Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5381 readers

359 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7

114

For a Thing That Will Supposedly Fix the Climate, AI Sure Needs a Lot of Fossil Fuels (www.splinter.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by silence7 to c/climate

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago

AI was never going to save the climate. Its meant to give elites even more control over the population

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

Anyone who believes it's going to take AI to find out fossil fuels are killing us all rapidly is a complete fucking moron.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 16 points 2 weeks ago

5 years ago: "We really need to be careful with AI, it might turn everything into paperclips!!!"

Now:" AI needs paperclips to run so we need to destroy our planet and turn it into paperclips for AI"

Drexler must be rolling in his grave.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 week ago

AI won't fix the climate, but it also doesn't need fossil fuels either.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

Will Supposedly Fix the Climate

Uhh... wut?

[+] glowie@h4x0r.host -5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

OR..."and that's why we don't need AI"

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Plants that take ten years to build don’t seem like a very good response to a boom that measures dataceneter build time in months and will probably collapse in a year or two as hype is replaced by the reality of the technology. Battery backed solar and wind on the other hand are both cheaper, and can be built faster than the ‘AI’ datacenters they are ment to power.

Don’t get me wrong, I think nuclear power is important to the energy transition, and will find its use in certain use cases like large scale marine transport or places near the artic circle, but the window to build it was 1970 to 2010. At a point when the biggest thing slowing down green energy if finding financing for it, it makes sense to go with the lowest cost option available, which is battery backed solar.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago

10 years is unrealistic, today it's closer to 15 years. Both time frames would be too late. Doesn't matter either way though since the US elections. The world is not going to be able to compensate for the US emissions under Trump's fascism when we were already on our way to 3 degrees globally BEFORE that.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Plants take 10 year to build because of a purposely complicated burocratic process. We churn out at least 1 nuclear submarines a year.

Edit: I still think you're right, renewables and batteries are cheaper than nuclear in most first world countries, but the building process doesn't have to be that long.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

No, we already needed nuclear power.

[–] hono4kami 1 points 1 week ago

Why is this even downvoted?