Field measurements of neighborhood-scale air temperature impacts of data centers

> Have you seen pictures of Los Angeles from space? It's a grey speck. I grew up in the smog layer, let me tell you it was disgusting and I'm sure it gave me respiratory disease. But from space, the smog blowing off every day looks like a tiny little fart because the world is huge.

Alright then. So I suppose you think that was "a backyard issue... [and] it [was] politics to hate on [smog]," and so the expensive efforts to mitigate it, like requiring catalytic converters and NOx mitigation should be repealed? Or not enacted in the first place?

> I feel the same way about these data center arguments; it's a backyard issue at the moment. It's politics to hate on them, and that's cool, but the sky isn't falling. It's cringey to act like the sky is falling for any of these propaganda neurosis campaigns. Who is funding this particular propaganda campaign? It's not organic. In any case, I pass on this one.

I honestly just don't think you understand what's going on, what the issue is, so are just saying all kinds of foolish things. You should probably work on your empathy skills, and put aside your planet-sized skills of dismissal.

You also mentioned "propaganda campaigns," but think about it: investors are pouring literally trillions of dollars into AI. Who do you think is going to be running the "propaganda campaigns," the people with the trillions or their much poorer opponents?

And the opposition is totally organic, which is pretty easy to see. Why would common people want any of this? I mean, FFS: AI data centers are ugly, power hungry, often loud and polluting, don't employ many people, and provide a service literally marketed as a job destroyer. And then to add insult to injury, their builders attempt subvert the local democratic process with NDAs, etc.

No it’s not. Look up the definition of an order of magnitude.

I love how you're working through all this! There are indeed two sides to every coin.

> Alright then. So I suppose you think that was "a backyard issue... [and] it [was] politics to hate on [smog]," and so the expensive efforts to mitigate it, like requiring catalytic converters and NOx mitigation should be repealed? Or not enacted in the first place?

The gotcha here is that I must hate politics that address the destruction of the planet so i am self-destructive. But you seem reluctant to ascribe working brain cells to people you disagree with, so your gotcha is worded to get a dummy to think. I wonder who told you people you disagree with are fools. Maybe those people aren't your friends. Maybe they secretly hate you.

Let's jump to the end of the argument where there's common ground. Of course pollution is real, I called living in smog disgusting, didn't I?

Who has the power to deal with these huge negative externalities? Usually the government with regulation that hopefully doesn't create bigger downstream problems.

Catalytic converters: good, regulation on factory outputs: good. See how we can agree?

*But* political grifters love the fear pr0n, the power of panic. And so we also got the world ending climate emergency stuff. And that was an expensive grift for taxpayers and europeans never got to enjoy air conditioners, but thankfully it seems to be petering out now at least in the US. It is safe to unclench your butthole because the sky isn't falling, and it was never falling.

> empathy skills

Emotional arguments and trusting snakes who hate you are what got you to where you are in the first place mentally. Time to be critical OF EVERYBODY. What is their angle? Are they paid?

> You also mentioned "propaganda campaigns," but think about it: investors are pouring literally trillions of dollars into AI. Who do you think is going to be running the "propaganda campaigns," the people with the trillions or their opponents?

I love this! You are thinking rightly, but you need to complete your thoughts.

This place is CRAWLING with shills for the AI businesses. How do you think Anthropic grew from nothing to trillions so quickly? They have big line items on their financial statements for influence campaigns. It is an attack on us and IT IS WORKING SO WELL.

Elon bought Twitter to run continual AI influence campaigns and for his other businesses and to get a trove of decades of exclusive training data in tweets and DM's.

I didn't get shill mogged in this particular instance because I happened to be speaking in favor of AI data centers. If anything, i got a few shills backing me up, but they were downvoted for weak shillery.

You will probably dig in your heels, and feel i've said hurtful things. Being disagreed with IS hurtful in a way, it hurts to have your ideas picked on.

I just hope you can be more discerning and be more suspicious when panic is delivered into your feed trying to spin you up again for the thousandth time. Let your dopamine receptors finally burn out completely. ;)

It is probably better to just thermodynamically ballpark the whole thing. How much energy goes in? Some percentage of that is gonna need to be radiated out either directly as IR radiation or by pushing a heated medium out (water, air). Someone did the math on that in the construction of the data center.

It is completely understandable that it is in the interest of the public to enforce some limits on the resource use, radiation, etc on any building, be it a data center or not. And these limits ideally should take local, state-wide, national and global considerations into account.

But when datacenter purchases by Meta are buying pre-colorado compact water rights for the DCs, you can tell what you need to know on how the DC builders treat the short term water risk.