Aussie Data Centres Brace For Dust Storm Barrage 148
An anonymous reader writes "Data centers and telcos in the Australian cities of Sydney and Brisbane have shut off external ventilation systems, restricted loading dock access and attended false alarms after a major dust storm choked the cities today. The storm is said to be the worst of its type ever recorded in Australia. Macquarie Telecom disengaged automatic deployment of fire-prevention gas from the fire alarm to prevent gas being released on a false alarm. Other major data center operators reported clogged air filters and heat exchangers and said they would be performing cleaning and maintenance operations this week."
Re:c-c-c-c (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Old news... happened yesterday! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:c-c-c-c (Score:2, Insightful)
Usually when I see someone spouting off, there's at least some argument that can be rebutted, some point that can be countered, some claim that can be disproved or, at least, some myth that can be dispelled. I read this post, over and over, trying to find some way to respond in an intelligent manner, to try to get across a point about this subject that I feel so strongly about. However, try as I might, the only response I could come up with was this:
OMGWTFLOLHAHA.
Re:c-c-c-c (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:c-c-c-c (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change a farce?
Give me a break. Of course climate change is happening. Look at California, Spain, Greece, and other places. They are turning into deserts. Year after year more fires, and more arid. It is changing the land at a local level. Other places like Canada are get more tornado's and they are getting more tail ends of hurricanes.
The question of whether or not it is man made in my opinion is quite irrelevant since we don't even have plan regardless of the cause. The big issue right now is how to deal with climate change? What are we doing to secure our water supplies? Or our essential resources...
Re:hehehehe (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you shoot down a simple argument of logic?
It's been this bad 70 years ago.
70 years ago we didn't pollute ANYWHERE as much as we do today.
If our polluting nature is supposed to be the cause for climate change, which would then lead to, say, DUSTSTORMS, how come the same thing happened when we had barely begun the polluting?
Climate change is real. It happened since the beginning of this dirtball. The question is, how much of what we see today is natural and how much is man-made. Considering that they also found that CO2 rises came after our atmosphere warming up and not before, I'd like for you to give me a few examples of shut down points in favour of us not having much to do with the situation.
It's easy to say "Everyone KNOWS that your arguments won't hold up". But have the common decency to prove it instead of making blanket statements about our intelligence.
I am fucking fed up with this behaviour. Time and again, people had to lower their eyes in shame after they had made fun of others for their outrageously unpopular statements and then being proven wrong after all. How can any sane and halfway intelligent being continue doing that when none of us have any kind of insight into the bigger picture? Have you ever checked which scientists have proclaimed human induced climate change? Have you checked their work? Have you checked their numbers? Their conclusions? Have you checked whether their institutes are low on cash and just freaking needed the publicity?
Same goes for any opponents of human induced climate change, by the way. Same rules for all of us. The difference between you and me is that I don't call you stupid just because you have a different opinion than I have. All I call you is frickin' rude.
Re:The Energy of Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Roughly one in every four CO2 molecules in the atmosphere has been put there by humans since the start of the industrial revolution, most of it in the last 50yrs.
CO2 absorbs IR radiated from the Earth and converts it into kinetic energy, after a certain time it will remit the energy as a phioton and slow down again.
This means that in the stratosphere where molecules are widely spaced the CO2 has a high chance of either escaping to space or remmiting a photon that escapes to space. Models (Hansen late 80's) predicted this would cause a cooling stratosphere and indeed sattelite mesurements have confirmed the predictions.
However in the bottom 5Km of atmosphere, where our weather takes place, the molecules are packed tighter and the CO2 is more likely to lose the kinetic energy by transfering it in a random collision with another molecule.
It's common for psuedo-skeptics such as Bob Carter to conflate the startosphere measurements with ground measurements in order to dishonestly push their adgenda.
"I haven't heard that the temperature increase over the past few centuries is sufficient enough to cause dramatically more energetic weather. Natural variation is instead probably responsible for these extremes. Well that and the media's sudden interest in extreme weather phenomena."
The jury is still out on observations of more severe weather but fundementally more heat means more turbulence. I don't think anyone knows how significant that extra turbulence might turn out to be but natural variation on top of the AGW trend is almost certainly feeding the seemingly constant rewriting of record books.
Is there anyone... (Score:1, Insightful)
...in this thread who understands that this is not a product of global warming but that global warming does exist?
Sheeesh.
Re:c-c-c-c (Score:3, Insightful)
Well lets look at reality now shall we? See in the last 150 years we've had amazing improvements in the ability to see and record weather events. Now, where I'm from Ontario, even in the last 10 years if a tornado happened in the middle of nowhere Northern Ontario and no one was around to hear it, it didn't happen. These days it's hit or miss. In the southern half, meaning south of Ottawa, we get anywhere between 20-45 a year. Which is pretty average and has been average.
Nowe to continue on, if you don't let nature do it's thing out west. Like in California, BC and so forth and burn out the dead brush then you start getting these amazing wildfires which will do the job for you because there is so much dry tinder. See wild fires are a part of the ecosystem. Plants and animials there have developed around it. See how some of the pines even require fire to crack open their cones. Now, Spain and Greece. They've been pretty good at failing to maintain low-level growth, and killing off large trees. See where I'm going with this? And in places like the Sahara where they're now planting seed grasses and small trees. They're taking off. Desertfication is receeding.
Re:Is there anyone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it just amazing how wide your margins can get when you have good money riding on not exceeding them?