I would beware ideas like ‘force-multipliers’ and the like as applied to computing. There are entire classes of problems that are still unsolveable within the expected lifetime of the universe even if you enlist every atom in the universe as a bit for your computer (all of which is obviously impossible). Some problems are even unsolveable, full stop. Another thing is massive parrallellism only lends itself to algorithms that can be broken down into such parallel units. Finally before you can compute any solution first you have to have the algorithm! (I don’t know if any of the above is the actual case or not, but I mean by all this you can’t just wave the magic wand of ‘massive parallelism’ at a problem and expect that it can be solved).

Anyway, I was just pointing out the small irony that quite a lot of commercial computing research resources are nowadays significantly dedicated to researching energy efficiencies and not absolute power!

Panelbeaterbird: Rushing headlong into things may cause concussion and other head injuries. Make sure you are wearing your helmet first.

In other words, the complex calculations needed for developing alt-energy solutions (many of which are simply engineering problems that just happen to be beyond our grasp at the moment) have greater chances of being solved due to the force-multiplier effect of DIY w/ laptops, instead of having to go to deep-pockets institutes that can afford a Cray. Which increases the likelihood that these problems will be solved sooner rather than later. ‘Many hands make light work.’

But I could be mistaken.

Perhaps the best solution is to wait it out and observe. Technology is moving ahead anyway. Florida for instance recently developed the very first coal-fired plant that emits almost no co2.

Is this true? May I have a link?

Why not rush headlong into nulcear?

We better.

It’ll hurt if we don’t.

Computing power is thundering along and a huge speed and this will help in figuring out a better more advanced solution.

Because nowadays a lot of research in computing ‘power’ is around gaining efficiencies around computing-unit (MFLOP) delivered per energy Watt consumed. Of course in most cases this is driven from a need to reduce heat production (and anyone with a modern notebook can experience exactly what I mean here). However energy efficency, i.e. not converting electrical energy into wasteful thermal byproducts, has become a big issue in modern computing environments. Even in ‘big iron’ installations, for example of the type that might undertake climate modelling, have to be concerned with this issue because the thermal issues are typically solved with air-conditioning or other extravagant, and electricity-bill generating, cooling schemes.

Just saying. Personally I am neither for nor against nuclear power, but I don’t think we ought to be rushing headlong into it at this stage.

And wasn’t that music rather good at the end. Still don’t know what the panic is about. But always good to hear Tim Flannery.

He’s not exactly an effective booster for nuclear. Perhaps a bit too ’scientific’ in his attitude in that he’s not trying to overpower nutballery on the other side.

What neither of these guys realise is that if EITHER coal or nuclear is obstructed we are in deep trouble because it will get harder and harder to maintain our current Oil output at reasonable prices. Other alternatives may grow in real terms every year but they cannot make up the deficit that levelling out oil or more expensive oil will bring.

Time to go outside the Anglosphere to scientists that aren’t swamped by our bullshit momentum.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold.shtml

You managed to DODGE the other post.

Dude. Its SUCH a missed oppurtunity that we didn’t listen to the Great Labour Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

We should take ALL THE WORLDS NUCLEAR WASTE…. Because one day it won’t be waste. It will be a magnificent resource.

They used to burn off the gas that came with the oil. Then later you find out that its the best resource there is. The only energy that when you turn it off the heat is gone straight away. We are mad not to take it all. And with a straight face CHARGE them for the privelidge of taking it off their hands….

“We’ll take it off your hands for a fee” we’ll say. And we’ll try not to burst out with the giggles.

Yes, 100 years isn’t so extraordinarily long, but the point is, its a maybe (and also a fuzzy time estimate). Maybe even then it will won’t ever be better in an absolute sense.

There is nothing alleged about these scientists.

PanelbeaterBird from your statements I assume you must be a scientist that works in the field of global warming.? No. O/K so you have designed and operate your own computor modelling system to come up with your own analysis.? No, o/k You personaly know all of the scientists involved that are warning of the consequences of global warming and they are 1. all liers.2.Not very good scientists.3.Have an ulteria motive by promoting a false thesis ? No.

So what you are doing in essence is (and I don’t know F.A. about it and err on the side of caution)is just parrotting other peoples ideas.You are sideing with scientists who are not necessarily in denial about global warming, but will say anything for cash,and in most cases who I might add, been found to be lobbyists for mining,power,and forrestry company’s.

Still, 100 years ain’t very long in the grander scheme of things.

Short and medium, I was thinking of perhaps the next fifty or so years. Longer term more like 100 as we’ve adjusted our patterns of behaviour etc. I’ll keep them a bit rubbery perhaps.

For the most part I agree with you on the nuclear safety issue. Its much safer than coal for instance if you consider the deaths in coal mining. I do think long term storage of waste has problems, but not unmanagable ones, and ones that we may be able to deal with much better in the future with advanced reprocessing plants.

Warming will be detrimental in the short and medium term. Cities, farming and other infrustructure is optimised to current climatic conditions. If these change it will almost certainly be a negative. How much, I think is up for debate, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be living on low lying land.

You argument that its going to be much better when the permafrost melts may be true in the long term. Maybe. Not in the short term.

That accident in the Soviet Union. Well thats just leftism killing folks. Got nothing to do with nuclear.

We are in an ice age. CO2 warming is the most benign thing imagineable. It tends to heat up the dry air. It tends to reduce heat differentials.

Most of the dry air on this planet IS COLD AIR.

What is wrong with the permafrost melting in Southern Siberia?

Don’t we like Siberians?

You people march in lock-step like zombies. You’re embarrassing.

Their arguement is bollicks and the scientists that matter are telling them that,these bastards would rather be party to fucking up the planet than admit they were wrong.After all that has happened in the last twenty ref global warming, I would have expected the most extreme right wing looney’s to at least err on the side of caution.I remember some un-sufferable right wing loon tune tell me once,the exon valdez spill would clean it self up in six months.The mind boggles.

Striking, because they almost being forced to argue against nuclear power because they don’t like the premise of climate change because they are stuck in the 1990s mindset that climate change is a greenies conspiracy. But today they share a position with them – for different reaons of course – on atomic power. Wierd.

Explain yourself Edney.