Really ? STOP PRESS:Google is cooking the world ! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dkveuro · #1 01-11-2009, 04:42 PM

A certain Dr Alex Wissner-Gross has calculated that 'Google' searches produce 7 grams of carbon for each and every search.

Now I don't wish to contradict such a distinguished figure but I am skeptical about the argument.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/4217055/Two-Google-searches-produce-same-CO2-as-boiling-a-kettle.html

Is there anyone here who can calculate what weight the 200,000,000 searches per day produce using his calculations?

Being as 1 gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of carbon...it seems to be off somewhere to say Google is a 'mass carbon producer' with ourselves as co producers.

I tried to work out what this all meant but my head started to hurt.

Any mathematical experts out there want to chime in with the tons produced according to him and the other industries that burn fuel producing carbon for the sake of comparison ?

.

LUVMBDiesels · #2 01-11-2009, 04:56 PM

If this Dr is worrying about how much carbon a Google search makes, what about what his breathing makes? Maybe Wissner-Gross should kill himself and stop polluting!

"The average person takes 24,000 breaths a day, breathing in approximately 6g of carbon dioxide, but breathing out around 800g during the same time. Over a year, you personally will add a net 290kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, just by exhaling. Multiply that by a global population of 6.5 billion and it adds up to a criminal 1.88 gigatonnes."
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/reduce-our-carbon-footprint.html

dkveuro · #3 01-11-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

If this Dr is worrying about how much carbon a Google search makes, what about what his breathing makes? Maybe Wissner-Gross should kill himself and stop polluting!

"The average person takes 24,000 breaths a day, breathing in approximately 6g of carbon dioxide, but breathing out around 800g during the same time. Over a year, you personally will add a net 290kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, just by exhaling. Multiply that by a global population of 6.5 billion and it adds up to a criminal 1.88 gigatonnes."
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/reduce-our-carbon-footprint.html

Exactly...but I was in two minds to add my thoughts on the matter.
I did like this take on it though:

Perhaps the most carbon efficient solution would be to eliminate those members of the population taking the most breaths and therefore expelling the most carbon dioxide.

Intuitively, you might expect these to be the sorts of idle layabouts who wouldn’t know what a treadmill was if it hit them in the face. With their high resting heart rates and shallow, wheezing breaths, they must be the least environmentally sound.

But that’s not the case. Being as there is no obvious difference between the metabolic rates of the honed and toned, and the squashy and sluggish, we all burn about the same amount of carbon whilst resting. However, all that time that the super-fitties among us spend exercising, they’re guzzling extra oxygen and belching out tonnes of CO2.

We have two gyms/fitness centers in town...perhaps we should shut them down as Gross Polluters.

.

MTI · #4 01-11-2009, 05:14 PM

Imagine the carbon footprint of online porn!

Strife · #5 01-11-2009, 05:18 PM

This kind of thing really pisses me off, obviously someone with too much time on their hands and in desperate need of actual work. Look at how much technology like this SAVES in terms of logistics - finding an an address, where to get something instead of driving all over the place, etc. Look at the computers that simulate truck/delivery logistics, etc. Look at all the travels and miles avoided with communication. Where's the "offset" in that?

The Communist Chinese did have a few good ideas, one of which was "Reeducation camps" - I'd send this jerk to one, where he could work in a factory for a living.

dkveuro · #6 01-11-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strife

This kind of thing really pisses me off, obviously someone with too much time on their hands and in desperate need of actual work. Look at how much technology like this SAVES in terms of logistics - finding an an address, where to get something instead of driving all over the place, etc. Look at the computers that simulate truck/delivery logistics, etc. Look at all the travels and miles avoided with communication. Where's the "offset" in that?

The Communist Chinese did have a few good ideas, one of which was "Reeducation camps" - I'd send this jerk to one, where he could work in a factory for a living.

Do ya think it's okay to 'copy and paste' this post to his web site?
Here's his companies web page :http://www.co2stats.com/about.php

I'm definitely with you on your thoughts about how much IT used in the work place saves more than it burns.
.

Fulcrum525 · #7 01-11-2009, 05:46 PM

I wonder how much carbon was produced in the making, packaging and delivery of the calculator he used to come up with this...

jt20 · #8 01-12-2009, 01:04 AM

all industry creates waste. Just b/c Google is Ginormous makes that number grotesque.

If anything.. think of all the energy Google is SAVING the world....

dkveuro · #9 01-12-2009, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt20

all industry creates waste. Just b/c Google is Ginormous makes that number grotesque.

If anything.. think of all the energy Google is SAVING the world....

See...I knew you'd all come up with a good argument. I just sent an email to his web business about all this. I'll post it here if he responds.

jt20 · #10 01-12-2009, 01:18 AM

.. the maps alone have saved thousands of barrels of potentially wasted fuel for whimsical excursions to Craigslist 'free' ads.

I won't even get into the unprecedented expediency with which employees of large business can now 'network' 8-5p without leaving the cubicle.

dkveuro · #11 01-12-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt20

.. the maps alone have saved thousands of barrels of potentially wasted fuel for whimsical excursions to Craigslist 'free' ads.

I won't even get into the unprecedented expediency with which employees of large business can now 'network' 8-5p without leaving the cubicle.

This is all reminiscent of the political augment about cost cutting.

EG: A department budget of 1.5 billion dollars is increased to 2 billion dollars for the next fiscal year, but is later dropped to 1.75 billion dollars...the opposition party will now say the program has been cut by 0.25 billion dollars, when in fact the department has 0.25 billion dollars more than it's usual budget..

.

#12 01-12-2009, 02:22 AM

This would be important information if carbon output actually meant anything.

cmac2012 · #13 01-12-2009, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

If this Dr is worrying about how much carbon a Google search makes, what about what his breathing makes? Maybe Wissner-Gross should kill himself and stop polluting!

"The average person takes 24,000 breaths a day, breathing in approximately 6g of carbon dioxide, but breathing out around 800g during the same time. Over a year, you personally will add a net 290kg of CO2 to the atmosphere, just by exhaling. Multiply that by a global population of 6.5 billion and it adds up to a criminal 1.88 gigatonnes."
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/reduce-our-carbon-footprint.html

Please. How many tons of coal do you eat in order to breath out that CO2?

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that huge trains of coal are on the move as we speak, in part so fools like us can spend major time online? When the next earthen dam breaks and various unlucky souls (standing in the way of progress, of course) get their cherished homesteads covered in 6 feet of stinky goo, we can take solace in the fact that some of that ash was produced while doing utterly productive work, that is, the downloading of porn from the web.

cmac2012 · #14 01-12-2009, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

This would be important information if carbon output actually meant anything.

Cluelessness runs amok.

It is beyond doubt that increased CO2 in the atmosphere means CO2 absorption in the oceans, which leads to carbolic acid formation. This is already a serious problem with no end in sight. Seafood production is going to tank hard one of these days (the eastern cod fishery collapse is only a portend).

Oh but golly, here I am being a bummer. Tell you what, get in your Dodge Viper and lay down some rubber and just forget all about Nervous Norberts like me.

#15 01-12-2009, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It is beyond doubt that increased CO2 in the atmosphere means CO2 absorption in the oceans

No duh. The only problem is that process takes a very long time, much longer than fear mongers pushing this MMGW/MMIA cr@p would have their sheep believe.