←back to thread

Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean

(www.icm.csic.es)
480 points riffraff | 2 comments | 04 Jul 25 04:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.017s | source
Show context
dang ◴[04 Jul 25 09:51 UTC] No.44463006[source]▶
[stub for offtopicness]
replies(15): >>44461279 #>>44461280 #>>44461309 #>>44461334 #>>44461385 #>>44461408 #>>44461448 #>>44461634 #>>44461664 #>>44461731 #>>44461790 #>>44462060 #>>44462362 #>>44462565 #>>44462687 #
saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 08:17 UTC] No.44462362[source]▶
In related news:

* Data centers powering artificial intelligence could use more electricity than entire cities [0]

* Google’s emissions up 51% as AI electricity demand derails efforts to go green [1]

* AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand [2]

It is a doomsday cult in the most literal sense.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/23/data-centers-powering-ai-cou...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/google-em...

[2] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-...

replies(11): >>44462429 #>>44462451 #>>44462452 #>>44462511 #>>44462554 #>>44462564 #>>44462814 #>>44462819 #>>44462877 #>>44462879 #>>44463041 #
dottjt ◴[04 Jul 25 08:29 UTC] No.44462429[source]▶
Not that I necessarily believe it, but isn't the rationale that technology allows us to scale without the need for additional humans? A bit in the same way that oil provides us many multiples of manpower?

So for example, if AI can replace the need for additional humans, then overall we're using net less energy?

replies(5): >>44462449 #>>44462454 #>>44462458 #>>44462476 #>>44462509 #
saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 08:34 UTC] No.44462454[source]▶
The rationale I've heard is that AGI is gonna come around any day now and will fix all our climate issues through its superior intellect.

Which seems like a very strenuous proposal to be betting the future of humanity on.

replies(2): >>44462663 #>>44462936 #
1. arp242 ◴[04 Jul 25 09:04 UTC] No.44462663[source]▶
The "we will invent our way out of this"-argument goes back way before AI, at least to the early 00s, but probably earlier.

It's a great strategy that works fantastically well and saves a lot of time and money, except when it doesn't.

replies(1): >>44462704 #
2. saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 09:09 UTC] No.44462704[source]▶
In my eyes it is a cop-out to delay the necessary structural changes until the point of no return.

At that point the structural changes will be denied with a "oh well, it's too late now anyways!"