Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

climate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 349 posts

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#311

Post by sings »

y33t wrote: post #188
typewithrhythm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans cannot reliably determine the difference in one degree c, even though it's bigger... Fahrenheit is too fine grained, and has no interesting points relative to the things I interact with. I freeze an boil water often, however

The base units of the metric system are often not very ergonomic. Why is a meter so damn big? And why is a gram so damn small? I can barely detect a gram. And a meter is frickin huge, causing people to usually divide it into hundredths of a meter, which you can hardly picture in your mind unless you already know what it looks like, especially arbitrary counts of cm. Metric's only real advantage is that it shares the…

As a metric user, this is an interesting point that I haven’t heard before, and I think the other responses don’t really engage with it. Yes, familiarity means this isn’t much of a daily problem – you just use divisions of the unit that are most appropriate. But the size of the base units for volume, mass and length don’t really match up well from a human day-to-day perspective.

Wouldn’t it be nicer if a litre, a gram and a cubic metre of water were equal, rather than 1 cubic metre, 1000 litres, 1,000,000 grams?

Side note that in Europe drinking products are often labelled in centilitres whereas Australians use millilitres. I wonder whether this indicates some difference in the way the two groups think about volume, or maybe it is just the fallout of some other constraint, like translations limiting the space available.

Still, the ergonomics seem to be on the side of Metric, taking into account the ease of conversion between units when all are base ten.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#312

Post by myvoiceismypass »

Auracle wrote: post #206
treyd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane. I don't understand what could possibly be the justification there.

Seems pretty clear to me - Trump is trying to cut costs for our government. He sees we’re spending all that money on forecasting and data that everyone else uses for free, and gets paid for it. Therefore, that data is worth something and the government should get a piece of the pie. I don’t necessarily agree but it’s somewhat logical.

Why are government things supposed to be profitable now all of a sudden?

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#313

Post by energy123 »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #163
mempko wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And potentially organized human life collapses

Is that possible? Can you describe the chain of events that would lead to that? Seems vanishingly unlikely to me, on the face of it, but I admit I am not read up on all the possible doomsday scenarios.

The equator contains billions of people.

It's quite hot around there. Wet bulb temperatures often near the edge of survivability outdoors.

It's worse now with 1-1.5C warming. If we don't stop, and we get to 3-5C warming, this could lead to large scale migration to Europe in pursuit of liveable climate. And warming won't stop unless we stop emitting greenhouse gases.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#314

Post by physicles »

kulahan wrote: post #285
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why acknowledgment of climate change would lead to nuclear over solar/wind.

Because solar and wind are extremely inefficient and dangerous when compared with nuclear. Nuclear and enhanced geothermal are both closing in on their dream forms (fusion and supercritical fluids), and are already sufficient as they are. It’s not necessarily “over” them, it’s that it will get tons of attention because that level of power generation would take wayyyyy too long to build out and take wayyyy too much sp…

Gave you an upvote not because I necessarily agree, but to counter the downvotes.

I agree that it’s clear we need more nuclear, but could you explain why solar and wind are dangerous compared to nuclear? Did you mean that all the attention on solar and wind, which can’t be scaled fast enough and must be paired with grid storage, has screwed us when it comes to addressing climate change?

Also, calling solar and wind inefficient isn’t precise enough. By what metric are you judging them to be inefficient?

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#315

Post by AngryData »

anthk wrote: post #279
AngryData wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Celsius is just as arbitrary a choice as Fahrenheit. It brings nothing extra to the table. You might as well complain that tapered pipe threads are in US inches or that astronomers use AUs and light seconds rather than meters.

In Science, global standards matter. Such as Metric and Celsius.

Fahrenheit and Celsius are defined perfectly with one another so are as easy to convert as using a different number base though. And both were originally defined at arbitrary points making neither one better suited than the other at really anything.

If they used an absolute scale like Kelvin, then sure it would be an objectively better standard, but Celsius has been defined via the Kelvin scale for over 70 years now, the same as Fahrenheit.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#316

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

defrost wrote: post #186
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as just an attempt to rationalize fissile waste issues as "more of the same". Maybe you truly feel comfortable doing that, maybe you see it as something else. I, in contrast, view the development of fission-based nuclear mechanisms (whether for explosives or for power generation) as a distinct break with the past, and a point in human history where an entirely new problem was brought into being. And not j…

I spent a few years in exploration geophysics. You stated "[No one] has any truly authoritative knowledge on when (or if) fissile waste will become a problem". I informed you that fissile waste is already a big problem at multiple sites across the planet, several US sites and Russian sites more so than anywhere else, and has been a problem for > 50 years. You're welcome. > you comparison of envionmental radon issues…

"Problem" in this context did not mean "a challenging engineering issue to be solved by cleverness and skill and determination". It means "shit dying, ecosystems being destroyed, earth and air and water being polluted, bounds not under human control".

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#317

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Krssst wrote: post #166
tnecio wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The orders of magnitude are different here. Replacing something that becomes a huge problem within two hundred years with something that (potentially) becomes a problem in a few thousand years -- really is better than spending valuable time on developing an "ideal" solution

Nuclear waste is a local problem. They're solid not gaseous. GHGs are a worldwide problem. Years don't matter if climate change puts an end to human civilization.

Climate change will not end human civilization, unless by "human civilization" you mean the very specific configuration that habitation patterns, agriculture, national boundaries and numbers of living humans all have at this very moment.

Likely hundreds of millions to a few billion will die that need not have died, wars will be fought, relocation and migration will be of unprecedented scope and scale, there will be hunger and disease ... but "human civilization" will persist through all of that. Thats not a reason to celebrate, it's just a reason to describe the risks and outcomes accurately.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#318

Post by defrost »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #316
defrost wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a few years in exploration geophysics. You stated "[No one] has any truly authoritative knowledge on when (or if) fissile waste will become a problem". I informed you that fissile waste is already a big problem at multiple sites across the planet, several US sites and Russian sites more so than anywhere else, and has been a problem for > 50 years. You're welcome. > you comparison of envionmental radon issues…

"Problem" in this context did not mean "a challenging engineering issue to be solved by cleverness and skill and determination". It means "shit dying, ecosystems being destroyed, earth and air and water being polluted, bounds not under human control".

I've been a native english reader for six decades .. your subtextual meaning was not apparent in the comment as written.

Perhaps consider that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has any truly authoritative knowledge on what is "meant" by third party forum comments and we are all limited to what is clearly written.

If you are truly concerned by the fate of the earth should it become covered in vast tracts of radioactive waste from some yet to be determined mystery source, then perhaps ask yourself could it be worse than when the earth had numerous surface level natural fission reactors?

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#319

Post by cyberax »

tfourb wrote: post #286
cyberax wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The devil is in the details. You're looking at the nameplate capacity. However, for solar the actual capacity factor can be anywhere from 10-25% of that. So you're looking anywhere from ~25-70GW of the average capacity. Nuclear reactors can operate at 90-95% capacity factors. And the unsolved problem is storage. Right now, solar can partially replace natural gas and, to a lesser extent, coal.

Even considering the capacity factor solar and wind still grows by 60x compared to nuclear. And storage is no longer an „unsolved problem“. You could manage the current grid with current chemical battery technology, levelized cost of electricity of that solution is cheaper than nuclear. And foreseeable technical advances will improve that while no comparable development is on the horizon for nuclear. The real tricky…

> And storage is no longer an „unsolved problem“.

Yes, it is an unsolved problem. Even adding 8h backup battery puts solar on par with nuclear: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf (nuclear's capital costs are around $4000/kW).

And seasonal storage (enough energy to last for 2-3 weeks without sun/wind) does not even have a price tag, because it simply doesn't exist.

> And foreseeable technical advances will improve that while no comparable development is on the horizon for nuclear.

Nope. Renewables have comprehensively failed in providing a viable replacement for nuclear power. There is no reasonable pathway ahead with the current technologies for renewables to replace the reliable baseline generation.

It doesn't mean that solar/wind are useless, they work great in cases where the load can be shed, and in warm climates where electricity demand is not so critical.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#320

Post by dagss »

dwighttk wrote: post #283
dagss wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a metric user: This is about your lack of familiarity. E.g. can picture lumber expressed in cm or mm very easily. E.g., if you work with beams that are 48mm / 5 cm or 98mm / 10cm a lot then those sizes becomes second nature. Just as easy to picture as 2 inch, 4 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch etc that is in use in US. And saying that something is 200m away is exactly as intuitive as however many feet that is. A large met…

Ah but are 48x98s nowhere near 48mm and 98mms like our 2x4s?

48x98 is exactly that dimension (i..e after planing of the lumber). Well, +/- 1 mm of tolerance/shrinkage due to drying.

It goes by the name "two four" here as well informally due to long tradition (and yes, I once did wonder why 2-by-4 is smaller than 2 by 4 inches and looked it up), but you will not see it written anywhere, in writing it is always in mm after planing.

The oral words for lumber dimensions before planing is the only context as an adult I have met inches except in US.

Post reply on HN