...this involves proprietary information on reducing energy use.
That's going to be really useful to them, come armageddon.
Amazon has refused to publish data about the energy consumption and carbon emissions of its business in Australia, including vast server farms, claiming its contribution to climate change is a trade secret. The company has asked the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) – the country's agency tasked with regulating carbon emissions and …
This post has been deleted by its author
it's _REALLY_ all about the HYPOCRISY of the LEFT.
1) Jeff Bezos and other lefties are all about the PERCEPTION of "caring about the environment". They'll gladly SADDLE THEIR COMPETITION with unnecessary "green energy" requirements, and even BUY POLITICIANS to FORCE AN ENTIRE STATE (Cali-Fornicate-You) to DO THE SAME.
2) Then, when MOST companies are set with RIDICULOUS LIMITATIONS AND COSTS over a COMPLETE FORNICATING HOAX (the entire idea about man-made CO2 causing catastrophic and possibly irreversible climate change, something that ONLY AN UNEDUCATED _MORON_ WOULD ACTUALLY BELIEVE*), you LOCATE YOUR DATA CENTERS ELSEWHERE. In this case, Australia.
3) and THEN, when it comes time for THE TRUTH, you *HIDE* it like "nothing to see here move along".
Does THIS sound about right? I think it _DOES_ !!!
And with THIS kind of FORNICATING BOVINE SEWAGE, we end up with Amazon's market dominance for AWS _IN_ _PERPETUITY_, an INCREASE in the gap between 'rich' and 'poor', and LEFTY POLITICS DOMINATING EVERYWHERE to _MAINTAIN_ all that.
* if people would stop FEELING for 5 minutes and actually LISTEN TO REASON, I could *EASILY* disprove the entire CO2-global-climate-bullcrap thing with a can of soda and the CO2 infrared absorption spectrum and a handful of other relevant scientific facts...
"Bobs, not taken his meds again"
"OK, I'll get the taser"
"I could *EASILY* disprove the entire CO2-global-climate-bullcrap thing with a can of soda and the CO2 infrared absorption spectrum and a handful of other relevant scientific facts..."
oooh, please do!
CO2 only absorbs black-body IR radiation that corresponds to temperatures below -50F and above about 140F, and so can NOT be a greenhouse gas of any significance. CO2 is released from water as it warms, the way a soda goes flat as it warms up, which results in elevated measured levels as water gets warmer. The CO2 itself is an indicator of temperature, NOT a cause of it. That's pretty much a summary.
All right, bombastic bob, you have an increased risk of being asked to provide reason on this site.
You claimed two things:
1. "CO2 is released from water as it warms [...]" This is probably true, since at least this PDF https://sites.chem.colostate.edu/diverdi/all_courses/CRC%20reference%20data/solubility%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20in%20water.pdf states that mole fraction of CO2 in liquid phase drops from 0.000814 @15°C to 0.000704 @20°C (both read from the last column at 100kPa, since one atmospheric pressure is 101.325 kPa). This may be different for fluids like seawater with salts and other gases and higher pressures underwater and maybe saturation has not been reached at all, but I am willing to accept your claim for now.
2. "CO2 only absorbs black-body IR radiation that corresponds to temperatures below -50F and above about 140F [...]" (-50F~=-46°C, 140F~=60°C) This is the part where you could provide reason to me: The following PDF https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072 provides a red curve of CO2 absorption on the second page. It shows a peak @ 15µm. The black body emission spectral energy density for 0°C and 20°C on this graph http://www.giangrandi.ch/optics/blackbody/blackbody-ambient-large.png at 15,000nm (15µm) is not far from its maximum.
Did I make a mistake?
Do you honestly think Jeff Bezos is a 'leftie'?
He heads up a multinational corporation that avoids taxes wherever it can, which is a truly capitalist behavior.
He might say things that please the 'leftie' majority of customers worldwide (just not those in your trailer park), but his actions speak far louder...
There's lots of talk about Amazon "not paying its fair share" of taxes, but if you you look at their Balance Sheet, they're still digging up from the huge debt hole they spent years creating. They also have better accountants than you and I can afford so the real issue lies with the moronic elected officials that make the tax laws (and loopholes for their buddies).
Hey, Hey, Hey! It's time to play The Game again! I will reduce the rantings to only the UPPER CASE LETTERS from big bad bob's post, and see if it makes something more intelligible!
REALLY HYPOCRISY LEFT.
PERCEPTION SADDLE THEIR COMPETITION BUY POLITICIANS FORCE AN ENTIRE STATE DO THE SAME.
MOST RIDICULOUS LIMITATIONS AND COSTS COMPLETE FORNICATING HOAX ONLY AN UNEDUCATED MORON WOULD ACTUALLY BELIEVE* LOCATE YOUR DATA CENTERS ELSEWHERE.
THEN, THE TRUTH, HIDE.
THIS FORNICATING BOVINE SEWAGE, AWS IN PERPETUITY, INCREASE LEFTY POLITICS DOMINATING EVERYWHERE MAINTAIN.
*FEELING LISTEN TO REASON, EASILY.
Jeff Bezos is not a "lefty" by any stretch of the imagination. He does disagree with the great orange one about most things, but so did John McCain, and he wasn't a lefty either.
Jeff Bezos is a capitalist trying to build a monopoly, just like the good old robber barons of the early 20th century.
Even if you had an exact inventory of all the equipment in the DC (which no competitor would) and had hourly energy consumption data (which this isn't), it still tells you nothing about the methods or devices used to limit consumption. The only thing that would tell you is a relative indication of how much or little business they're doing at various days and times, which isn't terribly interesting a year after the fact. Sometimes I swear these corporations demand these secrecy exceptions simply to throw their weight around or perhaps just plain force of habit. They should be fined for the frivolous application and the data published like it is for everyone else, with a warning that the fine will be a lot bigger if they apply again next year.
I agree with others that this data should be published, but in terms of guessing what Amazon's reasoning is, I'd suspect it might have to do with revealing to its competitors what their energy cost is and therefore, indirectly, what their margins are. Energy is probably the largest ongoing operational expense for a data centre so small differences in efficiencies probably represent several % points of profit margin.
It is really a stupid regulatory requirement, required by an equally daft regulator created by insane piece of legislation. World wide Australia contributes 1.3% of the total, and if Australia became truly 'carbon neutral' being neither a producer or a sink (imagine every living thing, plant & animal is wiped out), the increase in China's emissions alone would replace our total emission in the space of 90-120 days
Unless you have a plan to make the country substantially carbon-negative, then that's as good a plan as any. Most of the first world has already cut its emissions to the bone; unless China stops, going further is just an exercise in masochism. As sorrowful as it sounds, that money would be better spent building seawalls for those island nations that are under threat.
The west hasn’t even started to get through the hairs on their arm, let alone cutting to the bone.
If the general populace didn’t have such an irrational hatred of atomic energy then maybe we could actually develop and deploy small scale nukes which could be deployed widely - brining cheap power to rural China, and rural Africa (though PV logically has to play a part there as well).
Instead let’s ignore the big problem because one country isn’t currently on the bandwagon... they’d get on it pretty fast if we started a genuine carbon tax - looking at full lifecycle, not just the last mile.
The referenced article lists 2 AWS owned/run datacentes in Sydney
"The two AWS data centres are SYD51 in Eastern Creek and SYD52 in Smeaton Grange towards Campbelltown"
as well as 6 colo facilities:
SYD1: Equinix SYD3 in Alexandria.
SYD4: Global Switch Ultimo.
SYD5: Fujitsu Western Sydney Datacentre.
SYD6: Iseek-KDC Gore Hill, Artarmon.
SYD7: Fujitsu Sydney Datacentre, Homebush.
SYD61: NextDC S1, Macquarie Park.
There are other AWS sites around the world that are only used by AWS but weren't built by AWS and have AWS as a tenant/sole tenant.
My assumption is that AWS hasn't built DC's in Australia so is only a tenant - I realise this is difficult to get information on unless someone knows (i.e. knows the site and knows it is actually run by company X).
My point is that if you setup a company one way (AWS has become a tenant of many/all of these facilities to allow rapid deployment as building their own DC's takes 5+ years for them to acquire land and appropriate consents/permits etc), if a government creates legislation that asks for information to be presented for what you are responsible (Global Switch and Fujitsu are in the list so I would assume at least some of Amazon's power usage is covered), they shouldn't really complain when it turns out their legislation doesn't fit the real world very well.
You are mistaking me for someone who actually gives a damn.
It is all kinda silly. Look at their annual report. It might have a line item for "power costs" or some such, and go back from there.
On another note: I made a cross country (USA) plane trip reservation. Lo and behold, they now include how much CO2 the trip is emitting. Like I really care!
Oh, yes, burning wood is "carbon neutral".
They are talking about implementing a carbon tax here. You would get a payout of 80€ a year, but petrol would get an additional 11c a litre tax, heating oil 10c and gas or heating 1c /KWh.
So the more you drive and the bigger / less efficient your cars engine, the more you will pay. Switch to an electric car or push bike or ebike and you will save money.
Only heat the house to 20°C in winter, instead of 25°C and you save money. Improve the insulation, you save money over time.
Before this was announced, my wife decided to sell her car and switch to an ebike for the 30KM ride to work each day. But that was as much for her own health as for saving the environment.
I don't suppose it has ever occurred to you that when 10's of thousands of scientists who have spent their entire working lifes studying the climate (most of whom are academics and not reliant on funding) say one thing and half a dozen "scientists" directly financed by the polluting industries say the opposite there's a strong probability the few who offer opposing arguments are full of crap?
No, it hasn't, because you are brilliant and know better than everybody else.
I suggest you look up the Dunning Kruger effect and consider how it might apply to you.
Really, tens of thousands of "scientists" proclaiming that the climate/weather changes?? What's their next discovery, it gets dark at night? What idiots pay for them?
only the weak minded are fooled by the "climate change" emergency fabricated by the 1% as a way to extract even more money from the foolish hysterical masses they have whipped into a frenzy.
There are plenty of times in the worlds history when its been colder, or hotter, on our planet with even more or even less CO2 in the atmosphere, and man didn't even exist back then!
Idiot. Yes CO2 levels have varied in the geological past the difference now is changes that used to occur over 10's of thousands of years are now occurring in just dozens of years. Nature cannot adapt that quickly, historically as I'm sure you are aware you being so knowledgeable about Palaeolithic climate, massive extinctions happen when the climate changes too rapidly.
The atmosphere's carbon dioxide proportion crashed from 330ppm to 260ppm from 1900 to 1960.
The bulk of that period was subject to a global warming (up) cycle just as strong as, but longer than, the subsequent upcycle from 1975-2000 which forms the basis of your own received-hysteria.
Interestingly, as the carbon dioxide proportion started to increase again, the earth stayed in the grip of the down cycle (roughly 30-40yrs, typically) that formed the basis of a previous generation's received-hysteria about the new ice age etc.
Long-term data demonstrates at a glance to an experienced quant, and after running time-series calcs for a slower quant, that while in the long-term carbon dioxide and global average temperatures are closely associated, carbon dioxide lags heat. To be clear: heat causes carbon dioxide, not the other way round.
This is verified by the whole-meme falsifying we accidentally underwent during the '75-'00 upcycle, when for the first time we had atmospheric temps. They went up at a third of the rate of surface temps.
For the greenhouse effect to be driving surface temps, it HAS to be the other way round. By definition. That's what the greenhouse effect IS: an insulating atmosphere heating up the surface.
Boom -- instant falsification of the proposition that the greenhouse effect is controlling global climate etc.
As Popper points out, it's not science if it's not falsifiable. And if it's then falsified in fact, it's quite simply not real.
Also, the entire modelling effort can be blown out of the water by 2 simple observations (the most important model factor is tautological ; the figure used for the heat absorption of carbon dioxide is wrong (and by more than an order of magnitude)).
But it's a bit pointless going through it:
The entire meme is moot.
It has been proven false by data (not models).
My understanding is that the first regular atmospheric monitoring of CO2 was from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii and began in 1958.
Readings before this time exist but performing a detailed breakdown of rises and falls between 1900 and 1958 to compare to the information we have between 1958 and the present day is difficult as the majority of readings before 1958 are for short time periods across multiple locations and therefore subject to local variations or based on results covering a multi year time period.
NASA's data combines multiple sources of CO2 data (in particular ice core samples) over much longer time periods for trend analysis (https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html).
It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine if scientists best efforts adequately explain pre-1958 results as the views of a random commentard are unlikely to alter your opinions.
Heat causes carbon dioxide???. My years of study in chemistry and my degree in geology calls shenanigans on your strange view of the world.
You do seem to disprove your own argument. Greenhouse gases do increase temperatures by trapping heat. The point being we are creating more of the greenhouse gases to trap the heat. Not really falsification.
However please provide evidence how heat can create carbon dioxide. I wish to conduct experiments, perhaps heat can cause gold if we mix the temperatures?
Um, well known understanding of the behavior of gases dissolved in water. As water warms, it releases dissolved CO2. When the climate warms, oceans begin releasing dissolved carbon dioxide.
That is why a warm soft drink is more likely to spew when opened than a cold one.
"Heat causes carbon dioxide???. My years of study in chemistry and my degree in geology calls shenanigans on your strange view of the world."
You missed a little detail in your "years of study", regarding two things: a) the equilibrium reaction of carbonates in water as affected by temperature, and b) the solubility of gas in water based on temperature and pressure.
('b' is something I knew a lot about while operating nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy; to avoid gas buildup inside the reactor vessel, gas levels were kept below the point where they'd come out of solution, and an operation known as 'de-gas' would be conducted when the levels got too high, to get rid of the excess gas)
In case you forgot, the solubility of gas in water, at standard atmospheric pressure, maxes out at around 1 C and drops to a minimum at around 60C. When you watch tap water boil, if it ever does (for a watched pot never boils, ha ha ha) you can see bubbles form long before the water reaches the boiling point, at around 60C, because all of the dissolved gas comes out of solution. To further prove that point, ice cubes often form in the fridge [without an ice maker] such that the gasses come out of solution during the freezing process, and you'll see "cloudy ice" because of it [the ice must freeze solid for this to happen though]. Needless to say, there's a variability of gas solubility between 1C and 60C, with the curve "generally going down".
Conclusion: raise water temperature, CO2 solubility is low, combined with a shift in the equilibrium of carbonates AND the solubility of carbonates precipitated on the ocean floor, lake beds, etc.. The end result is that as temperature INCREASES, so will the measured CO2 levels increase. And THAT is the mechanism, explained using basic chemistry and physical properties of water.
You can also see this in a can of soda: as it warms up, it goes FLAT.
Heat can indirectly lead to increased carbon dioxide levels; heat is a factor playing into wildfires, which tend to burn off a lot of plants, which, perhaps unsurprisingly, is a process which releases CO2 into the air.
Fighting those fires, of course, and preventing them in the first place is a matter of reinforcing a pressure cooker; you delay the inevitable (if global heat levels are still rising, which they are thanks to all the coal we're still burning for asinine reasons,) but make it so much worse when it finally exceeds your ability to kick the can down the road.
@DJO - you responded with "Idiot" as the very first word in your post. Is an ad hominem attack your main debate strategy? Might as well quote Chevy Chase when he'd do the fake-debate with Jane Curtain on Saturday Night Live back in the 70's - it usually began with something like "Jane, you ignorant slut..."
(so typical of the left to resort so quickly to ad hominem attacks and emotional manipulation, for they have no truth on their side)
If your entire career depends on a company that stands to lose tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in investment in fossil fuels if action is taken to prevent drastic climate change it's exactly in your interests to prove it's not going to happen.
(Until things in the real world go horribly wrong of course)
Any scientist who conclusively and correctly proved climate change was not related to greenhouse gases would have their career made for life.
Science is about advancement, and chipping away at incorrect hypotheses. Mixing metaphors, slaying a sacred cow is the holy grail of many scientists. But in this case, all the science points towards global warming being man made.
Tell me more. That is interesting, it means the ones I know are doing things very much wrong!
Look up "tenure".
But as you might find doing actual research a bit too tricky for you, here is an outline:
Tenure is a category of academic appointment existing in some countries. A tenured post is an indefinite academic appointment that can be terminated only for cause or under extraordinary circumstances, such as financial exigency or program discontinuation. Tenure is a means of defending the principle of academic freedom, which holds that it is beneficial for society in the long run if scholars are free to hold and examine a variety of views.
DJO, these people you are repying to deny the research, and when evidence is forthcoming, they deny that too.
I admire your patience, but these people will just shout "Fake News" like mindless drones, simply because Trump says China made it up, and Obama said it was real.
Damn, they are so brainwashed to be scared of evil socialist pink commies stealing their guns and "demanding free stuff" (seemingly forgetting the oil industry and farmer subsidies, and the pharmaceutical companies price-fixing), that they have to shoehorn their warped view on politics into every topic.
Everything they don't like is a "leftist conspiracy" - a very insular concept when talking about global matters - seeing as the rest of the world doesn't give two fucks for their partisan tribal cult-like bullshit.
There's no reasoning with a community only slightly less delusional than flat-earthers.
Tens of thousand of scientists studying climate change? Seriously? You are off by at least an order of magnitude. The “97% of climate scientists” meme is the result of the responses to a survey by 77 climate scientists.
When absurdities like the earlier comment are posted - and goes unchallenged- it just gives more fodder for people to attack the credibility of climate change.
Did I say 10's of thousands "climate" scientists?
No, other fields are involved, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and lots of computer modelling which is generally done not by "climate scientists" themselves but farmed out to computer modelling specialists.
God's I've been there myself, I was asked by a small town journalist to provide weather information for his area, the Met Office had records going back over 150 years which I cleaned up* and plonked into a database, added some graphing tools and let him find out for himself any trends.
FWIW the trends are scary, the most worrying statistic is not the highest temperatures but the lowest, winters just don't get anywhere near as cold as they used to which is really bad for a lot of staple crops.
* No cynics, I did not make things up - there were impossible entries (transcription errors) like the min being higher than the max. fortunately many of the original records were still available.
"I suggest you look up the Dunning Kruger effect and consider how it might apply to you."
I suggest you study the science yourself and not just believe the propaganda being excreted by those so called "climate scientists". CO2 infrared absorption spectrum. black body radiation. compare all that to the effect water has on temperatures and 'greenhouse effect'. It's a good start.
The main difference between what I am saying and what you are saying: You made an ad-hominem attack. I merely point to the science.
No, you point to oil industry propaganda none of which stands even the slightest scrutiny.
The science is quite clear, increased concentrations of CO2 lead to increased temperatures, the correlation is beyond reasonable doubt (OK the probability of causation is not 100%, it can't be, so it's around 99.5% certain). Of course that leaves unreasonable doubt which I suppose is your assumed role.
If you need an example of how CO2 traps heat, look at Venus, surface temperature higher than found on Mercury while bing far further from the Sun, the difference is the CO2 rich atmosphere.
In the IT sector and cloud/global app providers in particular you can create as many "green" credentials as you like. It still does nothing to address the fact that IT is one of the most wasteful sectors there is. Just take a moment to consider these:
Equipment life is very short
Energy and resources to make the equipment is very high
Much of it is very difficult to recycle or can never be recycled
Energy use is just ridiculous
You can have a totally carbon neutral data centre BUT it is still using energy and more importantly it is creating heat. Just because you locate it in a cold environment to reduce your cooling costs does not mean it is that much better. If you put in 1MW of electricity then broadly that is 1MW of heat that needs to be dispersed. Dispersing that into a cold lake is ultimately going to raise the temperature and so the indirect environmental impact goes on.
Irrespective of whether you believe that climate change is man-made or not (I happen to believe that man is largely responsible), the impact of these huge data centre is conveniently buried. It is more important to store millions of photographs of cats, babies and dancing hippos that are never looked at because it is part of a revenue generating industry based on advertising.
It has only been recently that the DC industry worldwide has exceeded the energy footprint of the entire airline industry same/same. Combined, they're something like 3% or 4%. IMHO, we're chasing waterfalls here. Let's really focus on the rivers and lakes where the REAL opportunities lay. Also, why should -any- usage be public information? Reveal it only in the case of law-breaking. Just my $0.02 worth.
Or carbon emissions? Because Amazon has some control over its energy consumption. Assuming, that is, that they are willing to shut down some servers and forego sales when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. But the whole carbon emission thing is under the control of the local power company. If they decide to shovel some more coal into the boilers when demand comes up, Amazon has little say in that. And the buying of clean energy credits is just virtue signaling. Wind and solar will be input into the grid hen it becomes available. Paying for a bigger share of those 'good boy' points is just bribery with a different name. Or blackmail, if some regulatory agency is holding one's feet to the fire.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021