the environment looks the same to me in 2008 as it did in 1988.
Cost effective =/= effective. Spending thousands of pounds more to help save the environment (and yes, you should care about that) is still effective, even if it's not cost effective.
we're already over-consuming our resources and if you google it up, you can find a few articles on the increasing rate of consumption. at some point, we'll either have to find another planet and migrate or be screwed unless there's a renewable source.
i am really suspicious of why this website ("maintain the highest quality" blah blah blah) would post such a blatantly destructive article. suuuure, we need to hear from both side of argument, but if it is written by a idiot with hidden agenda, that is a completely different story ...
Food, energy, and poverty induced riots will be here way before we have to worry about any climate change effects. Climate change - no longer a science but a religion, complete will all the blinkered 'end-of-days' thinking that entails.
Same reason you can't over wet. See, once something is wet, it's Wet. Same thing with Death. Like, once you die, you're dead. Right? Let's say you drop dead an' I shoot you. You're not gonna die again; you're already dead! Ya can't over die, ya can't over dry, you can't over green
Seinfeld
ok... so i live in the 90's
While my first PC-XT worked for a decade without a trouble (and i think may be its still working), my last pc ran only for 4 year.
From a perspective, this is alot like the early 20th century when man was trying to fly. They had some crazy ideas, sensationalism and the like, but in the end they did it, and pessimists could go $&*/% themselves.
But let's get our facts straight. We are coming out of a mini ice age, believe it or not. The earth as a whole has been cooler for the past thousand years or so than it used to be. It is just now that it is warming up. The fact is that it is warming up, regardless of what we do, it's just a natural cycle the earth goes through.
There's no point for governments around the world to invest trillions of dollars in "stopping global warming" when, in reality, it is not our fault and we can't actually do anything about it.
Next time you hear about these huge expenses, think about where that money is really going. It's definately not going to stop global warming, that's for sure. I am willing to bet that politicians are getting rich off of this stupid fad. Global warming is something we cannot stop, as we are not the ones causing it. End of story.
Yes, most of the technology that is being developed today is too expensive and impractical. But we have to research fields that could lead to a cost-effective and viable technology in the future, that's part of the process of inovation. Some of these technologies will be useless in the future, but I'm sure that some of them will be part of the solution to the unsustainable society that we live in today.
Climate change is a fact and is almost a consensus among cientists, but it's not the only reason why we should explore alternative sources of energy. For those who say that global warming is natural or isn't happening: research cientific papres on this subject, you'll hardly find any that states your point of view. I have come across one, but it was pretty weak on its statements. Also, actions to stop global warming have other benefits that lead to a sustainable society (eg. pollution reduction, biodiversity conservation, health promotion, energy efficiency).
About the problems with corn being used as biofuels instead of veing used as food: recent problems with to food prices are not related with biofules, they are mainly related to the high demand of oil which resulted in its high prices some months ago. It was not related to high demand or low offer. Also, climate change leads to a "crazy weather", crops are lost because of it...
Last edited by brunok on 18 Nov 2008 - 00:50
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.