Energy efficiency can come from the most unexpected sources. The Titan Supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the world’s most powerful supercomputer – and one of the most energy-efficient ones too – owing to its array of GPU processors found in video game consoles. Chinese builders are also urged to break from the conventional by increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. The Chinese government has set a target for 95% of new buildings to meet energy savings of 65% over 2005 figures. Read more

Energy efficient video game technology in Titan supercomputer

2 January 2013:

Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Titan Supercomputer – the world’s most powerful supercomputer – is operating with improved energy efficiency due in part to the same upgraded technology in your child’s video games.

“They do a lot of the same physics and on processors that are much more energy efficient than the ones we were using for scientific computation,” said Jeff Nichols, ORNL’s associate laboratory director for computing and computational sciences. “We took advantage of the gaming industry to give us 10 times more powerful processors and we only increased energy costs by half of what we were spending on specific systems today.”

Titan is able to perform more than 17 quadrillion calculations per second.

UT-Battelle manages ORNL for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov <science.energy.gov/>.

Provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Source: www.phys.org/

New Construction in China Must Be More Energy Efficient

By Energy Manager Today Staff (4 January 2013):

Chinese builders are becoming more interested in energy efficiency, and that will have two benefits: energy savings for buildings and a boon for thermal envelope manufacturers.

Based on market demand from both new buildings and retrofit projects, the demand for building thermal envelope materials from 2012 to 2015 will be 5.6 billion, according to Lux Research’s report “Go North: The Path to Performance-Driven Profits in China’s Construction Materials Market.”

Through modeling existing building stock, new construction rates, energy efficiency targets, temperature profiles, energy costs, green building momentum, regulatory enforcement and retrofit targets, Lux Research analysts derived the opportunities for different building thermal envelope solutions.

A key driver for more energy efficient buildings is Chinese government policy. According to the 12th Five Year Plan, China will require 95 percent of new buildings to meet a mandatory energy savings target of 65 percent over the 2005 figure. The requirement is issued by the central government and provincial and municipal governments and varies depending on the specific functions of buildings. The Chinese government also plans energy saving retrofit projects for at least 60 million square meters of commercial and municipal buildings.

Manufacturers of building thermal envelope products should focus on the climate of different regions, says Lux. Low-cost, low-performance materials will dominate the temperate south, but developers of high-performance materials need to focus on China’s cooler north, where these solutions save money on high heating/cooling needs.

Developers of phase-change materials, vacuum insulation panels, and low-emissivity insulating glass are poised for growth. Lux’s research finds the largest markets aren’t the obvious one. The big cities of Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing and Tianjin aren’t at the top of the list, as they have less floor area of buildings.

http://www.energymanagertoday.com

The role of forestry and agriculture has consistently been overlooked in the current approach to mitigate climate change, largely due to the lack of awareness of the impacts and importance of these sectors amongst the international community. To effectively incorporate them into the global climate change mitigation effort, local stakeholders with direct management of the resources have to be engaged due to their intimate connection to these resources. Read more

Agriculture and Forestry Key to Mitigating Climate Change

Deforestation and land use change account for 20-25 percent of emissions that cause global warming

By Kim Lewis for Voice of America (7 January 2013):

Forestry experts say it is time for a new approach in mitigating the causes of climate change.  And while the 2012 climate change conference in Doha, Qatar, brought no decisions regarding the important role agriculture and forestry play in reducing carbon emissions, some awareness was brought to the table regarding forests, and how forest conservation should be integrated into future climate talks.

While historically both agriculture and forestry have kept a low profile at climate change talks, the 2012 climate convention in Doha saw some attention being paid to the important role forests play in landscaping, biodiversity and food security.

Peter Holmgren, CIFOR director general, is already looking ahead to the planned 2015 climate agreement. In his view of the Doha talks, he said it is time to rethink approaches in agriculture and forestry so that the two green sectors play a more prominent role in future climate talks.

“When it comes to forestry, the attention has been high for the last five years.  I think this was the first time we saw a little bit of a decline in the agreement on forestry.  Agriculture was absent from the talks all together, as it appears,” stated Holmgren.

He said he observed that while no decisive action was taken regarding conservation of forestry and agriculture at the talks, he is optimistic that the two sectors will play a bigger role in climate change talks in the future, “I think it reflects mainly that the focus of the negotiations was to keep the negotiations alive, and that to some extent was successful.  But as a result of that, the focus on the substance of agriculture and forestry was not there.”

Holmgren acknowledges that in order to put forest conservation in the forefront, the international community must recognize the vital role forests play in combating climate change.

“Everybody recognizes that forests and forestry provides many benefits to rural populations all over the world.  The livelihoods are supported by many different products and services from the forests.  And if we can include also climate change actions into those livelihoods benefits, then we are doing well.”

Deforestation, the turning of forests into non-forest land use, continues to severely impact the livelihoods of those who depend on forests for survival. While deforestation uses the converted land for urban growth, wastelands, logging, and agriculture, it contributes to a significant reduction of biodiversity, as well as climate change. Holmgren noted,

“Deforestation is effectively the expansion of agriculture.  So what needs to happen is to work together between the agriculture and forestry sectors to find solutions at the landscape level.”

Scientists say this means that both agriculture and forests must be examined together in terms of the vital role both play in providing sustainable development and food security for billions of people.

“It’s important to include all aspects of forestry into the research, because there are so many different benefits that we have from forests.  Biodiversity represents a lot of these benefits because it serves local people in products from the forests.  It also makes sure that we conserve biodiversity for future generations,” explained Holmgren.

Scientists agree that the research should also include biodiversity and socio-economic research, not just the monitoring of forests.  In doing this, Holmgren said it is important to make sure the research is done at the local level.

“Some forestry issues need to be addressed at the national or even global level, such as the climate change action.  But most of the action needs to happen at the local level, because that’s where the stakeholders are.”

The stakeholders are the small-holder farmers and rural population that depend on services and products from forests.  Holmgren explained that these stakeholders must be included in future climate talks.

“I would like to see a concerted effort to join forces between the forestry and agriculture sectors, because I can see that moving towards the climate agreement in 2015, this could be a way to put those issues on the table for the negotiations.”

Holmgren emphasized that action must also be taken in order to bring the point home, at the negotiating table, of the importance of including agriculture and forestry in the climate talks. One such example is Forest Day.

“We already have a platform in the negotiation complex that’s called Forest Day.  We are now planning to join forces with the Agriculture Day and create what we call a Landscape Day, and that will be an extremely important forum to discuss these issues.”

Holmgren explained these types of activities are important because they involve the stakeholders, “the key for me is that the local stakeholders are aware of their options and, their opportunities for the future.  So we need more research to provide those options-–management opportunities so that the local stakeholders can manage the natural resources.  At the end of the day it is the billions of farmers and local stakeholders that will determine if we go in the right direction when it comes to forestry and agriculture.”

Holmgren added that the key to green growth in Africa and other areas of the world is to focus on agriculture and forestry because they are a very large portion of the economy.

Source: www.voanews.com

True, the issue of climate change may be a rather complex one, and the specific mechanisms behind it may seem esoteric to all but the dedicated specialists. It is certainly newsworthy, when it suits. But reporting climate change has become an art form in itself, with all the necessary elements of creativity and free expression. And some media have adopted a less than responsible approach, verging more towards science fiction, than science fact. Away from true journalism to distorted truths. When Media Matters looked at reporting of climate change in 2012, it found the biggest culprit of misrepresentation and falsification was Fox News. Here is the news! Read more

10 Dumbest Things Fox Said About Climate Change In 2012

By Shauna Theel for Media Matters for America (31 December 2012):

In contrast to official temperature records showing a consistent warming trend, Fox Business reporters have claimed that the “temperature basically hasn’t changed much since the ice age” and that it’s actually “getting colder.” Fox News figures have also denied the scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate change, claiming that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming” and suggesting that “Mars wobbles” or “wind farms” may be causing it instead. Those are just some of the 10 dumbest things Fox News, Fox Business and their websites said about climate change in 2012:

1. Fox Reporter: “The Temperature Basically Hasn’t Changed Much Since The Ice Age.” During the Ice Age, much of North America, northern Europe and southern South America were covered with ice sheets. Natural climate cycles led to the end of the Ice Age tens of thousands of years ago. In the last century, temperatures have increased dramatically as a result of our massive emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet Fox Business reporter Tracy Byrnes claimed in March that “the temperature basically hasn’t changed much since the Ice Age,” before confusing global warming with the depletion of the ozone layer:

2. During Record-Breaking Heat, Fox Anchor Claims “It’s Getting Colder.” During the third warmest summer on record in the U.S., David Asman, who hosts shows on both Fox News and Fox Business, claimed “it’s getting colder”:

3. Fox “Expert”: Carbon Dioxide “Literally Cannot Cause Global Warming.” Joe Bastardi is a meteorologist that is often presented as a climate change expert on Fox News, even though he has no climate science training. Bill O’Reilly has cited Bastardi as the reason that he is “skeptical” about global warming, but scientists have called Bastardi’s statements “completely wrong,” “simply ignorant,” and “utter nonsense.” In March, Bastardi attempted to “throw out 150 years of physics” by dismissing the greenhouse effect — the reason there is life on Earth — as impossible. Bastardi stated on Fox Business that carbon dioxide (CO2) “literally” — yes, literally — “cannot cause global warming” because it doesn’t “mix well in the atmosphere.” But physicist Richard Muller told Media Matters that CO2 is actually “completely mixed.”

4. Fox Reporter: “Mars Wobbles” May Be Causing Climate Change. Elizabeth MacDonald, a Fox Business reporter who often appears on Fox News, incorrectly said in November that “there’s no consensus on what’s causing climate change, and asked “is it solar flares? Is it the Mars wobbles? Is it the earth’s axis tilting in a different way? I mean, that’s the issue.” After being subject to mockery, she tried to walk back her comments saying she doesn’t “think Mars wobbles cause hurricanes,” but did not explain her previous comments.

5. Fox Website: “Wind Farms Cause Global Warming.” In April, a study found that nighttime temperatures in areas around Texas wind farms were higher than in areas without wind turbines. Fox Nation, a section of FoxNews.com, linked to a story about the study with a headline declaring that wind farms “cause global warming.” But the study’s authors called this coverage “misleading,” explaining that it is “[v]ery likely” that “wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

6. Instead Of Scientists, Fox Turns To Mark Levin And A Coal Miner To Say “CO’s What Make Plants Grow.” During an hour-long special on the “green agenda” hosted by anchor Bret Baier, Fox News did not interview a single scientist. Instead they turned to right-wing radio host Mark Levin, who denied that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated, saying: “Carbon dioxide is what we exhale. Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants.” Fox later aired video of coal miner Robert “Buz” Hilberry echoing this, saying: “I’m no scientist but CO’s what make plants grow and what make you breathe, so they’re trying to choke us all out by stopping the burning of coal.” At no point did Fox clarify that it’s the unusually high amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide that has scientists concerned, or acknowledge the scientific consensus:

7. Fox Contributor: There Are “Hundreds Of Thousands” Of Scientists “On Both Sides Debating” Global Warming. National Review Online’s Deroy Murdock, a Fox News contributor, argued that NASA shouldn’t explain the facts about global warming because the science is still up for debate, claiming “there are scientists on both sides — there are hundreds of thousands on both sides debating” the causes of global warming. But even climate change contrarians don’t claim to have that many scientists on their side. They often promote the Oregon Petition, which has been signed by less than 32,000 “scientists” who don’t believe there will be “catastrophic” global warming. The petition includes only 39 climatologists and defines as a “scientist” anyone who claims to have a bachelor’s degree in fields ranging from math to engineering. Credible surveys have found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving global warming and less than one percent of peer-reviewed climate articles over the last two decades have rejected manmade causes.

8. Fox Reporter: Global Warming Advocates “Never” Cite A “Consensus Of Scientists.” On Fox News, Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith said that the problem with global warming activists is that they always cite “one scientist, it’s never a collection of scientists, it’s never a consensus of scientists.” After Fox News contributor Adam Lashinksy corrected her, Smith responded, “Adam, just so you know, the consensus has not been met among scientists on this issue. Or that CO2 actually plays a part in this global warming phenomenon as they’ve come up with somehow.” In fact, survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, while those trying to downplay global warming often resort to citing a single scientist if any. But Smith thought that she had hit on a good point during that December 1 appearance, and repeated it on a later Fox News show, saying “still to this day, there is not a consensus among scientists. If you ever hear the President or his administration, they typically cite a scientist when they’re making a point, rather than a consensus of scientists.”

9. Fox Website: “Global Warming Means More Arctic Ice.” In October, the Associated Press reported that, contrary to conservative media misinformation, slight Antarctic sea ice growth is consistent with climate scientists’ projections for a warming planet. Fox Nation posted the story with the headline “AP: Global Warming Means More Arctic Ice.” In fact, Arctic sea ice had just experienced the lowest minimum extent ever observed, a key indicator of rapid climate change.

10. Fox Declares “Global Warming Over” Based On A Tabloid Report. In October, Fox & Friends featured on-screen text declaring “Global Warming Over” based on a report by the UK tabloid The Daily Mail. But the UK’s official Meteorological Office said that the article was “misleading” because it focused on a short period, obscuring that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

Source: www.mediamatters.org