IBM has built a new sort of supercomputer that is not only more energy-efficient than supercomputers cooled traditionally with air-conditioning, but the excess heat from the computer can be used afterwards to heat a building. Water siphons off the heat via tubes and small capillaries that take the liquid very near to the chips, cooling it at 60 degrees Celsius. IBM says that the new supercomputer design, which they call "Aquasar," will reduce overall energy consumption by 40 percent as well as 30 tons of carbon dioxide. The heating function of the system will only help reduce heating costs a little, but it has some very promising applications in the future.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
All else aside then... do we need to tax water vapor emissions?
I mean, we measure water vapor as a percentage, whereas CO2 in parts per million. CO2 cools the upper atmosphere and causes a slight increase in temperature at the surface (the planet warms faster AND cools faster) - I guess I need to make this distinction in my discussions ( I don't normally discuss this topic ).
Also, my real meaning seems to be lost, all I meant to say was that man-made global warming and man's CO2 emissions were political tools - and they are.
Not that the end results are terrible, we needed the change, but I don't like the lies. The warming is real, the CO2 rise is real, man adds to this effect - but man's overall effect on temperature is almost zero - at least via CO2.
Water vapor absolutely renders CO2 figures meaningless until we see concentrations in parts per thousand. Granted, seeing the rising trend early on is helpful - but it is not the cause of the warming cycle. It is still the sun - regardless of the poor conclusion from NASA ( I look at data, conclusions are normally purchased or demanded [ besides dissenting views are not permitted in science anymore ] - the study should have properly said that other factors contribute to the warming observed, not WHAT those factors may have been ).
Solar output increases result in CO2 output increases, but, most importantly, higher humidity. I don't need data for that, it is common sense. An increase from 300 PPM to 390 PPM of CO2 non-trivial considering the base. but has VERY minimal effect on temperatures. I wish I could find data for historical humidity levels...
It is vital to remember that correlation does not equal causality. Higher temps and humidity would cause a change in plant & animal respiration, decay, and ocean CO2 absorption rates. A higher temperature prevents that water vapor from condensing as quickly as normal, thus trapping more 'stuff' in the air, thinner & wetter air is more difficult to breath for animals, so breathing quickens ( almost 55 bmt of production just for breathing vs man's total 20 bmt output ) - and bacteria love it.
In time, the solar output will decrease and the rains will dry out the air a little, and levels will adjust, but the temperature decrease will occur first. All this is a political game for the power elite - a tool to consolidate more power into the hands of only a few ( a bad idea, regardless of intentions ).
Besides, we have ice ages with super-high CO2 levels: the Ordovician is alleged to have had 4000 ppm of CO2, and the more recent Permian ice age had about 500-600ppm. What is true, however, is that - in both cases - CO2 levels declined rapidly as part of, or in response to, the cooling.
Correlation does not show causality.
I'm certainly no expert in the field, but I know enough about statistical modeling to know why these scientists believe what they do. They aren't dumb, they just believe the trends revealed through normalization is enough to "reject the null." Mathematically speaking, it is. That doesn't mean you have the right answer - you need the correct input first ( MUCH debate about which rises/falls first [ CO2 or temps ] is still occurring amongst ALL scientists in the field ). At the same time they manage to forget about absolutes, everything becomes relative and correlative based upon a narrow window of time.
Then, they have the prevailing winds against them should they desire to research "effect of water vapor on global warming." No one cares, those with the power to issue grants can't do anything about water vapor... so no funding == no "scientific" research.
Granted, in the last few thousand years CO2 levels have been very low - caused by whatever, and are back on the rise - slightly.
One nice site: http://www.longrangeweather.com/
They accurately predicted the fall in temps from the agreed average, though I don't see them making that claim...
On another note, an observant individual may have noticed that the media stopped calling "global warming" as such, and went to "climate change."
Back to the article, however, I've had the idea a hundred million times to use the excess heat from the machines to warm a space - it is a big DUH thing, but 60C coolant requires either hardware designed for higher temperatures is to be employed, or I.B.M. is trying to get CPUs to die a bit sooner - but when their outside of warranty.
70C T-max doesn't go well with a 60C ambient. Period.
--The loon [ all over the map ]
- I'm not even gonna re-check my post, I'm going to bed.
Member since:
2005-08-28
Well, water (the number one greenhouse gas in our atmosphere) is transparent to visible light, but it is NOT as transparent to infrared light.
This means that when light from the Sun arrives at Earth, visible light (which is the range where the Sun emits most intensely) passes straight through to the surface. There's also infrared light in there that DOES get absorbed, bounce off, etc... but most of the energy is in visible light.
Visible light that reaches the surface mostly gets absorbed, heating the surface, which then re-radiates in the infrared. Again, water is not as transparent to infrared light, so the atmosphere doesn't let that energy escape back into space.
It has to do with blackbody radiation: The Sun is 5780 degrees Kelvin, so its peak energy production is in the visible light range; the Earth's surface is about 280 degrees Kelvin, so its peak energy production is in the infrared light range.
I apologize if any of the above is slightly wrong, I'm working from memory and didn't have time to do any actual calculations.
Edited 2009-06-24 21:54 UTC