Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › Idle PCs Waste Electricity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Idle PCs Waste Electricity - Page 5

post #41 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marager View Post
PLEASE. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!
it does NOT exsist. watch the great global warming swindle on google and youll see why
from a sientific poing of view,CO2 is not a greenhouse gas!it doesnt CAUSE ANYTHING.
this is pure BS,but saving electricity is a good idea,on the other hand you should understand that this reserach would not make it anywhere unless it had something to do with CO2 imissions........ total and complete BS thank you come again later my friend
.......
No.
short answer: You are completely mistaken. Global Warming definitely exists, and most scientists/the scientific community as a whole would agree.
Videos on Google != scientific research and papers, btw, if you didnt know

DuckieHo posted a great resource. I have actually read it before; it conveys what I believe to be the truth.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6400 @ 3.6 GHz (450X8) GA P965 S3 7600GT 2GB OCZ Gold @ DDR 2 900 5-5-5-15 
Hard DriveOptical DriveMonitorPower
320GB Maxtor SATA2, 160 for XP, 160 for Slackware DVD+-RW EIDE 21" CRT by Sun Microsystems 680W Echostar 22A on 12V rail 
CaseMouse
Rosewill Black small Mid-T G5 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6400 @ 3.6 GHz (450X8) GA P965 S3 7600GT 2GB OCZ Gold @ DDR 2 900 5-5-5-15 
Hard DriveOptical DriveMonitorPower
320GB Maxtor SATA2, 160 for XP, 160 for Slackware DVD+-RW EIDE 21" CRT by Sun Microsystems 680W Echostar 22A on 12V rail 
CaseMouse
Rosewill Black small Mid-T G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #42 of 123
If our planet burns up, I'm gunna be the first guy with a lawn chair outside catching some green house gases and cancer.

I personally think "Global warming" is a complete load of crap. It's just the media's and political power's way to a new found scare. What was our last one? Oh yeah, terrorism, and look what happened. Once people figure out this mess they're going to go to "Global Cooling" and people are gunna get another scare for 4-5 years then figure it out again. "Oh no, all our green house gases finally added up to causing not enough UV rays to enter the Earth's atmosphere and now we're gunna freeze!" Lol.

If you believe there is "Global Warming" that's fine by me. It's your opinion and I have no say in what you think. But I'm not gunna let some guy praise his all wonderful "We're gunna burn up cause it's the middle man's fault" crap on me.
post #43 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
The report takes historic and pre-historic data into account:
* The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).
* The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb).
* Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

Also, the issue is of the rapid change in global temperature. Yes, the Earth has been hotter but how long did these temperature flucations take? The issue with global warming is that we might be seeing 1-6C temperature change in less than 100 years. Before anyone says that isn't much... that's 9F and would mean the difference of million/billions of tons of ice melting.


My question with the documentary... how much research was done and how was it peer reviewed? Peer review is the keystone to science. Here is how the ipcc report is validated: "The report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments."
i have no clue how this documentry was reviewed it just offers a different pov from that pdf and has scientific evidence from what i remember. you should just watch it the if you think it is :turd: then slate it all you want. i don't want to be a douche but i don't know how you can say the documentry is crap without seeing it
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570K P8Z77-M XFX 7870 1150/1400 2 x 4g Corsair Vengeance LP 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Callisto Deluxe 40GB & 1TB Sammy Spinpoint F1 &... Nec ND3540A W7 RTM ACER V243HLbmd 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Curve 2000 PC P&C Silencer 750w Antec 300 MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570K P8Z77-M XFX 7870 1150/1400 2 x 4g Corsair Vengeance LP 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Callisto Deluxe 40GB & 1TB Sammy Spinpoint F1 &... Nec ND3540A W7 RTM ACER V243HLbmd 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Curve 2000 PC P&C Silencer 750w Antec 300 MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by leimrod View Post
Now that the hyped up title has caught your attention. Here's why

Source: The Register



So you see, by folding you are trying to cure cancer by leaving your PC on, when in fact by leaving on your computer you are increasing the CO2 emmisions in the planet, increasing the chances of other forms of cancer such as lung and skin.

You are in fact part of the problem rather than part of the cure.

Think about it!
How does C02 cause lung cancer, let alone skin cancer?

Human C02 emissions make up around 2% of C02 emissions on the planet.

Not to mention, C02 isn't a pollutant.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by biatchi View Post
i have no clue how this documentry was reviewed it just offers a different pov from that pdf and has scientific evidence from what i remember. you should just watch it the if you think it is :turd: then slate it all you want. i don't want to be a douche but i don't know how you can say the documentry is crap without seeing it
I can't watch it at work.

However, "science" and "data" can be manipulated. All documentaries should be taken with a grain of salt. Generally, makers have a specific point and then make a documentary around that focus. While research papers start with a hypothesis, they tend to be more accurate since they use all data and again... peer review. I will watch it later.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 123
i just play WoW...
post #47 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
How does C02 cause lung cancer, let alone skin cancer?

Human C02 emissions make up around 2% of C02 emissions on the planet.

Not to mention, C02 isn't a pollutant.
my point exactly.......it isnt,and it never was and never will be. and dont flame me because its a real fact that many people get alot of "fundings" (money) from those goverments, and all those organizations that fight global warming and such.....like jacki chan said in armor of god 1 "my god provides me with everything i need,it never judges me and i never say no to it,i only say YES.my god is all powerfull and his name is MONEY"
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 2600 P8H67-M PRO Intel HD Graphics 1000 (GT1) 4 sticks of 4 gigs of g.skill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250 gb west windows 7 30 inch philips HD 650w seasonic 
Mouse Pad
table 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 2600 P8H67-M PRO Intel HD Graphics 1000 (GT1) 4 sticks of 4 gigs of g.skill 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250 gb west windows 7 30 inch philips HD 650w seasonic 
Mouse Pad
table 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
How does C02 cause lung cancer, let alone skin cancer?

Human C02 emissions make up around 2% of C02 emissions on the planet.

Not to mention, C02 isn't a pollutant.
What defines a pollutant?

2% increase a year can be dangerous.... since carbon dioxide lasts for awhile. This year's 2% remains next year, year after, year after.... compounding interest.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sreenath View Post
.......
No.
short answer: You are completely mistaken. Global Warming definitely exists, and most scientists/the scientific community as a whole would agree.
Videos on Google != scientific research and papers, btw, if you didnt know

DuckieHo posted a great resource. I have actually read it before; it conveys what I believe to be the truth.
Global warming, in the modern understanding of it, does not exist.

No where near all scientist agree. A very large amount disagree.

A lot of the evidence for Global Warming is false.

For example, several scientist claimed that over that past 100 years, the snow in the Adirondack Mountains (NY, USA) has decreased by 50%!

When an another scientist actually looked through the data, he found the data to be cherry picked. The scientist had chosen the record high and the record low snow data, and then used that in their results. When the real data was put together, it was found that the snow has actually increased by a small percent.

Why do you think that the current Earth's temperature is ideal? Why must we feel that any change in current temperature means that end of time. The Earth has gone through significant climate change (Ice Age anyone?) and it did not kill off all the animals.

Not to mention, do you really think we can actually control Earth's natural climate changes? I hardly think so.

Please read these:

Quote:
Why is it, I wondered, that human beings assume that the Earth has reached its absolutely ideal temperature and that any change is considered a disaster of apocalyptic proportion?
Just the Facts

Quote:
The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that this warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings. It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change – ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures. Shorter-term proxies include cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.
So, is the Earth currently experiencing a warming trend? Yes. Are human activities, including the burning of fossil fuel and forest conversion, the primary – or even significant – drivers of this current temperature trend? The scientifically appropriate answer – cautious and conforming to the known facts – is: probably not.




http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev031307b.cfm



FAQ on Global Warming



Quote:
There has never been much doubt that the release of carbon dioxide, a natural constituent of the atmosphere and a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, has some warming effect on the planet. But the impact of man-made emissions of this greenhouse gas may be minor. The real issues are whether or not the release of carbon dioxide is a significant factor relative to natural temperature variability, what the likely consequences of warming would be, and what should be done about it. To better explain these issues, this paper provides answers to frequently asked questions about global warming.
Q: Is global warming unprecedented?
No. The earth's average temperature has increased over the last 30 years, and many point to this as evidence of a dangerous human-induced warming. But temperatures have risen and fallen many times before that. The Medieval Warm Period (c. 1100-1450) and earlier periods were likely as warm or warmer than the present. The earth was cooling as recently as the period from the 1940s to the 1970s, giving rise to fears of a coming ice age, until temperatures began to increase in the mid-1970s up through the present day. While it is likely that mankind's activities have made a contribution to warming, current temperatures are within the range of natural variability.
Q: Is global warming catastrophic?
Far from it. Given that the current upward trend in temperatures is not unprecedented, it stands to reason that minor warming will not lead to unprecedented catastrophes, and scientific evidence confirms this. According to recent research, the planet and its inhabitants are much more resilient to temperature variability than had been previously assumed, and the warming over the last few decades has not been particularly harmful to humans or the environment. Virtually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding global warming is speculative and lies outside the scientific consensus. In fact, several respected economists believe that any likely future warming would have benefits (such as increased crop yields) that outweigh the modest adverse impacts in the U.S.
Q: Didn't global warming cause Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters?
No. Natural disasters are just that, and occur with or without global warming. Many activists have tried to link each natural disaster as it occurs—hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires, crop failures, disease outbreaks, and even snowstorms—to global warming. Although the theoretical link between warming and some natural disasters is plausible, the scientific evidence points away from anything more than a small connection. There is no consistent long-term pattern in the frequency of these events. For example, while Hurricane Katrina was part of a worse-than-average 2005 hurricane season, the 2006 hurricane season was an unusually weak one.
Q: Could the Kyoto Protocol or other measures to fight warming do more harm than good?
Yes. For example, consider hurricanes. Vast amounts could be spent trying to mitigate global warming as an indirect means of reducing future hurricane damage—even though there is no consensus about a global warming–hurricane link. The resources used in this effort would not be available for improvements in warning systems, flood control, building codes, evacuation plans, relief efforts, or anything else that could have actually made a difference with Hurricane Katrina. Also consider the one big success story in Katrina—the million or more people who got into the family car and drove out of harm's way in the days before the storm hit. If Kyoto-style energy restrictions had made automobiles and gasoline prohibitively expensive for some (as is very likely), more people would have been stranded in New Orleans and other coastal cities.
Q: Are we facing 20-foot sea level rise because of global warming?
This is highly unlikely and not part of any scientific consensus. In his book and documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore chose to focus on the catastrophic impacts of an 18 to 20 foot sea level rise, including numerous highly populated coastal areas falling into the sea. The recently released summary of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, however, estimates a sea level rise of only 7 to 23 inches over the next century, and there are reasons to believe that even that may be overstating things.
Q: Shouldn't we "play it safe" and take tough preventive measures against global warming?
Not necessarily. There are risks to global warming, but there are also risks to global warming policies. Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—provide the world with most of its energy. It will be costly to ratchet down emissions from fossil fuels enough to make even a modest dent in the earth's future temperature. The Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty that places a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, will actually accomplish very little. If fully implemented, its energy rationing provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050. The costs of capping carbon dioxide are large and immediate, but the benefits are small and remote. And a poorer world, which Kyoto would give us, would have less ability to deal with whatever challenges the future brings.
Q: Wouldn't the costs of Kyoto fall on industry and not on the public?
The notion that the costs of rationing energy under Kyoto will be borne by a relative handful of corporate fat cats and that the rest of us will get a free ride is mistaken. Any measures strong enough to make a measurable dent in carbon emissions would have a profound effect on the economy and on family budgets. Electric bills and gasoline prices would rise, as well as the cost of most other goods which require energy to make and transport. Manufacturing jobs would likely leave the country in large numbers and go to nations like China that have announced that they will do nothing to cap energy use. At the very least, proponents of Kyoto and similar measures should be up front with the American people about the likely costs.
Q: Don't we owe it to the people in developing nations to save them from global warming?
First and foremost, the developing world needs to develop, not to adopt costly first-world environmental measures that would halt economic progress. The consequences of severe poverty are no less fearful than even the most far-fetched global warming doomsday scenarios. Energy rationing to combat warming would perpetuate poverty by raising energy prices for those who can least afford it. The last thing the 2 billion who currently lack access to electricity or safe drinking water and sanitation need are global warming policies that would place these and other necessities further out of reach.
Q: Isn't the Kyoto Protocol a success in Europe?
No. The European Union nations that have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol—and regularly criticize the U.S. for failing to join them—are falling considerably short of its requirements. Despite the caps on carbon dioxide emissions, nearly every Western European nation has higher carbon emissions today than when the treaty was signed in 1997, and these emissions increases show no signs of leveling off. Compliance with Kyoto's looming 2008–2012 targets will be all but impossible for most of these countries, and many are actually seeing their emissions rising faster than those in the U.S.
Q: Is the U.S. doing nothing about global warming?
No. The current administration has taken a very sensible approach to global warming. Rather than engage in extremely costly efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing sources, the administration has wisely steered clear of carbon caps. Congress has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, nor has it (yet) enacted Kyoto-like programs to ration energy. Instead, Washington has focused on research into new technologies that may be able to produce energy with fewer carbon dioxide emissions in a cost-effective manner. The administration's Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan describes the federal government's ongoing research efforts in this regard. And its six-nation Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an agreement by which both developed and developing nations can coordinate the creation and deployment of these technologies within the context of continued economic growth and poverty reduction. This approach will lead to economically practical solutions that could be employed if they prove to be necessary, rather than economically ruinous immediate measures imposed whether or not they are needed.



System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #50 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
What defines a pollutant?

2% increase a year can be dangerous.... since carbon dioxide lasts for awhile. This year's 2% remains next year, year after, year after.... compounding interest.
Being responsible for 2% of the emissions per year, does not mean that the emissions are increasing my 2% per year.

Please correct that.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › Idle PCs Waste Electricity