Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Want to Stop Climate Change? Leave Your computer On.
nature.org — We all know that leaving your computer on 24/7 will release up to 1,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. But if you absolutely must leave your computer on, here's a way you can make up for it...
burkinaboy- 1040 diggs
- digg it
- scamerica, on 01/29/2008, -86/+57Buried...
1. The climate will always change
2. CO2 is not the cause of global warming
3. The IPCC is a propaganda agency to push for a CO2 tax- ftx437, on 01/29/2008, -52/+25Agreed..
- skiddles, on 01/29/2008, -52/+20Agreed..
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -24/+35You must be a happy person. I mean, ignorance is bliss, right?
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -22/+25Demonstrate that CO2 is responsible for global warming. Give me a measure of the impact of the presence of CO2 on climate change. Give me a measure that indicates a correlation between previous levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. Demonstrate that all other possible causes are not responsible for global warming or that their impact is not significant enough to be a sole factor.
Once you did that, demonstrate how and by how much humans make the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rise. Since you aren't ignorant, it should be easy for you.- Ajajadude, on 01/29/2008, -10/+13CO2 is a large part of trapping longwave radiation in the atmosphere (in conjunction with other particles, but still the main part) and those levels have been rising rapidly since the industrial revolution.
Need a measure of correlation? Take a look at any studies done on ice cores (don't have any handy links, have to get back to work in a few). Do a Google search. It's easy.
There are many factors in the warming of a planet. Hell, cloud cover can affect temperature. But, the particulate matter in the atmosphere plays a big part.
How about YOU demonstrate how CO2 ISN'T responsible/a culprit.- PleaseJustDie, on 01/29/2008, -7/+9Burden of proof is on the state. In this case the defendant would be CO2 (does CO2 harm the climate?) Therefore the people claiming CO2 doesn't don't need proof because that's the default stance and the people who say it does would be the plaintiffs against CO2 and they have to provide the evidence that CO2 is harmful.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -3/+3There is no measure.
- DiggzDE, on 01/29/2008, -4/+4@Ajajadude:
By your thought process of "Prove it isn't responsible". I ask you then, to prove that the Spaghetti Monster isn't responsible for global warming. Or that flying apricot fairies don't cause global warming. You can't. So thus, they must be responsible for global warming.
And don't say that they don't exist. Again, by your thought process, just because you CAN'T prove they DO exist doesn't mean they don't.
Get what I'm say'n? Yeah, you are an idiot. That was it. Prove that you aren't....
Exactly. - Namco, on 01/29/2008, -5/+3The planet's covered in plant life. Burn down the Amazon and the released CO2 in the atmosphere will make your backyard garden grow and flourish. There's a balance and our pithy existence can't throw it off. Volcanoes spew 1000 times more CO2 into our atmosphere than our cars and factories produce. Anyway the "global warning crisis" has been pushed down our throats for 20 years. I remember seeing the scary videos in class as a kid and I'm sick of all the paranoia and BS. The climate has not changed in 50 years and it won't in 50 more. The planet's fine. Go eat your soy burger and go back to work.
- norman619, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3Increases in CO2 levels has already been shown to FOLLOW rises in temps not precede them. Water vapor on the other hand is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Take a trip out to the desert to witness for yourself the power it has over climate. Water vapor traps heat and holds it. Deserts are very low in water vapor which is why their temps are so extreme. It would do you well to stop listening to the Human Global Warming faithful and do some honest questioning of the data you are blindly accepting.
- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2"CO2 is a large part of trapping longwave radiation in the atmosphere "
This may be, but CO2 only accounts for 5 % of the total greenhouse effect.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhou ...
There was more water vapor (a much stronger and more abundant greenhouse gas) released by volcanoes in the past 150 years than there is all anthropogenically-derived CO2.
Mammalian life has thrived in concentrations of atmospheric CO2 6-7x higher than they currently are, not to mention it is required by plants for survival. Only when you magnify this concentration on the order of hundreds of times does it become toxic to humans. - Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3@Namco: "The planet's covered in plant life. Burn down the Amazon and the released CO2 in the atmosphere will make your backyard garden grow and flourish."
No, the main factors that would improve your lawn are soil nutrients and water availability, not CO2 levels---that's simply not where the bottleneck is. Similarly, human health is far more affected by medicine, fatty foods, car accidents, etc. than possibly "thriving" with high O2 levels.
@norman619: "Increases in CO2 levels has already been shown to FOLLOW rises in temps not precede them. " That doesn't mean they aren't involved. They track them so closely, that it's perfectly feasible they had a ramp-up effect but were not the original trigger. Doesn't that also simply confirm that the current situation is unprecedented?
@norman619: "Water vapor on the other hand is a much more powerful greenhouse gas."
Yes, but one which has an extremely rapid rate of returning to equilibrium, in terms of the homoestatis between precipitation and condensation. If all of the Earth's water was instantly turned into vapor, 90% of it would be back to normal in only ten days. (Well, as normal as that kind of flooding would be, anyway.)
So big changes in water vapor levels even out *really* fast. Not so with CO2, which takes on the order of thousands of times longer. - Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2@bulcutter: "This may be, but CO2 only accounts for 5 % of the total greenhouse effect."
So? If that's the 5% which throws things out of equilibrium it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how small the imbalance is if it can, with no feedback and unchecked, make things fall down.
May as well say that your company will always do well even when operating at "just" a 5% negative profit. - vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2bullcutter: Thank you for providing a perfect example of willful ignorance. You have already seen the refutals of these statements at least once, and yet you keep putting them forward.
http://digg.com/environment/The_Climate_Challenge_ ...
Humanity has emitted as much CO2 over the past 30 years, on a weight basis, as all volcanic water vapor emissions over the past 150 years.
CO2 spectrum absorption covers bands that water vapor doesn't. Water vapor is also a passive GHG due to that fact unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time. There is no such "quick fix" process for CO2.
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spec ...
Further casual reading on this subject, complete with references to peer-reviewed papers.
http://skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water- ...
- mcduckov, on 01/29/2008, -3/+6The worst part is that even if you turn over the whole economy of the world, right now, to carbon taxation it would barely help at all. IF CO2 causes global warming then we are already fu(ked. We can shave a tenth of a degree, maybe, but short of shutting everything down and living in caves this experiment is going to run through to conclusion. We'll know more in about 100 years. Please check back then.
If only that could be the end of this stupid debate. - wellyuk, on 01/29/2008, -5/+6I'm not a scientist so I can't provide you with the information you're asking for. However, if you ask a very significant proportion of experts in this field, they will tell you that co2 IS responsible for global warming and I'm quite sure that they'll be able to provide you with the information you require. From my brief reading of the subject, there's a minority of experts and scientists in this field that don't believe co2 is responsible for global warming. The overwhelming majority say it is. I'll go with the majority opinion on this occasion.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -5/+8Science isn't democracy. Truth has no relation to popularity.
- Namco, on 01/29/2008, -5/+4Most scientists who are able to comment on the issue are happy to get grants to continue their "research".
- wellyuk, on 01/29/2008, -3/+5@ElAssoWipo:
So you choose to believe scientists who say co2 has no responsibility for global warming, I believe the other guys. - ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -3/+3I choose to educate myself to make an informed decision instead of relying on figures of authority to shove facts down my throat.
- norman619, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4Unfortunately for you science doesn't work that way. It's not like in a religion where we can vote something into or out of existence. The fact that there is evidence which contradicts the scientists the human global warming faithful love to point to should tell you the data is flawed. This means we need to do MORE research. Only a fool would abandon civilizaton to live like the Ahmish based what MIGHT be.
- wellyuk, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2Ignoring global warming/climate change for a moment.. Is it not unreasonable to reduce emissions from vehicles, if not for the planet, then for the people who live here? Is it not unreasonable to ask people to try and reduce use of gas, petrol and to turn off computers when they're not being used, or to drive around in cars which are more economical, or to walk/use public transport or cycle to your destination, because global warming or otherwise, these energy sources won't last forever. And Is it not unreasonable to try and reduce landfills and recycle or reuse where ever possible?
Living in a civil, modern way does NOT mean we should rape the planet of everything it has to offer. It's not about living like the Amish, or becoming hippies and eating fava beans. Whether you believe that global warming is a serious issue or something the majority of scientists have invented to gain extra funding, living the way we're doing can NOT be good for the planet, it doesn't take an environment scientist to see this. - vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Who do those stupid scientists think they are anyways? My beliefs are just as valid as their "facts". After all, it's only a theory!
/sarcasm
Educate yourself about matters of science through science journals, rather than press releases from public policy think tanks & editorial columns in daily newspapers.
- KazenoKoe, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1I imagine this report should provide the information you are looking for:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2It should indeed. But it doesn't. I've seen this before. This is the only part pertaining to my questions in all the documents:
"Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings."
Except the data doesn't demonstrate anything. They didn't even bother to see if anything else could have the same result. It's incredibly biased.
From the same report (in support of my argument):
"there are apparent discrepancies between estimates of ocean heat content variability from models and observations. While reduced relative to the
situation at the time of the TAR, uncertainties in the radiosonde and satellite records still affect confi dence in estimates of the anthropogenic contribution to tropospheric temperature change.
Incomplete global data sets and remaining model uncertainties still restrict understanding of changes in extremes and attribution of changes to causes, although understanding of changes in the intensity, frequency and risk of extremes has improved."
-Understanding and attributing climate change.
There are no measures.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2It should indeed. But it doesn't. I've seen this before. This is the only part pertaining to my questions in all the documents:
- Ajajadude, on 01/29/2008, -10/+13CO2 is a large part of trapping longwave radiation in the atmosphere (in conjunction with other particles, but still the main part) and those levels have been rising rapidly since the industrial revolution.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 01/29/2008, -5/+6tell us how it is - do you enjoy your ignorance?
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -5/+1OUCH! BURN! I haven't heard a 'no you!' zing in a while!
Like, since 3rd grade. - ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4@manfrin the only reason I responded to your comment is becaused you dismissed him as ignorant instead of providing arguments. So I would not try to call him immature on top of it, for doing the exact same thing you did.
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -4/+3I'm at the point where I'm fed up with people who refuse to believe we're doing harm to our planet. These people won't listen to reason because they cannot reason. I put people like this in the same category as holocaust deniers. They do not deserve an ounce of my respect, and I will give them none if they don't give credence to the fact that we are hurting the very thing that gave our species life.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -2/+6Since you don't have arguments, you compare people who ask for evidence to holocaust deniers. That's a logical fallacy called guilt by association.
You also made the argument that most scientists agree and therefore it's true. That's a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. It's also an appeal to popularity, yet another fallacy. Your original comment was an ad hominem, you dimissed the person as ignorant without addressing the proposition. Another fallacy.
I'm fed up with ***** idiots who insult people and make non-arguments based on human stupidity to dimiss people who have reasonnable questions instead of trying to answer them.
The only reason you think the way you do is because a figure of authority told you it was truth. You're a sheep. - norman619, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3@manfrin:
I'm at the point where I'd fed up with the people who love to preach something yet don't practice what they preach. Until you are willing to stop living in our polluting cities and using our polluting technology I say STFU and sit down. People like you love to talk the talk but rarely walk the walk. - wellyuk, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2@ElAssoWipo:
It's not about completely stopping using "polluting technology", but it's about something we call moderation. - bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1@ welly: Al Gore has the carbon footprint of a small Tennessee town (a few hundred people, give or take). Meanwhile, I don't have a car, a heater or an air conditioner, so no, you're wrong, its not about moderation at all, now is it?
Its about the haves telling the have nots what to do and what to buy, and that's all there is to it. - wellyuk, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1@bullcutter:
Well, yes. It is absolutely about moderation. Al Gore is an arsehole if his carbon footprint is as big as you describe.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2here you go: climateaudit.org
reason your way out of ignorance
think your way out of liberalism
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -5/+1OUCH! BURN! I haven't heard a 'no you!' zing in a while!
- Brownds, on 01/29/2008, -5/+4@ manfrin
If morons like you kept your mouth shut then by your theory Global Warming would cease. The Earths climate changes it always has and it always will. Hell were I live today was an ocean 20 million years ago. And it was allot warmer here too back then. Must have been all the Dinosaurs driving their Hummers huh *****? No go get an education and stop being told how to think Gore Jr. mmmkay.- ryansays, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Of course the climate changes but guess what? HUMANS ARE SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS! I'd rather not just sit by and use the excuse, "Well, it happened in the past." Who cares? If you can do something to stop it, why not? How unfair it will be when your children's children will have to clean up the mess. It's not completely out of our control. Educate yourself.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -22/+25Demonstrate that CO2 is responsible for global warming. Give me a measure of the impact of the presence of CO2 on climate change. Give me a measure that indicates a correlation between previous levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. Demonstrate that all other possible causes are not responsible for global warming or that their impact is not significant enough to be a sole factor.
- SLYK, on 01/29/2008, -7/+6CO2 Tax?
Wut?- FMWatkins, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/global-wa ...
Look at the final links on that page. (Brussels urged to fight climate change with tax; EU global warming crackdown will cost every family £730 a year)
I would post them directly but they're long and will probably screw up.- SLYK, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Oh thanks. I honestly knew nothing about this. I was making fun of him.
Is this a UK only thing?- FMWatkins, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Well as far as I'm aware, it's an EU wide. Different countries have different targets, all of them stupid and involve the citizens forking out more of their money for hair-brained schemes from the globalists in Brussels. This is the 'convenience' of these ever growing unions. A lot of our common laws and constitution are being over-ridden by the European Treaties. Before you know it, a bunch of unelected wankers somewhere waaay out of your country as telling you how to live and where your money should go. If you go here: http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/news-roun ... and read the paragraph that begins 'MEPS' face protest ban' you can get a hint of the lack of democracy in Brussels.
- SLYK, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Oh thanks. I honestly knew nothing about this. I was making fun of him.
- norman619, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3Another person not following what the UN wants to do.
- FMWatkins, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/global-wa ...
- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -14/+11Agreed..
- Nephrastar, on 01/29/2008, -9/+7I assume you have a much better theory on what's causing global warming, then?
- dOOBiEx213, on 01/29/2008, -6/+8The sun? lulz
- swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -5/+5he said a "better" theory, not a debunked theory.
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -4/+8We've debunked the theory that the sun makes things warmer?
Damn. I guess I missed that memo. - swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -4/+3we've debunked the theory that the 0% increase in the suns temperature over the past 100 years corresponds with the earth's unprecedented 100 year warming trend.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3869753.stm
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -4/+8We've debunked the theory that the sun makes things warmer?
- swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -5/+5he said a "better" theory, not a debunked theory.
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -5/+6Big ball of fire in sky my people call "SUN".
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4The earth and the sun were getting along just fine before we started destroying everything on earth. Now, we're causing the energy that the sun throws at us and storing it inside thanks to CO2 emissions, among other things. This trapped energy is slowly growing, warming us up, disrupting an incredibly fragile web of open systems, causing a disruption in other things, such as the natural process of wildlife. Warmer heat means, in an incredibly dumbed down explanation do so you can understand, less of a certain type of bug, which means less for birds, which means less bird-eating predators, which means the population of a prey of those predators explodes, choking out everything else, and causing mass extinction. In one example.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4That already happened twice. Before humans ever existed.
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4The earth and the sun were getting along just fine before we started destroying everything on earth. Now, we're causing the energy that the sun throws at us and storing it inside thanks to CO2 emissions, among other things. This trapped energy is slowly growing, warming us up, disrupting an incredibly fragile web of open systems, causing a disruption in other things, such as the natural process of wildlife. Warmer heat means, in an incredibly dumbed down explanation do so you can understand, less of a certain type of bug, which means less for birds, which means less bird-eating predators, which means the population of a prey of those predators explodes, choking out everything else, and causing mass extinction. In one example.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4A combination of human impact, natural earth cycles, recent sun storms, the greenhouse effect that is caused both naturally and artificially because of pollution, which includes Co2 émissions among many others.
There is no measure of the human impact on the atmosphere, on the ocean or on the climate. There is no measure of the natural impact on the amosphere, on the ocean or on the climate. - bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4you mean the 1 degree temperature change thats occurred over the past 150 years, 100 of which is data that was haphazardly collected from around the globe without a standardized methodology?
its called "Climate Change" these days, as "global warming" is seemingly no longer the prime effect of "GLOBAL WARMING!!"
I know what's causing it: God. (and no, I'm not necessarily referring to the Christian God either)- swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3its called "climate change" these days because you morons keep bringing up the nonsequiter that its currently cold where you are.
- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2we have to, we keep getting bombarded by other morons who insist that the reason why its hot or a fire happened is because of Global Warming. we still have a long ***** way to go before things are balanced out, however, so get used to it.
its called "climate change" because its a more accurate term than "global warming". yet the climate is always changing, so the term is still pretty meaningless, but also still scary-sounding.
- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2we have to, we keep getting bombarded by other morons who insist that the reason why its hot or a fire happened is because of Global Warming. we still have a long ***** way to go before things are balanced out, however, so get used to it.
- swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3its called "climate change" these days because you morons keep bringing up the nonsequiter that its currently cold where you are.
- dOOBiEx213, on 01/29/2008, -6/+8The sun? lulz
- dOOBiEx213, on 01/29/2008, -15/+9Agreed. All the planets in our solar system are warming up...it's nauseating to see kooks like Gore promoting the CO2 *****.
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -6/+5It's nauseating to see such morons believe so much in their stupid ignorant misconceptions. We are having a negative impact on the environment whether you choose to be oblivious to it or not. Take your head out of the sand.
- physicsguy, on 01/29/2008, -0/+7Maybe you're both right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm. But I've read other studies saying that humans are only contributing 6% maximum to the warming and all of the other planets are warming, including Pluto and several moons such as Triton.
It's true about the "Carbon tax" as well. When I first read plans for that I was actually speechless. Literally a tax on living. Governments will have it made. Even if you do believe we are responsible for the warming, a tax on life would not help. - physicsguy, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Sorry, fudged up the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+5In case someone thinks sunspots are insignificant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
- and303, on 01/29/2008, -10/+11Well clearly I'll take a fanatical conservative's word for it and not some silly geologist's or scientist's.
- manfrin, on 01/29/2008, -5/+2Yeah! I would trust dOOBiEx213. doctechnical, bullcutter, and scamerica over some quack doctor any day!! Oh wait.
- rollem, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I wish I could give more than one digg to your comment. Why would anyone have a preconceived desire to tax CO2 unless there were evidence supporting their position?
- jm4847, on 01/29/2008, -11/+5Agreed. ***** your hivemind.
- chakl, on 01/29/2008, -6/+4Agreed. Great Global Warming swindle.
- BabyWookie, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1How did I know that this thread was going to bring out the Liberitarian conspiracy ***** in droves?
- Myonosken, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2The US liberals back the global warming model...
- rollem, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2What is the motive behind a scientists' will to impose a CO2 tax? Why are we so resistant to scientific claims when they don't support our preconceived notions? oh yeah...
- pineutrino, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1I'm always puzzled by the way global warming skeptics keep pointing out that the climate changes naturally, as if this happening means that it couldn't possibly happen artificially.
- Neo31rex31, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Agreed
- Googler1, on 01/29/2008, -22/+5I don't know what to do anymore haha, do I leave it on or do I turn it off? or Do I hibernate it? Way to many options haha
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -0/+7"Wake on LAN" is a wonderful thing.
- coyotecaroline, on 01/29/2008, -21/+8Guess I'll continue to sleep my Mac when I'm no at it. I try to shut it down every night, too. It's true we don't know all the causes of climate change, but the earth has been warming up since the beginning of the industrial revolution...
- angryredplanet, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1... you need to ask, "why?".
- scaaven2, on 01/29/2008, -17/+158Author doesn't realize that pegging your CPU at 100% to model climate change wastes MUCH more energy than leaving it idle.
- krnldmp, on 01/29/2008, -14/+10I'm sure the author understands that a loaded CPU uses more power than an idle one. It takes a dolt to argue that running climate change model computations is a waste of power.
- afromonster06, on 01/29/2008, -9/+4Agreed. Idling uses next to nothing. But whoring that CPU whenever you're not using it kills the environment and your $$.
- ausfahrt, on 01/29/2008, -10/+2But it's supposed to be counteracted by the contribution u are making to help monitor climate change. How did you and your 16 diggs miss that? Nowhere does it have a correlation as to how many of those 1500 pounds of C02 are made up for by your contribution. So just because you burn more when pegged makes no difference. The author missed nothing. You did.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/29/2008, -0/+11I have a feeling that no matter how powerful your computer is, running this software will NOT take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
- Rikkochet, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5Pumping additional energy-consuming resources into "monitoring" climate change is just aggravating it even further. Distributed computing is a great idea but not as energy efficient as a single, purpose-built supercomputer running the numbers. Home PCs are getting great, but they still aren't as electrically efficient as a supercomputer - just look at the overhead in keeping additional fans running when the PC is idle or calculating versus a substantially more powerful machine running effectively and those home PCs being OFF.
But of course they can't afford CPU time for a significant computer that can handle that, but they can happily have everyone on their program chip in with their higher electricity bills.
- parallax7d, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4Exactly! I stopped doing DC once I realized that each machine on the network was quadrupling the amount of energy it would normally use during idle. Now they get shut off for the night.
- theheyes, on 01/29/2008, -1/+8No, an idle PC "wastes" energy. A PC running this process is not wasted at all is it? A PC sat there idle is going to waste the overheads anyway so you may as well give it something to do, even it if does draw a bit more power overall.
- tmslak, on 01/29/2008, -9/+3Do we really need climate change computations run by hundreds of thousands of computers? I say no, we *****' don't. We get it, we've ruined the planet. Let's all just sit back and enjoy the lulz as ***** falls apart.
- bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3It is more than "a bit" more.
- DrIce926, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Unless you pay for electricity, like in my case. =(
- timothydonohue, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0decent argument, but spending energy computing is still spending energy, and definitely more than just sitting. i'll idle, thanks.
- falkonv7l, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1what a waste of bandwidth as well.
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4Nope, DC projects require roughly 1 MB down, and 1 MB up per 24 hour period.
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+18Here are some actual facts which are published by AMD and Intel..... Modern processors use about 70% of their max consumption in merely being energized. At maximum CPU usage this jumps to 100% of a given processor's power consumption. The difference adds up to about 10-30 watts depending on your processor, and that's 10-30 watts compared with the 200-400 your PC and monitor are always consuming anyways.
Compare Typical to Maximum: http://users.erols.com/chare/elec_pentium.htm- SillyRabbits, on 01/29/2008, -8/+2All I need is my hand to tell me that those numbers are way off. The difference between a cool heat sink and one almost too hot to touch is not 30 watts of power consumption (the difference between idling and modeling on one of my systems).
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+12Hate to break it to you, but science always trumps anecdotal observation.
- troon, on 01/29/2008, -0/+8Here, hold the end of my 25W soldering iron.
- SillyRabbits, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Troon, I'd be happy to hold the end of the soldering iron if it's attached to a chilled heatsink, like my processor is.
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4Here's a more recent comparison of an entire computer's increase in power consumption... From idle to maximum load.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/28/intels_65_n ...
Roughly 25% more power under full load, and when you include a monitor that relative increase drops to 15%. DC Projects run just fine in the background when you are working. Pretty much noone's daily use of a PC uses more than 10% of a computer's processing capability, so that extra effort is going wasted.- bmnrocks, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Is there any more recent? Preferably not from 2005?
- SillyRabbits, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1More recent info would show that those statements are no longer true. Idle power comsumption of "modern" processors is much lower than processors from 3-5 years ago.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13036
- Pxtl, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2I wonder what the figures are like for HDDs?
I mean, the 400 watt powersupply is designed for _peak_, but that includes all the drives, processors, and USB going at full boar. Has anybody done a proper, full profile of peak vs. idle consumption for the entire box, not just the proc?
Also, note that many laptops have PSUs under 100 watts, so they could be a good solution if you have any "always on" needs.- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Yes, that tomshardware link I just posted has a whole computer.... but hard drives for example use a consistent 8 watts, 10 under maximum work load. Yes, Laptops are far more efficient, primarily because they are engineered to conserve battery life, and that is the same as low power consumption.
The only parts of a PC that are going to be drawing more power under full load from a DC project are, processor, northbridge, and ram. Since the processor dwarfs the other two combined, a look at just processor efficiency is fair.
Here's the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/28/intels_65_n ...
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Yes, that tomshardware link I just posted has a whole computer.... but hard drives for example use a consistent 8 watts, 10 under maximum work load. Yes, Laptops are far more efficient, primarily because they are engineered to conserve battery life, and that is the same as low power consumption.
- jtown, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2Try some real numbers. In max power saving, my PC uses about 120-122 watts. In full power mode, it peaks at around 240. I could get a few more watts if I spun up the optical drive and plugged in some flash drives. That's a big difference. Maybe you should measure the amount of energy your computer is using before throwing out random numbers.
- SillyRabbits, on 01/29/2008, -8/+2All I need is my hand to tell me that those numbers are way off. The difference between a cool heat sink and one almost too hot to touch is not 30 watts of power consumption (the difference between idling and modeling on one of my systems).
- BeyondALL, on 01/29/2008, -0/+13My computer runs on hydropower, other people use nuclearpower..
Those of you crunching 010101s on coal, log off now!- Derrekito, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Good Point!
- rarson, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1I just want to know how any numbers have to be crunched until humans are so all-knowing that they figure out how to stop the climate from changing. That's some super sci-fi weather-controlling technology!
- ryan83189, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Not to mention that this will reduce the life of the processor, leading to more ewaste.
- RustyJ, on 01/29/2008, -7/+31SETI@Home?
Trees@Home?- HyperJack, on 01/29/2008, -8/+6Porn@Home?
- RustyJ, on 01/29/2008, -2/+0Yes plz?
- KloroFormd, on 01/29/2008, -0/+6SETI... no thanks. I don't need to find out if descendents of Xenu are sending us messages. Folding@home can actually benefit us, though.
- centran, on 01/29/2008, -0/+8Folding@Home
- MarkusGarvey, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3climate prediction dot net...i been running these models for years....join Pacific Northwest Team! http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/top_te ...
- Tarnum, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1Air Conditioning@HOME?
I'd rather leave my air conditioner on. - bliz, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1argh.. trees@home don't exist. ):
- WebWorker, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Here's a list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_c ...
- HyperJack, on 01/29/2008, -8/+6Porn@Home?
- jlungu, on 01/29/2008, -10/+3Just do it.
- ausfahrt, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Nike.
- Chompy, on 01/29/2008, -10/+63Unless the box is busy overnight/while you're at work, just turn the damn thing off. Is it really killing you to wait 30-60 seconds for a cold boot?
- colto, on 01/29/2008, -0/+17Not to mention the productivity increase from having Digg unaccessible.
- Ajajadude, on 01/29/2008, -1/+18Some of us have processes running during idle times.
- falkonv7l, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1like what.....besides work?
not being sarcastic just curious- dafragsta, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5Sometimes when I do backups, I back up to DVD sized RARs with a 10% parity. RARs are a great backup medium because they allow for part of the disc to be rendered unreadable as long as it's under 10% of the set, but RARs also take a long time. A lot longer than your standard backup.
That's an entirely-too-legal and practical reason. As someone else pointed out, most people queue up their torrents before they go to bed so the bandwidth usage doesn't interfere with their gaming and web browsing.- falkonv7l, on 01/29/2008, -0/+9torrents.....oh yes, I had a brain fart on that one.
- Sawta, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2I haven't had to do it for OS X or Ubuntu, but when I ran Windows 98/XP on my machines, I would have them Defrag and DiskClean(?) at certain times during the day.
That said, I still prefer to just turn off the computer, or put it in energy saving mode, I like to try out whatever will keep the electric bill slightly lower each month. :) - pyro789x, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Well, there's this program I have that does some sort of distributed computing for some sort of global warming researcher...
- dafragsta, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5Sometimes when I do backups, I back up to DVD sized RARs with a 10% parity. RARs are a great backup medium because they allow for part of the disc to be rendered unreadable as long as it's under 10% of the set, but RARs also take a long time. A lot longer than your standard backup.
- bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1Then you don't apply. Did you read the comment? UNLESS THE BOX IS BUSY...
- Thisiscjfool, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1That person is just stating an opposition standpoint to the article. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them stupid. It makes you stupid for being an ass about it.
- falkonv7l, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1like what.....besides work?
- canUdi9it, on 01/29/2008, -10/+6Sure it's good to conserve energy, but human produced CO2 has a negligible impact on total world CO2. It's less than 1%. Let''s stop calling CO2 a pollutant. The rain forests beg to differ. Yes, we should be trapping the real pollutants that come out of power plants. But trapping CO2 would just raise power rates and have no real effect on the total greenhouse gases. Cows contribute much more greenhouse gaes in the form of methane.
- tbydal, on 01/29/2008, -2/+8[Citation needed]
- clubby, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5If my computer doesn't have something to do while I'm away, I'll find something for it to do.
- Pxtl, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2"Hibernate" is your friend. Too bad Windows secrets away the Hibernate options.
- bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -6/+2If you are too ***** stupid to find HIBERNATE on Windows, then the probelm lies with your intelligence. Not Window3s.
- kevlarbaboon, on 01/29/2008, -1/+12...says the guy who spelled Windows with the number three.
- Thisiscjfool, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Or you can do something useful when you are away from the computer for a couple minutes at a time and you don't want to constantly turn it on and off. But it seems like you never turn yours off...
- Gizza, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Well actually, Vista makes the default option 'Sleep', which automatically goes into hibernate after a few hours. Just too bad that it doesn't really work in Vista. Hopefully SP1 will fix that.
- bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -6/+2If you are too ***** stupid to find HIBERNATE on Windows, then the probelm lies with your intelligence. Not Window3s.
- LogicBomB, on 01/29/2008, -0/+6I even turn my work computer off every day. Some people here refuse to. They lock it and go home. I have it set so when I turn it on and log in everything I need for the day is up and running by the time I get back from getting coffee. Runs a hell of a lot smoother than these comps that haven't been reset in weeks as well.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5at my company we instruct users to leave the computer on overnight because that is when we push software updates as well as run virus scans etc. We really only need the users to do it once a week, but trying to get people to remember simple things like "leave your computer on on thursday" is like pulling teeth.
- bmnrocks, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Wake on Lan?
- Sawta, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1I would also imagine that keeping it on for weeks at a time would also burn through computer parts faster than you, but that's just a guess.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5at my company we instruct users to leave the computer on overnight because that is when we push software updates as well as run virus scans etc. We really only need the users to do it once a week, but trying to get people to remember simple things like "leave your computer on on thursday" is like pulling teeth.
- rarson, on 01/29/2008, -4/+2No. If an idle computer is such a burden on the environment, then obviously we need to ban all non-critical use, like digg comments, social networking, watching TV, listening to music, etc. I'm waiting for the day when the climate change nuts tell me I'm not allowed to heat my home anymore. Seriously, where will it end?
- onionoino, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Well on the plus side when the climate heats up you wont have to worry about heating your home, then you can roast in your smugness
- Chompy, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Way to just think of yourself, jackass. The world will be a better place once you're gone.
- rarson, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Wow, you both completely missed the point I was making. Did you even read my comment?
- Chompy, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1That you're a selfish jackass? That your argument is essentially "other ***** stuff happens, so nobody should do anything to improve anything"? You're an idiot, and your position has no merit.
Nobody likes you, and everyone will be quietly relieved when you're gone. Just die.
- Chompy, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1That you're a selfish jackass? That your argument is essentially "other ***** stuff happens, so nobody should do anything to improve anything"? You're an idiot, and your position has no merit.
- trunkster, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2My computer is always downloading po.... videos all the time. I'm not wasting energy at all, plus with bit torrent I share the love.
- Arawyn, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0LOL,
most people out there running Windows do not get bootups of 30-60 secs and this is more the issue.
Despite the fraudulent windows startup where it looks ready but is actually frozen in startup program hell, 5 minutes is more the time it takes for the average windows pc to become productive in some fashion.
With current attention spans, no wonder people are leaving their pcs on... - bonedead, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yes it really is killing me to wait 30-60 seconds for a cold boot.
- Jonno549, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1so you're not very busy then?
- ZephyrNinety, on 01/29/2008, -7/+25If you gotta leave it on, leave it on. *COUGH* *TORRENTS* If it take so long to boot up that you don't like to turn it off, get a new computer!
- Narcism, on 01/29/2008, -1/+33Robitussin
- digitalarcanum, on 01/29/2008, -20/+4HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FORHEAD
- Stupidumb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+12I don't know what you screwed up, but you screwed up.
- digitalarcanum, on 01/29/2008, -5/+1HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FORHEAD
- Stupidumb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5I don't know what you screwed up, but you screwed up.
- rarson, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1At least you could've spelled "forehead" correctly the second time...
- digitalarcanum, on 01/29/2008, -5/+1HEAD ON APPLY DIRECTLY TO FORHEAD
- steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -1/+7headon - annoying as a tv commercial, even more annoying as a digg comment.
- Stupidumb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+12I don't know what you screwed up, but you screwed up.
- LouTreize, on 01/29/2008, -12/+76"We all know that leaving your computer on 24/7 will release up to 1,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."
...ORLY!?- steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -4/+31i'm having a little trouble finding the exhaust pipe on the back of my system...
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -1/+5Yep, at least here in the US. US Based Coal Power plants create 10% of the entire world's Greenhouse gas emissions. That's even more than internal combustion engines which are at 8%. All of the millions of hybrid cars in the world save as much greenhouse gas each YEAR as US based Coal Power plants produce every 7 minutes.
- rarson, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1Really, because I could've sworn that hybrids BURN GASOLINE.
Seems to me if you want to stop putting CO2 into the air, you'd RIDE A ***** BICYCLE and not a car.
They're not saving *****, there are non-hybrid cars that get just as good gas mileage as a Prius.- angryredplanet, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1You exhale harder riding a bike, hence your net CO2 output will also increase when exercising. Carbon dioxide is a waste product of your muscles metabolising adenosine triphosphate, creating both carbon dioxide and lactic acid.
"They're not saving *****, there are non-hybrid cars that get just as good gas mileage as a Prius."
[citation needed] Is that when the Prius is operating in gas burning mode, electric mode or the average of both? Either way, unless you can demonstrate your claim, I'd beg to differ.- rarson, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1What the ***** are you talking about? Are you stupid? A car that gets better gas mileage than a Prius will output less CO2. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
- angryredplanet, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1"They're not saving *****, there are non-hybrid cars that get just as good gas mileage as a Prius."
I'm asking you to cite the source of the information contained in your general comment. Because I'm not stupid, I understand that the less fuel burned over the same distance will release less CO2. What I am questioning is your claim that there are cars more fuel efficient than a Prius. Secondly, is that information a measure of when the Prius is running in electric mode, gas burning mode or an average of both. That is, how exactly is that measure of CO2 taken on the Prius?
So quit attacking me personally and provide the source for your information.
- angryredplanet, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1You exhale harder riding a bike, hence your net CO2 output will also increase when exercising. Carbon dioxide is a waste product of your muscles metabolising adenosine triphosphate, creating both carbon dioxide and lactic acid.
- rarson, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1Really, because I could've sworn that hybrids BURN GASOLINE.
- centran, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Maybe they are counting your monitor. Monitor's waste a huge amount of energy. Now that a lot of people have LCDs it is better. If you don't have your power savings setting set to turn off your monitor then I suggest doing that.
- troymccluresf, on 01/29/2008, -3/+13There's also SETI@home and all those other BIONC apps, which I have running at home right now.
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Except with current technology SETI is mythology. We don't have capable technology to detect signals so faint as from other solar systems. The largest, most sensitive satellite dish we have is only sensitive enough to pick up a cell phone call from Jupiter. That's not even outside our own Solar System. Now imagine trying to listen for something literally millions of times farther away.
Weather prediction Distributed computing is also going off the most basic of weather prediction models. There is so much absurd complexity to the weather and everything that affects it and is affected by it that human made models are so simplistic the question remains if they are even worth trying.
A real concrete Distributed Computing project that IS worthwhile and HAS already contributed to science is Folding @ Home. Folding @ Home has already made huge strides to understand the proteins in all living creatures, and therefore then roughly HALF of all diseases that are caused by protein creation problems are for the very first time, beginning to be understood at their fundamental levels. Folding @ Home is by far the most worth while DC project there is. Every computer I own has been running it for almost 5 years.- breadfred, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4You have a point. I grant you that. However, no-one, not you, me, or any scientist alive on this piece of dust known to us as 'Earth' know how any aliens, if they are out there, broadcast, and to whom, and how strong those signals are. If there are signals out there they could be inter-stellar. They could be inter-constellation. Good chance we will never find out. However, there is a SMALL chance we find out - and that is what this is about. Let us try.
How big is the chance that you want to light a fire, back in the old days when no matches were around or known equivalent - and some sad old git tried to make fire by rubbing to wooden sticks together. People back then would have called him crazy. Heck, I would have called him nuts. But he persevered. And after a lot of effort, he got fire. He or she did it. Would that individual have listened to the masses, fire would not have been available on demand.
That is what this is about- it is long shot, but without trying you cannot achieve anything - ANYTHING. My hats off to those people devoting their life to advance knowledge.- Zera, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, but sadly, that effort spent trying is effort that therefore cannot be spent trying something known to be fruitful.
I'm all about SETI, I just think it should receive one hundredth as much effort as proven fields of research, like Folding @ Home. Folding has made dozens of huge advances, almost one per month, SETI has not found anything at all yet. - scaaven2, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1So let's just abandon all experimental research? you can run folding. I can run seti.
- Zera, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, but sadly, that effort spent trying is effort that therefore cannot be spent trying something known to be fruitful.
- breadfred, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4You have a point. I grant you that. However, no-one, not you, me, or any scientist alive on this piece of dust known to us as 'Earth' know how any aliens, if they are out there, broadcast, and to whom, and how strong those signals are. If there are signals out there they could be inter-stellar. They could be inter-constellation. Good chance we will never find out. However, there is a SMALL chance we find out - and that is what this is about. Let us try.
- Zera, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Except with current technology SETI is mythology. We don't have capable technology to detect signals so faint as from other solar systems. The largest, most sensitive satellite dish we have is only sensitive enough to pick up a cell phone call from Jupiter. That's not even outside our own Solar System. Now imagine trying to listen for something literally millions of times farther away.
- Narcism, on 01/29/2008, -14/+11I see they didn't mention the effect of folding on your CPU's wear and tear.
- coldcarbon, on 01/29/2008, -1/+21it's not a pair of jeans.
- Ajajadude, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5Odds are you're computer will need to be replaced before your CPU craps out on you from "overuse." I had a Gateway desktop for about 4 years running Seti@home and it never died. I have a laptop I used to run Boinc on for a year and half or so and I've had no problems.
- breadfred, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1Wow. Just Wow. How idiotic are Digg users becoming? Is a /sarcam tag really needed for something obviously intended as a joke? The audience is getting younger I guess...
- bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2it wasn't.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3I don't think her was joking..I really believe he is that dumb.
- Dralex75, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Transistors do 'wear-out' due to hot-electron effects. But, CPU chips are made to last much longer than you would likely ever run them even at 100% for several years.
- J3553, on 01/29/2008, -12/+40oh christ... can i still fart?
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -2/+18Only after you've paid for methane credits.
- J3553, on 01/29/2008, -0/+6maybe there should be extra taxes on foods that give you gas?
- teh_techie, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3NOOOO!!! I LOVE MY CHEAP BEANS!!
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3It's going to take one heck of a tax hike to get me to slow down my Guiness intake (and resultant methane output).
- tgc1, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Stop giving them ideas!
- J3553, on 01/29/2008, -0/+6maybe there should be extra taxes on foods that give you gas?
- digjam, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2yes you can...but a mile away from me !
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -2/+18Only after you've paid for methane credits.
- joshuajonah, on 01/29/2008, -9/+31996 called, they want their toaster-screensaver computer stereotype back.
Ok, i call for a vote, who the heck still has a toaster screensaver?
Toaster | No Toaster
-----------------------------------
0 | 1- ChaosProfessor, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4i wish i could have flying toasters
- slvrbullet87, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Toaster | No Toaster
-----------------------------------
0 | 2 - dudetaz2003, on 01/29/2008, -0/+10 I 3
- Stupidumb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1457 | 8452
- steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1this is a valid question, so ***** ya'll for burying it.
0 | 3
but since you mentioned it, i'll see if it's still on download.com - c0ldfusi0n, on 01/29/2008, -0/+11 | 3
Ubuntu has one. - jd72277, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1jokes that should be banned:
yyyy called, they want their ____ back
its like ____ on crack/steroids/acid
cant we all just get along
I've fallen and I can't get up (a blast from the past)
talk to the hand
anything involving more cowbell- captjc, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Fark called, they want their "Stop Using these jokes already" rant back. When people make these stupid rants, it makes me mad...it's like anger on crack. So can't we all just get along..or you can just talk to my cowbell ringing hand.
BTW - No Toaster
im in ur X Yin ur Zs and All ur base R belong to us!!!11!one1eleven
- captjc, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Fark called, they want their "Stop Using these jokes already" rant back. When people make these stupid rants, it makes me mad...it's like anger on crack. So can't we all just get along..or you can just talk to my cowbell ringing hand.
- Namco, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Don't tase me bro!
- bonds, on 01/29/2008, -4/+12I'll leave mine on and continue running the beta smp Folding@home client, thanks though. :thup:
- GhandicapXRS, on 01/29/2008, -8/+116I keep a couple plants around my PC. That should take care of any CO2 emissions it produces... Suck it hippies
- Jewbacca311, on 01/29/2008, -7/+1lulz
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -3/+39If computers produced Co2, home offices would be death traps.
- GhandicapXRS, on 01/29/2008, -9/+2Can you back that up, didn't think so. We are the authority on home computing.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+7 * At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
* The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
* Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
* If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
* Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
* Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1this assume a poorly ventilated room. I dont know about you, but in every one of my offices, I either have an air conditioning system circulating in fresh air or a window open
- andymate, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2The co2 is created by the power stations not by your computer.
- srynznfyra, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1no, dumbass, computers use electricity from a power plant, which emits CO2 when generated. they don't directly emit CO2 into where they're situated.
- Slovenian6474, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2Doesn't this program just offset their electric bill to you? I mean, they are still going to run these calculations even if I don't sign up.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+6they will eventually run the calculation's. It is more about time then money.
- entrophize, on 01/29/2008, -14/+9Want to stop climate change? Leave your clothes on.
- Miche1987, on 01/29/2008, -0/+7Why digg him down? The ladies always tell me it gets hotter when my clothes come off.
...oh, who am I kidding? I'm on Digg. - steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5sometimes i just have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to say.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2*shoots in the dark* I believe he is trying to say not to have kids..more people means more resource use. Of course, it is possible to have sex and not have kids...so his point is moot.
- SurlyDuff, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3It's also possible to be naked and not have kids...at least I think so...
- steveboutin, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2every time i take my pants off a baby falls out.
- SurlyDuff, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3It's also possible to be naked and not have kids...at least I think so...
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2*shoots in the dark* I believe he is trying to say not to have kids..more people means more resource use. Of course, it is possible to have sex and not have kids...so his point is moot.
- Miche1987, on 01/29/2008, -0/+7Why digg him down? The ladies always tell me it gets hotter when my clothes come off.
- AdaAstra, on 01/29/2008, -16/+5Oh noes..........what will the hippie nerds do now!!!!!!!
*fires up a few more PCs* - ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -2/+9Click on the link that says each computer turned on for 24 hours a day produces 1,500 pounds of CO2 in a year for a good laugh.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4I've never done the math, it does seem a little high. Does anyone know the average pounds of CO2 produced per MWh in a coal plant? Of course if we just went to Nuclear we wouldn't have that problem, but try explaining that to the hippies.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3Which coal plant? In which state, in which country? Coal plant with or without Co2 emission reduction capability? What is the efficiency of the said coal plant?
It's a completely made up number.- Slovenian6474, on 01/29/2008, -0/+7We all know that 90% of statistics will release up to 400,000 lbs of completely made up conclusions into the atmosphere every year.
- ElAssoWipo, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3Which coal plant? In which state, in which country? Coal plant with or without Co2 emission reduction capability? What is the efficiency of the said coal plant?
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4I've never done the math, it does seem a little high. Does anyone know the average pounds of CO2 produced per MWh in a coal plant? Of course if we just went to Nuclear we wouldn't have that problem, but try explaining that to the hippies.
- zhepp, on 01/29/2008, -7/+2buried misleading title i thought mabey the reboots or something were wasting even more, how the hell am I supposed to turn off my comp anyways with all the torrents running, and calculating weather and sending back results will waste my precious upload...
- Mr.Gone, on 01/29/2008, -4/+6But then all the pron will go away :(
- galleryfront, on 01/29/2008, -2/+15All I wanted to do was read this article. The digg effect pissed me off, so I'm going to shut off my computer now.... take that!
- andywebb95, on 01/29/2008, -2/+9You can also shut your server down
Which looks like what happened with this site. - SniperXPX, on 01/29/2008, -5/+4100 diggs and the site is on the verge of dying. Mirror anyone?
- falkonv7l, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1no mirrior, the article is a waste, not to mention a bad idea.
- cbdgr, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4what about the 75 watt difference in cpu power consumption
http://tinyurl.com/ozu4k < Via Tom's Hardware Guide- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4don't you get it? wasting power is OK if its in the name of Climate Change Awareness. Just ask Al Gore or any of the bands that performed at Warmicon '07.
- davidrools, on 01/29/2008, -2/+8yeah i've got 3 extra cores doing nothing right now
- wonky73, on 01/29/2008, -10/+32Stop climate change??? That statement is complete gibberish.. The climate isn't static. It never has been.. the static climate theory was thrown out over 100 years ago. And yes I have a degree in this.
- Stupidumb, on 01/29/2008, -4/+6Do you have a degree in this?
- jm4847, on 01/29/2008, -6/+5ZOMG A DEGREE!!!!1
- rangermatt, on 01/29/2008, -6/+7The implication is anthropocentric climate change, and you knew that, you're just purposely being an smartass. Those with many more degrees than you can tell you that's happening.
- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2I have more degrees (real, not honorary) than Al Gore, and I'm telling you that its not happening, or if it is its happening at a rate so slow we'll never even notice.
now why doesn't everybody just listen to me instead?
(btw, its been almost 10 years since Al Gore first said that global warming would become a catastrophe if we didn't act and change our ways in 10 years. So, more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere today than ever before, but I don't really feel any hotter. Do you? Does anybody feel any worse due to climate change? Can you even name 1 event that can be in any way demonstrably attributable to "anthropogenic global warming"?)- angryredplanet, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3We don't listen to you because your ideas indicate that you're ignorant. I'd have a better communicative experience explaining things to my wall.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you because you've been through this before with many others, myself included. The evidence is not conclusive (i.e. 100% bulletproof and infallible - I'll point out here that no scientific proof ever is) but the correlation between rising average global temperature as well as other climate anomalies and increased anthropogenic CO2 cannot be ignored, smeared or dismissed. Not even by the ignorant. - harmonyb, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Seriously, Bullcutter?? Al Gore said that climate change would become catastrophic if we didn't act in ten years, not that there would be a catastrophe in ten years if we didn't act.
By the way, if you want people to listen to you, use your degrees to research a solid thesis, not this "I don't feel any hotter, do you?" nonsense.
- angryredplanet, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3We don't listen to you because your ideas indicate that you're ignorant. I'd have a better communicative experience explaining things to my wall.
- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2I have more degrees (real, not honorary) than Al Gore, and I'm telling you that its not happening, or if it is its happening at a rate so slow we'll never even notice.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -4/+6Try providing scientific references next time, rather than simply denying over 100 years of research by stating "yes I have a degree in this".
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3The role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect has been largely overestimated, as current model simulations of it do not match actual data collected by reality.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation ...
Your obfuscation of this fact does not change the situation, but it does help Al Gore and his army of pseudo-intellectual AGW-cash-siphoners keep people scared & stupid.- vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Primary sources, please.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstrac ...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
The published research is valid. The news articles & blog posts being put out by the public policy think tanks aren't. That is a common denial tactic - publish a legitimate paper and push the tripe in the press while citing a peer-reviewed paper.
The paper is about current global climate models not matching up to observed tropical atmospheric temperatures. That is irrelevant to the claims "climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence" & "carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant". A regional trend does not disprove, or prove, its subsuming larger trend.
- vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Primary sources, please.
- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3The role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect has been largely overestimated, as current model simulations of it do not match actual data collected by reality.
- blinki, on 01/29/2008, -6/+1GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL
- paulzov, on 01/29/2008, -1/+5The title is pretty damn misleading. Actually, the article itself has almost NOTHING to do with the title.
Nvm, I'm not going to even bother anymore... - whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -4/+4But wouldn't having the computer on 24/7 and on heavy load rather than running mostly passive increase that number significantly? Personally I'm not huge on the distributed computing on my system simply because it causes my systems to run hot as hell, and I would prefer they last longer than a month or two before crapping out from being under a massive load all the time.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2You've got a crappy machine if it's going to stop working after only a few months of heavy loads. Maybe you should invest more and get one that's not made out of crappy components.
- whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Way to take a theoretical scenario and assume its fact trolly. The point is the components I have are far from crap, which is why I would prefer longevity over stressing them persistently for years. You can't say that a system that is mostly idle 40% of the time is going to have a higher failure rate than one which is running full bore constantly, the uncertainty of part quality aside.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2your first statement was not a theoretical scenario, you stated "Personally I'm not huge on the distributed computing on my system simply because it causes my systems to run hot as hell, and I would prefer they last longer than a month or two before crapping out from being under a massive load all the time." which implies the stress from DC has caused a previous computer to crap out.
wear and tear on computer components is a very unlikely cause of failure, overheating and power surges are much more likely, as is the user just doing no maintenance on a computer (so it gets a virus, or just gets bogged down to the point it isn't usable) is much more likely. Becasue of this, the only time wear and tear come into play are with really cheap or poorly made components. So assuming you are a competent computer user (might be a huge assumption) the only time DC would burn out your machine is if it was made of cheap parts or poorly designed (i.e no cooling)
because of this ChildeRoland420s statements appear to be true.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2your first statement was not a theoretical scenario, you stated "Personally I'm not huge on the distributed computing on my system simply because it causes my systems to run hot as hell, and I would prefer they last longer than a month or two before crapping out from being under a massive load all the time." which implies the stress from DC has caused a previous computer to crap out.
- whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Way to take a theoretical scenario and assume its fact trolly. The point is the components I have are far from crap, which is why I would prefer longevity over stressing them persistently for years. You can't say that a system that is mostly idle 40% of the time is going to have a higher failure rate than one which is running full bore constantly, the uncertainty of part quality aside.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2You've got a crappy machine if it's going to stop working after only a few months of heavy loads. Maybe you should invest more and get one that's not made out of crappy components.
- and303, on 01/29/2008, -1/+11Not too much common sense here. Many newer machines have things like "SpeedStep Technology" that actually decrease the cycles-per-second (aka power consumption) of the CPU. Furthermore, unless you purposely change the settings, your hard drives shut down after so many minutes of idle use by default. So by using this program you'd essentially be nullifying all of the power saving features that your computer manufacturer proudly developed.
There are "green" power supplies on the market now that supposedly decrease power consumption by a significant amount. Seems smarter to start there or use sleep mode if you're concerned about your geekiness leaving a big footprint. - triskele, on 01/29/2008, -8/+3I'm not gonna let some hippies peg my CPU all night. Do I get a check to pay the electric bill, or is it considered a donation to "the cause"? Not to mention the cost of a new comp when they burn this one out. Get off your asses and write a grant for some quality computers, lazy hippies. People are throwing money at climate science "research". Modeling is NOT research. You wrote a neat program to add and omit variables from a pool of your chosing to produce highly variable results.
- kd1s, on 01/29/2008, -5/+1This is based on a desktop computer. I know the power supply on my laptop uses 65W. So I think they need to expand the carbon ratings a bit.
- Gohan5052, on 01/29/2008, -6/+1can someone tell me how your pc can produce co2?
- doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -0/+7By using electricity that's (more than likely) produced at a coal-burning plant.
- and303, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3PC to outlet to electric pole to power plant to oil or coal to co2.
- tendonut, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Hydro (not the strange way Canadians refer to electricty) FTW
- dlm85, on 01/29/2008, -8/+1Doesn't Windows forces a daily reboot to keep itself fairly stable?
- renegadeafk, on 01/29/2008, -0/+10no...
If your windows is so unstable you have to reboot daily, you ***** it up pretty good. - doctechnical, on 01/29/2008, -3/+5Yes,. during the time your PC is off Windows is fairly stable.
- and303, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2No. It doesn't forces.
- trickapro, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5troll
- chedabob, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Only if it updates, and you can just disable that in the management console.
- ryan83189, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Do you think we are stupid enough to think MS is stupid enough to call 1 day uptime stable?
- ferrariman60, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Lol, you're bad at trolling.
- renegadeafk, on 01/29/2008, -0/+10no...
- NeoMatrixJR, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7"We all know that leaving your computer on 24/7 will release up to 1,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." - Yes...this is a random tidbit of knowledge that ALL of us know somehow. Right....
- jerryudigg, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4I'm against "climate change" so does that make me pro-climate same?
I do like the PC switch from global warming to climate change, very convenient.- rangermatt, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1What do you mean, "convenient"? We realize that although the average global temperature of the earth is rising, there are localized variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_ ...
Also, "climate change" is more correct because a warming of the earth will affect precipitation patterns and many other variables too. "Climate change" is simply a more accurate term. - vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Both terms are equally correct.
It's called 'global warming' because the averaged global temperature is rising.
It's called 'climate change' because the Earth's climate is not a simple static system where every single location increases in temperature the same amount. The increased energy in the climate system disrupts the current patterns and causes some areas to get colder while other areas get warmer.
- rangermatt, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1What do you mean, "convenient"? We realize that although the average global temperature of the earth is rising, there are localized variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_ ...
- harry8227, on 01/29/2008, -9/+3This is such a crock, hell one puff from a volcano puts that much and then sum in the air in a millisecond. I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of things but stop the scare crap.Man puts out less than .01% (Percent) of the atmosphere in CO2, you really think man is going to beat nature?
- swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -4/+2Man has increased the global concentration of CO2 by 33% in the past 100 years.
- squalorous, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3volcanoes emitted more water vapor (naturally accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, and is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) in the last 100 years than there is all anthropogenically-derived atmospheric CO2.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhou ...- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -1/+0More than ninety percent of all gas emitted by volcanoes is water vapor. Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes.
molar mass - H20: 18, CO2: 44
On a equal mass basis (at the same pressure), water vapor takes up over twices as much volume as carbon dioxide. Therefore, assume the "water is >90% of emissions" is based on weight, rather than volume, to estimate based on the larger amount.
Assume a multiple of 20x CO2 weight for water vapor, since there are other volcanic emissions such as SO2. Therefore, multiply 150 - 200 million by 20 to arrive at an estimate for water vapor emissions.
4 billion tons of water vapor / year from volcanic emissions = 600 billions tons of water vapor over the past 150 years
Since 1751 roughly 1.2 trillion tons of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the early 1980s.
Based on these rough assumptions with taking the higher values for water vapor, humanity has emitted as much CO2 over the past 30 years, on a weight basis, as all volcanic water vapor emissions over the past 150 years.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs002-97/
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg ...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
note:
There are two forms of weight reporting in the cited sources - weight of carbon dioxide & weight of carbon (GtC - gigatons of carbon). The conversion between the two is explained below.
atomic mass - C: 12 -- CO2: 44
C => CO2: multiply weight by 44/12
CO2 => C: multiply weight by 12/44
For the years 2005-2007, use the 2005 figure from the spreadsheet.
Where did this trite little myth come from? I've seen it popping up repeatedly lately. It's not on that website.
Some casual reading on the "water vapor" argument, complete with referenced peer-reviewed papers.
http://skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water- ...
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -1/+0More than ninety percent of all gas emitted by volcanoes is water vapor. Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes.
- squalorous, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3volcanoes emitted more water vapor (naturally accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, and is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) in the last 100 years than there is all anthropogenically-derived atmospheric CO2.
- gametavern, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3I'm with you dude. How much CO2 pollution will we prevent with a new president?
- swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -4/+2Man has increased the global concentration of CO2 by 33% in the past 100 years.
- xdvx, on 01/29/2008, -4/+1OMG I'm killing you guys. Have 4 computers at home, 2 at work and 5 servers working 24/7.
- jm4847, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0ZOMG THE OUTRAGE
lol
- jm4847, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0ZOMG THE OUTRAGE
- tatinthehat, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3Um, or you could do a common sense thing here, by simply reducing your energy usage for you computer.
Instead of fans for your GPU and CPU, use passive cooling, like large heatsinks.
Invest in greener technology. I.E. Energy Efficient Processors from AMD, or the newer Core 2 Duos that are 45nm.
Don't use a graphics card that is an energy hog. 8800 GTX/Ultra and others that is similar...this means you. If you must...again invest in cards that use a smaller die size (such as the newer models of NVIDIA cards fabbed at 65nm, or the new Radeons fabbed at 55nm).
Or...you could also just shut your computer off when you're not using it (like when you're sleeping).
Maybe the article should mention some of those things instead of distributed computing....- teh_techie, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3The purpose of the article wasn't to say what you should do to offset 24/7 computer operation. The purpose was that they came across this "Climate Prediction" distributed computing initiative, and had to find something to write AROUND it.
- tatinthehat, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Right, I meant to mention this too. But I still don't think it would hurt to be efficient in doing so as well.
- Xanaver, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Well I kinda want my games to run without looking like total crap. Name me a graphics card that can run Crysis on High/Ultra high that is not an energy hog and I will buy it.
- tatinthehat, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Name me ANY graphics card that can run Crysis on high/very high (meaning when theres a million things going on it still runs at a smooth framerate).
8800GT is a good high end efficient graphics card, utilizing less power than it's GTX and older GTS brethren. Though, will the way NVIDIA and ATI have been shrinking dies lately, we might see high end video cards utilizing much much less power in the future (well, obviously). - bmnrocks, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Right, because everything other then Crysis on High/Ultra looks like crap.
- tatinthehat, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Name me ANY graphics card that can run Crysis on high/very high (meaning when theres a million things going on it still runs at a smooth framerate).
- ryan83189, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Active cooling is whats keeping 10 year old computers out of the landfill.
- teh_techie, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3The purpose of the article wasn't to say what you should do to offset 24/7 computer operation. The purpose was that they came across this "Climate Prediction" distributed computing initiative, and had to find something to write AROUND it.
- darkane, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7Seems like Folding@Home is a much better (more important, maybe?) use of processing power. No amount of climate modeling, or the dire future it predicts, will get people to change their ways. The only solution for inspiring true, global change is to get green products that cost less than their polluting counterparts. You don't need to be a scientist to figure that out.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -3/+0"We shouldn't bother with science anymore, because some people will just ignore it."
Check.- darkane, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure I said "inspire true, global change," which climate modeling is not going to do. I didn't even remotely suggest that we should cease climate modeling, just that there are more important applications of distributed computing with documented results. If only there was a way to go back and check what I said so we could be sure.. Oh, wait. The comment is right ***** there. Try reading it again.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -1/+0"No amount of climate modeling, or the dire future it predicts, will get people to change their ways." more than remotely suggests to me that you called for ceasing all climate modeling.
Let's attribute this misunderstanding to a breakdown in communication over plaintext.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -1/+0"No amount of climate modeling, or the dire future it predicts, will get people to change their ways." more than remotely suggests to me that you called for ceasing all climate modeling.
- darkane, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure I said "inspire true, global change," which climate modeling is not going to do. I didn't even remotely suggest that we should cease climate modeling, just that there are more important applications of distributed computing with documented results. If only there was a way to go back and check what I said so we could be sure.. Oh, wait. The comment is right ***** there. Try reading it again.
- hobophobe, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1FAH really needs a boinc client. Their site says they were working on one back in 2006. Maybe someday.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -3/+0"We shouldn't bother with science anymore, because some people will just ignore it."
- unclerichard, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4That's because torrents are very slow.
- steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2only if you're computer/internet connection sucks or you can't find enough seeds. torrent is the best P2P concept yet.
- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -8/+6"But if you have to leave your computer on, here's a way you can make up for it: By joining a distributed computing network that models the effects of climate change."
what a stinky pile of *****! why do they need to keep making models anyway, aren't they already sure by now that Global Warming is a Catastrophe, it is America's fault and only Al Gore can save us? that's what everybody keeps telling us.
so, they admit this is a waste of energy but since its for climate change modeling its OK?
oh, i see, climate modelers need to make a living too, and Nature needs to help people feel the illusion that they are "making a difference"...
"don't waste energy unless its on us...."
another example of the stunning hypocrisy of the AGW profiteers.- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1Reading comprehension is a good thing. You should try it sometime.
article summary:
"If you're going to leave your computer on 24/7 anyways, join this distributed computing program."- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2It is indisputable that using CPU even for background apps uses more energy than a computer that is not.
Your inability to comprehend this does not not negate the validity of your *****-ish post.
"Vikingcoder doesn't know a ***** sandwich from a sunny day." - Bullcutter- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1This was posted by another AGW denier, wrongonce, just a few days ago. It seems quite appropriate here.
http://digg.com/environment/Awesome_Visualization_ ...
>>
Even if someone is wrong, by brutalizing them you say more about yourself and your position in the argument than their lack of knowledge. If that person has a point/argument, well, denigrating them reveals what you really are.
>>- wrongonce, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3tsk tsk.
Cut the "denier" from that and you almost got it. - bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2"Even if someone is wrong, by brutalizing them you say more about yourself and your position in the argument than their lack of knowledge. If that person has a point/argument, well, denigrating them reveals what you really are."
Dude, you do this too, all the time. Just because you don't use swear words doesn't mean you aren't doing it too. I'm willing to be gentlemanly when you are. Until then, go ***** yourself. - vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Wrongonce: "denier" is a descriptive term, not a pejorative. Anybody who denies something on nothing more than belief is a denier.
Bullcutter: We were having a "gentlemanly" discussion until recently. You have apparently become fed up with your beliefs being contradicted by scientific research, and your willful ignorance called out, and have started lashing out with profanity as a last resort.
I am not an expert and have been wrong more than once. Please provide references, preferably primary, to show where I am wrong. - wrongonce, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2You do not have the authority to tell me why I think something differently from you. Your assumption that my opposition to AGW is based on belief is false.
Denier is a term that could be used to describe anyone, provided they agree with that description. Otherwise, it is a pejorative if I (or any other so labled) say it is.
Unmistakable conflation with holocaust denier, evolution denier, etc. If intended, it would only serve to distance the "name caller" from rational discourse. If unintended, I hope you take this feedback on board.
You could call me a "frog" or a "harp", which would be technically correct as per my ancestry. But I would prefer you calling me French-Irish. - vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1You state that your claims are not based on belief. You can provide no scientific references to support your claims, yet still support them. That is a hallmark of belief.
The term 'skeptic' wouldn't be appropriate, because a skeptic will acknowledge that they were wrong when their contention is refuted.
The parallel to evolution denier is appropriate. The ID proponents also claim that their denial of the scientific theory of evolution through natural selection isn't based on belief, yet can not provide any scientific evidence to support their claims.
Bringing up the Holocaust in this context has to fall under some corollary of Godwin's Law.
"Frog" & "harp" would be ethnic slurs. - vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1I have met anthropogenic global warming skeptics, who were more vitriolic than you and bullcutter, that acknowledged that they were wrong once they were shown primary sources refuting their claims.
It is entirely possible to be an AGW skeptic, rather than a denier. The difference between the two is what happens after the person views primary sources refuting their claims. A denier can originally have been a skeptic. - wrongonce, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Although I have provided refs in past, not really seeing how providing you with them (or not) categorizes me or my thoughts. Nor do I acknowledge your authority to decide whether I am a denier, a skeptic or proponent of a different scientific hypothesis.
There is someone I know and respect, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who does not share your point of view on this particular subject. Would he also be termed a denier?
I guess I would have to ask you, is anyone that does not agree with you on this issue not a denier and if so who are they?
BTW -- I was originally an AGW proponent, until I did the research. I do not consider myself a skeptic or denier, just different from you. - vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Please provide references to this research.
What is this different hypothesis you speak of? - wrongonce, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Please answer the questions in the other post first.
http://www.digg.com/environment/AGU_says_we_ARE_th ...
- wrongonce, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3tsk tsk.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1This was posted by another AGW denier, wrongonce, just a few days ago. It seems quite appropriate here.
- bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2It is indisputable that using CPU even for background apps uses more energy than a computer that is not.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1Reading comprehension is a good thing. You should try it sometime.
- jm4847, on 01/29/2008, -2/+6"How to delude yourself into thinking you can change the world".
- jfsimard79, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4I downloaded it and I'm running in on two computers currently. Sure beats trying to find a 128 bit key.
- OniDracula, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4What about the fact that the 1,500 pounds of CO2 will likely double (or more) when your CPU is being constantly used. When your CPU isn't being used, it uses less power.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2Reading comprehension is a good thing. Try it some time.
- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Sorry, but you really are a dumb *****.
And its ridiculous that you expect people not to be an ***** towards you in return.- vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Throwing adolescent insults at people who call out one's willful ignorance is a common occurrence. It is the last resort of somebody defending their beliefs.
- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2You're right, but in this case I'm not hurling an insult so much as an accurate description. Not only does your previous comment demonstrate your ignorance to how computers use energy but also the fact that you're kind of an *****.
- vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1The OP was demonstrating lack of reading comprehension by stating that "the 1,500 pounds of CO2 will likely double (or more) when your CPU is being constantly used" when the article's reference for that figure states "During heavy usage (e.g., when you open a new application) your computer draws only slightly more power."
Yes, there was some vitriol in my reply. Replying with an insult, "*****" is an intentional insult even if it's an "accurate description", rather than attempting to inform me, preferably with references, that computers use significantly more power under max load reveals what you really are.
- vikingcoder, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Throwing adolescent insults at people who call out one's willful ignorance is a common occurrence. It is the last resort of somebody defending their beliefs.
- bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Sorry, but you really are a dumb *****.
- vikingcoder, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2Reading comprehension is a good thing. Try it some time.
- leerayIG88, on 01/29/2008, -4/+1I haz computer onz...
- sremick, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Umm, this was one of the items on the list posted just yesterday. Dupe much?
http://digg.com/environment/14_Easy_Ways_to_Be_an_ ... - tmslak, on 01/29/2008, -5/+4Buried for being worthless.
- J4k3, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Thanks for your useless comment. You're a useless person. Comment buried.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 01/29/2008, -4/+3agree w/ darkane - give your mflops to folding@home.
blame george bush for cancer if it will make you feel better.- whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Seriously, not one person yet has been able to show me any evidence that Folding@home is doing anything worthwhile, and several people have come forward and said that admittedly the data produced has more usage for scientific cockwaving than producing anything that would actually help anyone.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1better than wasting on man bear pig.
- xtc46, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers
check out that link, it is a collection of papers that state the findings based on the experiments that were run using folding@home
enjoy!- whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Except I've been there, and as I said, all I've seen and the others who have discussed this on slashdot and the like over the years is that it amounts to a whole lot of theory thats fun for scientists, but with no practical applications. Specifically, what I've been hearing is that the modeling they're doing has a remarkably low accuracy rate in real life, and is widely considered a waste of time for practical purposes.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1wow, just like climate modeling
- whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Except I've been there, and as I said, all I've seen and the others who have discussed this on slashdot and the like over the years is that it amounts to a whole lot of theory thats fun for scientists, but with no practical applications. Specifically, what I've been hearing is that the modeling they're doing has a remarkably low accuracy rate in real life, and is widely considered a waste of time for practical purposes.
- whyufail, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Seriously, not one person yet has been able to show me any evidence that Folding@home is doing anything worthwhile, and several people have come forward and said that admittedly the data produced has more usage for scientific cockwaving than producing anything that would actually help anyone.
- steveboutin, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1this is a stupid, inaccurate, and trivial article. my computer isn't dumping a ton of co2 into the air every year - this software probably isn't going to save the planet - and the concept of individuals networking their pc's to process huge amounts of data is decades old.
buried. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
