Perhaps if there was a lot less asphalt and concrete and more shade trees and grass, it might be a bit cooler and more comfortable?
Yah that would help somewhat.
But here’s the problem. Carbon Dioxide is like three springly balls stuck together when most other molecules in the air have two springy balls stuck together.
The more springy balls are in the air, the more they can absorb the wiggles from sunlight, and then even when the sun isn’t shining them springs are still wiggling, releasing that wiggle into other molecules and objects slowly, at a rate much higher than if it were more nitrogen or oxygen. Our biggest problem here is one as simple as slinky-physics. We have too many springy balls wiggling in the sky, wiggling too hard and making everything wiggle more.
Does this mean that the global warming potential of gaseous polyethylene (plastic) is something stupidly high? Even Methane (4 springy balls radiating from 1 bigger ball) has a way higher (28:1) global warming potential than Carbon Dioxide.
I haven’t read about gaseous forms of plastics in the air specifically, so it’s probably not as much of a major problem as the larger greenhouse gasses, like yes, chemicals that have many more “springy balls” like Methane that are being released as the climate warms, increasing the rate at which the globe heats. The permafrost and arctic ice has massive amounts of trapped methane that is currently being released in large explosions turning areas of the arctic circle into moonscapes of craters.
The way you were able to put it so simply makes me really wish that explanation was correct, but unfortunately it is not.
It’s more along the lines of:
- All things shine away their hot, as long as they are at least a little bit hot.
- You know the sun shines, but actually the earth shines too.
- Actually, you shine too. (That’s why you can be seen on an infrared camera.)
- The hotter a thing is, the harder it shines.
- The sun is really hot so it shines really hard.
- The earth is much less hot, and shines way, way less.
- The earth gets more hot from catching the shine from the sun, and less hot from shining itself.
- When the hot coming in from the sunshine is the same as the hot going out from the earthshine, the earth says the same hot.
- When the hot coming in from the sunshine is more than the hot going out from the earthshine, the earth gets more hot.
- And as the earth gets more hot, its earthshine becomes harder, until it’s the same as the sunshine again.
- For the earthshine to take the hot away from the earth, it has to actually get to space.
- Otherwise it’s like the earth shines on its own air, and the hot remains basically on (or around) the earth.
- CO2 stops some parts of the earthshine from reaching space.
- This part of the earthshine, when it starts from the ground, basically never gets to space.
- It can only get to space from really high up, where there is not so much CO2 in the way.
- But really high up is also colder, so the earthshine is less (because hotter things shine harder).
- The more CO2 there is, the higher up we have to go, the colder it is there, the weaker that part of the earthshine is.
- And when the earthshine gets weaker, the actual earth has to be hotter to shine out as much hot as is coming in from the sunshine. Which is why CO2 makes the earth more hot.
I try to explain to people in simplified ways, it’s pure pedantry at best or totally confusing at worst to the average person if the heat that CO2 is storing is coming from the sun directly, or the heat being reflected back into space, either way the mechanical idea is the same, that CO2 stores energy.
Not really. CO2 is effectively a thermal blanket. It traps your radiant heat. The environmental heat still affects you, additively.
The only real difference is that people also generate their own heat instead of just storing it. But you could say a thermal blanket on a snake and have the same effect.Not really.
Yes really.
You’re right, it’s a thermal blanket but it also absorbs and holds more heat energy more efficiently than other molecules because infrared radiation can actually be absorbed by CO2, this isn’t a fringe interpretation, but I do get that there are alternative interpretations of the processes. I just don’t care to try to explain the nuance and details to average laypersons.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-carbon-dioxide-capture-more-heat-than-oxygen
I was saying that it’s not really confusing… And then used the thermal blanket analogy to try and give an example.
How do I know this isn’t that confusing to the average person? I teach it to high schoolers in environmental systems. They get the hang of it pretty easily if you just give them a decent example with a visual. Unless high schoolers aren’t average people anymore…
That’s the point, CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference). What it does is blocks the energy from leaving (until you reach a high altitude).
CO2 doesn’t store energy (well, it does a little, but not so much that it makes any difference).
Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
I understand there’s many dimensions and factors involved in the entire process, but it’s not a wrong interpretation to say it stores more energy, even if it’s just borrowing it for a moment. It acts like both a heat sink and a thermal blanket. While I’m not a climatologist, I have a pretty good grasp of physics so I’m guessing we’re just talking about pedantic or technical differences in description of the process… something that again, average layperson does NOT need to hear about, people can barely understand scientific concepts as it is.
The slinky model makes good sense and it’s not wrong, it was described to me BY a scientist in RL, so I will keep using it.
- All things shine away their hot, as long as they are at least a little bit hot.
So, we cull the herd in large cities and thereby reduce the CO2 and cool the local area?
The problem is the the concrete and asphalt act as a heat sink. And it holds the heat rather than letting it dissipate in a reasonable manor, thus encouraging those springy balls to play rubby rubby for longer than they should in any one particular localized area. Let alone have some of them soaked up by the pretty green scenery.
So you’re partially on the right track, concrete is one of the biggest problems we have with global warming, but it’s not the slabs of hardened concrete that are the problem, yes they get hot and reflect heat upwards so cities feel hotter, but that’s not causing the whole climate to change as much as the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacture and setting of concrete, which produces more of those springy balls than even airplane emissions annually.
The problem is the carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) far more than anything we do with structures and surfaces on the ground. If you were to take away every road and parking lot, it would make cities feel a little better, but the globe would still be on a runaway temperature increase. Even the idea of planting vast amounts of trees is likely not nearly enough. We had our window to act, it slipped by.
you can say tits online
The various platforms with their various advertiser-friendly stances have all but maimed the english language. Had someone I know talking about a death in their family and they legit said “unalive” once without realizing it.
I know people who go by nicknames in some places because their name is apparently censored.
I think a lot about Nassa being censored to N***a in some game lol.
But “you can’t see tits on the radio”
Depends. I just asked my wife to put her tits on our radio, and she was nice enough to do so, but now she’s wondering what the hell I’m looking at on the internet, but I CAN see tits on the radio.
I appreciate the play on words. I was referencing a song, but now I can only see someone (literally) resting their tits on a radio… and it’s a pretty funny image lol
Fortunately my wife is a good sport about these kind of things. She’s used to my odd requests after all this time.
I can’t see the image. My instance must be broken.
You cant see fucking anything on the radio me thinks
You can’t, many social media now has OCR that read text from image and if it discovers no no words, it’ll censor the post
Ahh yes, you can’t ever use swear words and eurasia has always been at war with eastasia.
tots online
Dammit! It doesn’t work. They lied to me.
And if you are going to censor it don’t censor one letter with a line that looks like the letter.
Momma says you can’t
That’s it momma and I are going for a long train ride
Momma says trains are the devul
Police!
1 image of a girl with 5 tits
This comment isn’t about the genocide in Palestine. You’re complicit in the system and endorsing genocide.
Fuck off. This is irrelevant and unnecessary.
This dude is an asshole who endorses vandalizing public libraries if it supports his political narrative. If he’s in favor of people shouting their opinion where it isn’t wanted, them I’m sure he’ll be in favor of my comment.
Those are Great
One is blue
A tits a tit. I don’t care what color they are, big or smole.
I love them all.
It’s a nice set of peckers.
That’s 7 tits.
This guy counts
Username checks out.
1 AI search uses the equivalent of 10 google searches…
Just imagine how much power you’re using up browsing the web lol.
AI is not making or breaking power grids, water sources, or any other bullshit alarmist prop you’re peddling like AI isn’t being used all over from image generation, checking your shitty grammar, or saving us all time from writing bullshit proper emails every day.
LLMs are 5 tits of awesome that I’ll be suckling on every chance I get.
You sound very angry and defensive. And you will continue to do so after evidence shows that AI has had a negative impact on the environment. On the bright side, the end of humanity will mean that people being angry and defensive won’t exist either, which will be nice.
AI has a negative impact on the environment today (because of energy use) but it could also result in breakthroughs in battery and power generation technology that enable us to overcome our energy problems. It’s already having a huge impact with things like medicine and was a key component in recent advancements in fusion reactor design (which would be the thing that saves us from our energy problems).
It’s not all LLM and image generation.
but it could also
If the last 20 years has taught us anything, I think it should be to hold back on assuming that technology makes the world better without significant drawbacks.
The environmental impact is interesting, if an AI search being as environmentally impactful as 10 Google searches is true.
I don’t know about you, but it often takes a number of Google searches for me to find the right information, whereas with AI and Google combined I usually get the info I need in 1/2 Google searches.
That means that, based on my personal experience, AI is probably more environmentally efficient at getting me the correct info than google search alone.
The ai results from Google I have been getting are less helpful than two specific searches. It could be because of how we search for things and it is definitely getting messed with because of seo weighting and ai targeting those tools, so I think a better option would be to teach people how to actually use the search engines properly instead of just sitting back and letting ais pick up slack.
My scenario is that I use chatgpt to get context and terminology in the area I’m researching.
I then know how to do more specific Google searches (only 1/2).
So effectively 11-12 searches vs 2.
I guess it adds up to 12 searches worth of environmental impact with chatgpt+Google (10 searches worth from chatgpt, 2 from Google)
When I use Google alone it’s often the same as that if not more. Sometimes it’s less if I already know the subject matter, but in those scenarios I would usually give just Google a go first anyway.
Basically chatgpt often either gives me the answer or a much better starting place for what to Google.
I don’t understand the chatgpt bit still. When you say you need more context on the subject matter, you could search for the wiki or a forum and get the same information chatgpt is pulling without the impact.
Try using the duckduckgo search engine. I switched recently and the search results are way better than Google now. I get what I’m looking for first try more often than not.
I have the opposite issue with DDG and it’s been my default search engine for a year now. I frequently have to try bing or Google or cheat and just use reddit for specific info just like I did with Google.
DDG is terrible at indexing certain info though and really only hits some of the biggest sites.
Trying to vaguely search for stuff is an absolute crapshoot on DDG.
DDG is bing though, is it not?
That’s interesting, I’ve been having way better luck digging around on ddg. Google just seems to serve up ads when I’m trying to research a company or something and won’t give me what I’m looking for.
Maybe its the types of things I search for though. It’s really hard to sayI think a large part of it is whether you know what you’re searching for already. If you have a good idea of what it is already then you can generally find it. If you’re already good at using search terms or syntax it’s always helpful but it was the same for Google.
Simply put though Google just scrapes waaaaaaay more data so it’s going to have more to index from.
Either way it’s just one tool. Just like I’m using Bing for porn over either lol.
https://duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/syntax/
Angry and defensive? Sounds like they are saying AI is ten times less efficient than what we’ve already built but they are fine with that because of the convenience the new tool offers them. They seem like they are attempting humor more than expressing anger to me.
They seem like they are attempting humor
Ha, yes, “bullshit alarmist prop” truly is a very funny phrase!
That does not sound angry in the slightest.
How about instead of strawmanning their emotional state, why don’t you be a better person?
Agreed, there is no sound, because this medium is purely text-based, so we have limited information. This is why saying things like “be a better person” can come off as silly.
Yep, I’m familiar with it. More from previous comments since these disingenuous memes get pedaled here regularly. People love to spout stats about AI in data centers that aren’t just used for AI without having any sense of how much CO2 is produced from really really common stuff lol. Let alone it being contingent on being run in non-renewable powered areas.
1 AI search = 10 google searches. https://www.snexplores.org/article/green-artificial-intelligence-less-energy-ai-climate
How about watching TikTok? 30 minutes of video daily = 28kg of carbon a year. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/social-media-emissions-carbon-footprint/ or https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/energy/features/social-carbon-footprint-calculator/ or https://yoast.com/carbon-footprint-of-website/
Oh no 1/5 a city’s water! They use 770,000 gallons a day… So it uses 154,000 gallons of water for an entire piece of critical infrastructure that keeps the internet running. For the entire data center lol.
https://www.newsweek.com/why-ai-so-thirsty-data-centers-use-massive-amounts-water-1882374
A real common citation is how much carbon it takes to initially train these too. 500 tons of carbon dioxide… That’s the only 33/334,000,000 Americans worth of CO2 for the year lol.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-ton-carbon-dioxide
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ais-climate-impact-goes-beyond-its-emissions/
Large Language Model searches are distinct from text-to-image generative “AI” image processing. Generative image AI uses more energy.
Also Google searches are AI searches now.
How long would anyone even live at 79 degrees though?
if they’re american: until they’re 70, if they’re not american: no
Hey they could also be Liberian
Like that works in a Liberi?
I don’t get yer joke.
70c is 158f, steak is well done at that temp.
I’m not a food scientist, but I thought 165 was safe temps for meat.
165 for birds and wild game, 145 for beef and pork.
Assuming °F, you can survive that indefinitely as long as you wear light clothing, you’re not in direct sunlight, you don’t have a medical condition that affects things, and it’s not too humid.
While doing normal work or while at rest? Real big difference there.
While doing anything… 70F is pretty much perfect temp for most people. You’ll cool down fairly quickly after any heavy activity and will be safe during said activity unless you’re in direct sun, not drinking, and not taking breaks, but all that is true in nearly any temp.
70F is roughly 20C
Cool, but that’s 70 and not 79. Sure it’s only a few degrees swing but that still matters. We’re also looking at water shortages in a good number of places so counting on that being a ready supply is not necessarily true.
65 is a real nice temperature to survive at too though a little on the cooler side but it’s not what we were talking about.
79 is still pretty nice. Depending of the humidity, you might not even need AC, just fans
Cool, that’s still not answering the question. What level of work can a body do under standard conditions at 79 F, without overheating? That changes with humidity so at break points of 40, 60, and 80% how does that affect the body? What you think feels nice is not what I was asking.
Have you… not been outside before? 79 isn’t very hot. Shocking fact: A/C was invented in the 20th century. Humans and summers were invented way, way before that. Do you think farmers just spontaneously combusted every summer before the advent of A/C? I know many farmers that don’t have A/C to this day, and they work sun up to sun down all summer long with no problems.
79 degrees would barely be considered hot in large swaths of the world. You can live and work in relative comfort at 79 degrees. It’s pretty absurd to me that you even need to ask this question. People run 135 mile ultramarathons in Death Valley where temperatures get up to 130 degrees.
Not everyone sits inside an air conditioned cube on a computer or console all day.
Now I’m wondering how you draw a girl with 5 text-to-speech (tts) programs.
ASCII
All I see are dwarves in a fortress, how about you?
draw a Hatsune Miku
Data centers with AI won’t be in cities.
Hosting will be where it’s cheap, and that’s not in Phoenix or Vegas, except those things that must be near-line. Deep thought shit will be in rural Oregon or Virginia, where juice more plentiful and trouble is not.
Sooooo, false equivalence.
Texas power grid is a special case though.
It’s the same issue with all power grids, the one in the city isn’t separate from the one in rural locations, hell over here the longest main line is over 1000km long, that’s a whole lot of locations getting their electricity from the same place
Do your goalposts have wheels?
The bulk of datacenters in Virginia are not in a rural area at all. The Northern Virginia area is the datacenter capital of the world, and they are all in urban/suburban areas. Check it out for yourself.
Yeah, there’s a bunch of DCs in Vegas.
Gee almost as if capitalism is the actual underlying issue.
Free market economics are going to slurp any extra watt as long as it’s capable of making a modicum of profit, unless it is just told “no”. The private sector is going to have to pay far more for their power, or else we’ll never reach NET zero emissions.
There’s no free market. Free market would mean no copyright, no patents, no brand protection. With real free market (provided you have endless energy from Satan knows where to support that state of things) we’d have noname small to medium businesses coming and going, bigger corporations existing for very complex supply chains and\or some advantageous trade secrets.
That would potentially cause stagnation in some long perspective, but fix the current situation.
Are you suggesting we harvest portals to hell for unlimited free energy? Genius!
Well, there is a joke about Chernobyl station fulfilling the 5-year plan for energy output in 5 seconds.
I meant that to protect that free market from various people trying to make it less free in their favor you’d need that energy. Which is why it’ll never reach that state.
And removing those very important limitations I named is very hard, even unrealistic maybe, but that doesn’t mean that it’s adequate to pretend that a market including them is free. They change everything.
I was referencing Doom, where free energy was one of the excuses for the hell portals.
“bUt ThInK aBoUt ThE eCoNoMy!!”
- Everytime, anyone every mentions any of the many unfair advantages that businesses are getting.
Just replace “economy” with “rich peoples money” to translate.
Perhaps people would give a shit about the economy if we could afford to own a house?
The really juicy bit is the hypocrisy of asking common people to refrain from consuming.
“Fuck you plebe” would at least have the positive of being honest.
That’s history. The ones with the means hoard anything of value while blaming the commons for their problems. Doesn’t matter if it’s the Irish Potato Famine or telling us global warming is our fault because we didn’t buy enough greenwashed shit to fix it.
The Irish famine was more of a result of imperial policy. It’s about genocidal states, not capitalism. I mean, yes, most of Ireland was owned by landlords residing elsewhere, and “protection” of their rights was one of the reasons, but there were also things quite obviously showing the intent, like widespread destruction of church records and local history.
It can both be about profit and genocide. They can exist at the same time. IOW, genocide can be profitable.
There really was a motive, if you wish, to use the land freed by expelled (or dead) tenants for something else.
I just don’t like blaming things on markets and profit motives and capitalism in general, because “tit for tat” in human interactions is not something you can just replace ideologically. It’s in our nature. The sane approach is to make it work in less catastrophic ways, like with sports and video games and martial arts and adult entertainment.
I think profit and power, or the lack thereof, can be the root of a lot of these awful human traits. It can just be straight up greed driven by a few looking to gain power and/or money that push an agenda of [insert tried and true bogeymen here like xenophobia, religion, racism, etc.] to create motives and instabity to trigger the wars. It could be genuine problems like economic issues or severe agricultural deficiency, via real misfortune or more likely due to greed, corruption, and mismanagement by the country’s leadership. Even religion can be the rationalization, a tit-for-tat, but nonetheless the end result is to take that the enemy has. It doesn’t have to be formalized markets or capitalism.
Don’t censor the word tits ya fucking prude!
I didn’t want to break the NSFW rules… in case it did.
Honestly censoring it like this just calls more attention to it. Had it not been censored I’d have just read the word and moved on. Had it been censored but using the same colour as the background I’d have read it, spent some time thinking “I hate this trend of censoring benign uses of language to bypass big social media companies’ filters, but I guess it’s necessary” (because I’d have assumed you grabbed this from a Twitter or Facebook post).
But censoring with a big red squiggle, the first thing I read was tits. All the downsides of the subtle censoring, but then it also gets seen over and over again because it visually stands out so much.
Not a mod here, but I don’t see how written tits could be a problem. Hell, artsy tits should probably be fine too. Sexual tits are, I’m pretty sure, the actual line.
Unless it’s actually a pair of them then no, and if some mod says otherwise then I don’t want to use their children’s internet
It’s not a pair, didn’t you read, it’s five of them!
We’ll make our own internet…and we’ll bring back the blackjack and hookers.
Thanks for being so cool and letting tit enthusiasts have a place to be themselves.
Censor normal words and make people wonder what they even are or if they’re bad now.
*ay.
This works great with religious songs and bleeping.
Like this?
█████ ██ █ ████ Everything ███ █████ is ████ ██ ████ fine ████ ███ █ █████ love. █████ █████ ███ your ████ ████ government
TIL I’m in a abusive relationship with my government.
Better late than never.
i tried tapping those boxes way too many times to see the text behind them…
C**tainly
The fuck you just say to me?
Cuntainly
Kinda wish the people I rent from would do this. They keep theirs at like 65 and I’ve been freezing my nuts off in their basement all summer. It’s their house and they deserve to be comfortable in it but damn. It’s a good excuse to keep active I guess.
I, for one, welcome our hot, five-titty future
I’ve got solar panels and AC. I’m keeping the house at meat locker freezing while staying within the solar panel production. Might as well use the power when it’s there.
Some people will complain about using AC in general. They can sweat all they want - I’m keeping cool.
That’s ok as long as your solar panels also provide all your needs so you don’t have to put load on the grid that could be put on your solar setup otherwise (if you’re in a sector that’s currently under alert).
How big is your solar panel set up? I’ve been thinking of getting one of those solar generators, the smaller ones, and just using as much a/c as I can power with that. It probably wouldn’t last too long, right? I’d need a bigger set up?
You’d be surprised. A little window rattler AC could be powered by such a setup - ie I have a 1.6kw cooling A/C with an input rating of 490W, I’ve measured it to be around that. That will cool a bedroom somewhat. The issue will be the surge power when the compressor kicks in, so maybe add 50%.
We’ve got nine panels on the south facing roof. Right now, reasonably sunny day, they produce about 3.6 -3.7 Kw. That amply covers the power consumption of one of the two LG aircons we have. Those take about 2.5 kW. We usually just run one, depending on outside temp.
I’m not really familiar with solar generators in general, but that feels like you’d need a pretty beefy one to keep an AC powered.
Can’t sell your excess power to the grid?
Here in the Netherlands, the panels are wired into the grid so you’re always delivering back and not using that power directly. What happens is, they basically deduct the power generated from the power you’ve used. This crediting system will eventually disappear, as too many people are feeding back solar power.
For all intents and purposes, as long as we generate more than we use, we’re paying nothing except grid charges and taxes. So if you’ve got a low energy use day and plenty of solar, there’s really no reason not to run an AC (or a washer/dryer, etc)
They’re making that increasingly difficult. Basically, as more and more people get solar it becomes economically impossible to maintain the grid with millions of people being paid to connect to it.
The result is a higher and higher percentage of your power bill not be for “use” but for some other bullshit.
Because of the crazy power rate spikes during one of the Texas freezes, my power bill gets like a bunch added to it as a recovery fee for like the next 15 years. Then there’s the connection fee, maintenance fee, etc. My bill is like $300-400 a month before the first milliwatt is calculated, which makes solar less-viable. I’m paying a huge power bill no matter what (illegal to disconnect from the grid entirely), so payments towards a $50,000 solar setup would just make it more expensive.
I might save 20-40 bucks on my electric bill, but the extra $250 in payments for solar would kill that.
Yeah that’s been an anticipated problem, since home solar is essentially a lost customer for the utility, but infrastructure maintenance costs don’t change. Honestly the power grid shouldn’t be a commercial enterprise, even if it’s under shit tons of regulation. It’s so absurdly critical to society we should have nationalized the power companies a long time ago.
Kind of like our railroads? Or the internet?
Yeah, if it’s a problem that our power grid is having distributed green energy connected all over the place, we need to make the damn utilities change.
Yeah… Right now California residents are paying massively inflated rates because the utility board decided that PG&E, a company that is literally a convicted killer, can pass the cost of the fines on to customers.
ngl, this is my lifelong goal. Have a house and being able to install and own green technology. Too bad that’s mostly out of reach for anyone born in the 90’s.
If everyone had solar panels and thought like you, we’d still have globe warming
Energy is heat. There’s no such thing as cold, just lack of heat.
Trapping sun rays then releasing hot air warms the planet. That’s what your system is doing. Removing heat from your house and putting it outside while your electric motor throws out extra heat.
It just doesn’t have the air pollution that burning coal or gas does.
I am, in fact, quite aware of how air conditioners work :D A lot of devices work like this; it’s why a refrigerator and freezer generate heat. And why things like a slushy machine are real power hogs. Basically, anything that gets things cool will generate heat elsewhere.
Thing is, a refrigerator and freezer are very much needed in daily life. An air conditioner thankfully isn’t - yet. But on days where we have 25+ celsius, the aircon is the difference between being sweaty, irritable, unproductive and with poor sleep or… perfectly comfortable. So, we choose to not be miserable. It keeps me sane during heatwaves.
But yes, absolutely nobody should own one. And I highly encourage everybody else not to get one. I’m keeping mine though.
That light was already going to turn into heat. That’s where basically everything but nuclear power came from.
Unless you have actual, credible researched math on the climate impact we’re all going to ignore you.
In total approximately 70% of incoming radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface while around 30% is reflected back to space and does not heat the surface. The Earth radiates energy at wavelengths much longer than the Sun because it is colder
https://wmo.int/suns-impact-earth#:~:text=In total approximately 70%25 of,Sun because it is colder.
No, the energy captured by solar panels wasn’t already going to turn into heat to be released and trapped by earth’s atmosphere.
Not a fan of disinformation so I’ll post this here as well:
I run ComfyUI locally on my own Laptop and generating an image takes 4 seconds, during which my 3070 Laptop GPU uses 80 Watts (the maximum amount of power it can use). It also fully uses one of the 16 threads of my i7-11800H (TDP of 45W). Let’s overestimate a bit and say it uses 100% of the CPU (even though in reality it’s only 6.25%), which adds 45 watts resulting in 125 watts (or 83 watts if you account for the fact that it only uses one thread).
That’s 125 watts for 4 seconds for one image, or about 0.139 WH (0.000139KWH). That would be 7200 images per KWH. Playing one hour of Cyberpunk on a PS5 (assuming 200 watts) would be equivalent to me generating 1440 images on my laptop.
“Sources”:
https://www.ecoenergygeek.com/ps5-power-consumption/79 °F (26 °C)?! That’s the unbearable temperature you need the AC for. If that was the limit, there’d be no point in having it, at least where I am. 20 °C (68 °F) is room temp and comfortable, although I’d prefer 18 °C (64 °F).
In the Caribbean, people laugh at you if it’s 26C and you turn a fan on.
But that’s where it’s hot to slightly cool for the entire year. You can get used to that. Where I live, it can go anywhere from 35C to -17C throughout the year. As soon as you’re used to one extreme, it’s over and you head towards the other extreme.
The problems start when you don’t get a stable enough period of either to acclimate
Where i live in central Europe most houses dont have ACs and 20 years ago during the hottest times of summer you’d reach that indoors with keeping blinds shut and airing out at night. Nowadays 30°C+ indoors as hottest summer temperatures is pretty common. At 26°C you can still function somewhat. Especially when you are used to these temperatures it is still fine for office work.
79F is a cool summer day in my part of the US.
That’s the low during summer.
I guess it would depend of humidity level. I lucky enough to not have very humid warmer temperature where I am, but I could imagine how it could be a problem in other part of the world.
My electricity company says 76 is a good target, and I’ve grown accustomed to it. If sedentary, it actually feels a little cold. People acclimate to their local climate (last summer, daily highs were 100-110 for something like 3 months straight where I live).
God I hate global warming. 76 °F (24.5 °C) would traditionally be the hottest summer temp overall. Now we get above 30 sometimes even here in Scandinavia, and it’s absolutely unbearable when you’re not used to it.
79 is where I set my air to be when it’s 105 outside. Gawd I wish it was 79 outside.
It was near 100 °F across most of the US last week lol
Holy shit! That’s insane!
Yeah it’s a really good thing global warming is a liberal conspiracy, otherwise I’d be starting to get reallllll nervous right now.
I prefer it colder when I sleep, but am usually comfortable up until about 72°F (22°C) during the day. But I live in the Southeastern US, so hot (and humid) is something you adapt to.
Outside, it’s currently 93°F (~34°C), humidity of 55% and the “feels like temp” is 105°F (40.6°C). We’re under a heat advisory until 19:00, which is common in the summer
Unfortunately… the new place I’m renting has an A/C that can’t keep up. Sometimes, it’ll reach 79°F (26°C) with the A/C just running up my electric bill non-stop. It’s somehow bearable though, and doesn’t feel as hot as I would expect, so that’s good. Blackout curtains, some fans, and a portable A/C in one room if you need to cool back down (like after a shower); it’s manageable/comfortable enough, until we can find something else.
It’s not my preference, but I guess being acclimated to the heat down here at least helps a bit. Can’t wait to move somewhere a little more arid, maybe with a true 4 seasons kind of weather
Why would you need to cool down after a shower? Showers have usually have the possibility to dispense cold water.
No, that’s the temp they recommend to set the AC too in order to save power.
And I’m saying it’s insane that that’s where we’re at.
deleted by creator
We have different origins, I guess.
I’m built for the artic, I run a window a/c at night set at 62 even though we have central air, and I use it in the winter too. I work too hard to be uncomfortable in my home.
I feel you. We don’t have AC, but have the bedroom window open at night from April and a fan on all night from May.
