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

Oceans hit highest temperature on record

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 693 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#131

Post by cmrdporcupine »

lbriner wrote: post #2

When I was younger, I remember thinking, "a few degrees, what difference does that make?" Then when I grew older I realised that in Climate science a few degrees is the difference between survival and annihilation. A few degrees warmer in the ocean and El Niño becomes an incredible problem for half the world. I am glad that I live far away from the effects but it is sad to think of people losing all kinds of things f…

> I am glad that I live far away from the effects but it is sad to think of people losing all kinds of things for the lack of respect of Mother Earth!

I thought this too, feeling a bit more smug living in southern Ontario, safer than my family in BC and Alberta next to raging forest fires and potential drought.

But seems we now get a few weeks of forest fire smoke every year even down here in lush green great lakes land.

And the number of tornadoes and ice storms seem to increase every year.

Plus watching the Children of Men style xenophobia and callous disregard for climate refugees set in all over the world.

Blech. I love my kids but I think my perspective would be much different and positive if I'd just remained childless.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#132

Post by rcpt »

jdiff wrote: post #128
ch4s3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data centers use no more than 1.5% of electricity globally[1], and a long LLM query uses only a little more than 5 minutes of general laptop use ~3x the energy of running an LED light for 5 minutes. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-energy-do-data-centers-a...

> ~3x the energy of running an LED light for 5 minutes. Why would this not be the energy of running an LED light for 15 minutes?

It's an unspoken rule in the data center debate that every metric is completely batshit.

Doesn't matter what side you're on, it's always "enough water to irrigate 27 soccer fields" or "as much energy as 1/5th of the average hamburger"

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#133

Post by osigurdson »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #95
osigurdson wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any credible source indicating that "billions will die"?

what I stated was "I wouldn't be surprised even billions die.", that implies that it's my understanding and opinion and I do not need to link a source for my own opinion.

If I stated that "I think everything will be completely fine", I would expect people to challenge me on that to provide some kind of evidence. Hyperbolic statements on both sides of the argument are not constructive.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#135

Post by agentultra »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #57
bix6 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just economics. That doesn’t excuse what the current admin has done in terms of prioritization.

That "just" is really doing a lot of heavy lifting. Economics is what makes this country work. If converting to renewables makes more money, that's what will happen and the people making the money will find a way to justify it politically.

In an ideal world where the market is perfect, maybe.

But in reality entrenched market players have access to political influence that lets them stay entrenched. They’ve spent a lot of money since the Industrial Revolution to make sure we need them.

It’s not a perfect free market. There’s no such thing. Politics has a huge influence in economics and vis versa. They’re intertwined.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#136

Post by vkou »

noosphr wrote: post #130
pstuart wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been aided by the fact that energy has been heavily politicized. Fossil fuels are 'murican and renewables are woke. It's horrifying.

It's funny that environmentalists would rather see the world burn than solve all emissions problems with nuclear. Climate change is Schroedingers extinction event. It's only bad when you can solve it with solar panels and wind. It's nothing to worry about when you can solve it with fission and eventually fusion.

> It's funny that environmentalists would rather see the world burn than solve all emissions problems with nuclear.

This criticism would hold more weight if environmentalists held a shred of power. They aren't the ones at the steering wheel.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#137

Post by convolvatron »

jgord wrote: post #125

Recent studies estimate climate warming is happening faster than it was, ballpark +0.3C per decade. As we are at or nearing +1.5C now, with global emissions at an all time high [ perhaps peaking soon ] theres a good chance we are headed toward +2.6C by ~2060. Keep in mind the CO2 stays up there for a long time, centuries, so when we get to net-zero its max-CO2 and therefore max-heat.

does it stop? the more co2 the more heat is retained. so the relation between co2 and temperature is an integral over time. were we suddenly to stop burning things how far does it go up before infrared emissions equilibrate with the larger thermal flux? that and the lower albedo and other knockoff effects may continue to make things worse even if we were to stop.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#139

Post by twothreeone »

jibcage wrote: post #51
twothreeone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean they're right, rising oceans will be a drop in the bucket for the majority of us. Unless we act together, human civilization will end through the combination of breakdown of global trade, mass migration due to heat and resource wars, and collapse of our food chain. Ocean levels are just one of the side effects that goes along with rising global temperatures. Beef production in the US is already down from 30 ye…

US beef production is actually slightly higher than 30 years ago. What has fallen is the cattle headcount (now the smallest since 1951) but heavier animals have kept total output up. The recent herd shrinkage owes more to drought economics and the normal boom and bust cycle of ranching than to cattle becoming unraisable.

Right, exactly that was what I meant. Thanks for clarifying. I remember being surprised by this when I heard it on NPR a few weeks ago.
Post reply on HN