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

681–690 of 692 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#681

Post by BobbyJo »

defrost wrote: post #680
BobbyJo wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that the world economy is running so close to theoretical maximum efficiency that AI can't improve it?

More likely that any ideas AI comes up with will be "mid" and face the same implementation obstacles that already exist, coupled with the majority of energy burnt up by AI will go to frivolous ends, making personalised dog whistles, derivitive elevator muzak, et al.

So you're abandoning your earlier argument about us bumping up against the laws of physics and instead arguing that AI won't make the economy more efficient due to frivolous usage?

That's plainly false, as that's just not how markets work over the long term. We only see distortions like this iver the short term due to investor subsidies.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#682

Post by defrost »

BobbyJo wrote: post #681
defrost wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely that any ideas AI comes up with will be "mid" and face the same implementation obstacles that already exist, coupled with the majority of energy burnt up by AI will go to frivolous ends, making personalised dog whistles, derivitive elevator muzak, et al.

So you're abandoning your earlier argument about us bumping up against the laws of physics and instead arguing that AI won't make the economy more efficient due to frivolous usage? That's plainly false, as that's just not how markets work over the long term. We only see distortions like this iver the short term due to investor subsidies.

> So you're abandoning your earlier argument

Can you point me to my earlier argument (the time marks are individual comment URLs)

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#683

Post by BobbyJo »

defrost wrote: post #682
BobbyJo wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're abandoning your earlier argument about us bumping up against the laws of physics and instead arguing that AI won't make the economy more efficient due to frivolous usage? That's plainly false, as that's just not how markets work over the long term. We only see distortions like this iver the short term due to investor subsidies.

> So you're abandoning your earlier argument Can you point me to my earlier argument (the time marks are individual comment URLs)

Oh, you're someone else. Now I'm just confused why you responded to my question that was directed at someone else.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#684

Post by pests »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #678
wat10000 wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“It's orders of magnitude more expensive to desalinate sea water than it is to simply prevent fresh water from being needlessly wasted on operating water locks...” What is the point of this statement if desalination isn’t actually needed here?

I never claimed desalination (which is energetically expensive) is necessary, I claim both throttling of Panama Canal traffic and fresh water loss are unnecessary. Is saving shipping fuel or saving freshwater during a drought that is expected to worsen significantly "(un)necessary"? Is human prosperity "(un)necessary"? Why are you bending over backwards to defend wasting precious resources?

New commenter here, and I understand your arguments you've made in this thread, but it's like asking what is the waste of a waterfall? The math you're doing would say add up how much energy could have been extracted and compare it to equivalent generation in coal or similar. The water, even spent on the locks, goes to the ocean anyways.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#685

Post by DoctorOetker »

pests wrote: post #684
DoctorOetker wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed desalination (which is energetically expensive) is necessary, I claim both throttling of Panama Canal traffic and fresh water loss are unnecessary. Is saving shipping fuel or saving freshwater during a drought that is expected to worsen significantly "(un)necessary"? Is human prosperity "(un)necessary"? Why are you bending over backwards to defend wasting precious resources?

New commenter here, and I understand your arguments you've made in this thread, but it's like asking what is the waste of a waterfall? The math you're doing would say add up how much energy could have been extracted and compare it to equivalent generation in coal or similar. The water, even spent on the locks, goes to the ocean anyways.

It's not like the waste of a waterfall: the potential energy loss across a waterfall ignores the loss of freshwater.

Suppose you drink water from a river and piss in the river so the water ends up in the ocean, later someone diverts this river upstream straight to the ocean, would you really not care that the water no longer passes through your body?

Does the knowledge that the water has returned to the ocean quench your thirst?

The Panama Canal operators are throttling shipping capacity by about 10%.

May I inform your employer you are ready to swallow a 10% reduction in pay check?

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#686

Post by leonidasrup »

Timon3 wrote: post #637
noosphr wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Seriously, I'd love to know - why do you deliberately spread propaganda for the fossil industry, like you did here? I don't get it, the project was started by a Greens minister and continued by a non-green minister? The wall of text has nothing to do with anything.

Your claim was: > They had enough power to close down all the nuclear power plants in Germany. But the CDU were the ones who closed down almost all the nuclear power plants in Germany, and as I've shown the CDU are anything but environmentalists, so this is simply wrong. My "wall of text" is to prove that the CDU are not behaving in the interests of environmentalists, rather nobody here can believe how deeply they've…

As I already wrote, it was German Red-Green goverment in 2002 which put nuclear phase out in to law in 2002. CDU has always oscilated with positive and negative views on nuclear.

Germany had enough power to close down all nuclear power plants, because older coal power plants when taken offline have been carefully mothballed (preserved for later restart, when necessary).

In contrast the 2002 German nuclear law (deutsche Atomgesetz (AtG)) requires that nuclear power plants have to be started to be dismantled immidiately after shutting down. There are no technical reasons why nuclear power plant after shutting down, taking out nuclear fuel and decontamination (as is done regularly during maintanance) could not be preserved for 10, 20 or 50 year (you have to mostly periodicaly repair the roof, repair the paint and guard the buildings, e.g. it can be done without large costs).

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#687

Post by drawnwren »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #674
drawnwren wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has never had a meaningful reduction in per capita carbon emissions. Ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

What are you trying to say with this?

"steps to reduce emissions" is a platitude that sounds nice. they have never actually reduced emissions. they will surpass the US in per capita emissions at this rate within a decade.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#688

Post by defrost »

drawnwren wrote: post #687
AlecSchueler wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you trying to say with this?

"steps to reduce emissions" is a platitude that sounds nice. they have never actually reduced emissions. they will surpass the US in per capita emissions at this rate within a decade.

They have a plan and they are sinking much of their current fossil fuel use into the largest renewable energy system on the planet.

Compared to, say, rolling back windfarms and redirecting that money (almost a billion) into dodgy neighbours rolling coal ventures.

Your prefer the US approach then?

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#689

Post by lmz »

RugnirViking wrote: post #611
lmz wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The countries are competitive with each other, not in a father/son relationship. At least the father has a natural lifespan and the ill gotten riches would go to the son(s). Can we say the same thing about the riches of say, the USA? If China does nothing then they will inherit all of it? Or will the US just keep its fortune gained through whatever means, and just tell other up and coming countries to suck rocks and…

Do you really think that the reason the boys shouldn't do crime is because it's their father telling them this? Or because they will inherit money? Do you really believe what you are saying?

This is a tortured analogy. Yes it's even better if they don't do crime and yet inherit the money as that would allow them to claim they have clean hands, like the developed world is doing now. ("Colonialism? Massive resource extraction? That was a long time ago. But we're still keeping our riches and embargoing our tech from you. Don't try to do what we did.")

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#690

Post by [deleted] »

defrost wrote: post #688
drawnwren wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"steps to reduce emissions" is a platitude that sounds nice. they have never actually reduced emissions. they will surpass the US in per capita emissions at this rate within a decade.

They have a plan and they are sinking much of their current fossil fuel use into the largest renewable energy system on the planet. Compared to, say, rolling back windfarms and redirecting that money (almost a billion) into dodgy neighbours rolling coal ventures. Your prefer the US approach then?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN