4 ms·

The temperature has been increasing for the last 130 years. But what does the average 130 period look like? What is the average variance for 130 year periods ov

The temperature has been increasing for the last 130 years. But what does the average 130 period look like? What is the average variance for 130 year periods over the last 100k years? Imagine looking at the daily closes of a stock price, then trying to judge if the tick data from the last 5 minutes constitutes a meaningful trend. We just don't have the data to prove it yet. With that said: Should we stop polluting? Yes Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes Should we aim to reduce energy usage per person over time? Absolutely not Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. Sure we might be able to keep making CPUs use less energy, but there will probably never be a way to make heating/cooling a house or manufacturing physical products a magnitude more efficient. Our only solution to make the world better is to increase energy production.

zbyte64 10y ago
You need to add looking for another livable planet to the list. More energy * More people = more energy to dissipate. Eventually, even with the cleanest energy sources and the highest efficiencies, humanity's energy production will be too great for the planet to support. Since we don't have a planet lined-up for colonization and temperatures are already threatening stability - we need to deal with the first half of the equation before nature does it for us.
karmelapple 10y ago
> Should we stop polluting? Yes > Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes > Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes All of these questions have become weirdly politicized. It seems to come from thinking less pollution hampers business profits. If a company is required to pollute less, many think that increases cost. Two strategies that could fight this: 1. Point out how polluting less could also result in enhanced energy efficiency, which could overall reduce cost (especially when factored over many years) 2. Make it even more abundantly clear what the consequences will be. Many visualizations exist to help the consequences be visible, but they still seem very academic. Unless someone can internalize how something will negatively impact their life, inertia rules and no change will be made. I am working on something that will remind people of the concrete negative consequences more often, but I must be careful to still be accurate. Communicating what we know now in extremely concrete, easy-to-understand, visual and visceral terms, seems essential to removing the politicization of these questions.
yongjik 10y ago
Imagine somebody a hundred years ago saying: "Should we aim to reduce calorie intake per person over time? Absolutely not. Calorie intake per capita is effectively our standard of living." ...well yes it was, until some day it wasn't any more. Energy per capita is only a proxy for standard of living. You can build a well-insulated modern house that needs a fraction of the energy required to heat a 1930's house with similar size, but nobody will say the person living in the modern house is poorer for that. Compared globally, access to technologies that allow the same convenience with less energy is a better indicator for our standard of living.
shrimp_emoji 10y ago
>Our only solution to make the world better is to increase energy production. But green energy is impotent, and nuclear power is scary!
jogjayr 10y ago
> but there will probably never be a way to make heating/cooling a house or manufacturing physical products a magnitude more efficient. You'd be surprised how much more efficient houses can be with pre-existing tech and very little change in lifestyle. Measures such as: a) smaller houses (median American house size has doubled in the past 60 years or something like that) b) better-designed houses (large south-facing windows, more thermal mass, better insulation) c) more effective heating systems (eg. radiant heat) d) moving away from central heating and cooling and instead only heating/cooling the rooms you're actually in can get you a long way (actual numbers in links at bottom). If you actually want to get into "personal sacrifice", putting on thermal underwear is a great way to reduce your heating bill. It's difficult to argue that wearing thermal underwear is a diminishing of one's standard of living. It's also possible for many people to buy fewer manufactured goods with very little effect on standard of living e.g. does every homeowner need a lawnmower, instead of sharing one with a neighbor? (again, we're into "personal sacrifice" territory). > Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. Only if we're running at 100% efficiency already, which I've demonstrated that we aren't. Right now the costs of running at sub-optimal energy efficiency aren't particularly high so we choose to be comfortable instead of efficient. Source (apologies they're all from the same place) http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/03/25/cut-your-power-bill/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/03/25/cut-your-power-bil... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/02/16/the-radiant-heat-experiment/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/02/16/the-radiant-heat-e... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/01/what-is-thermal-mass-and-how-can-it-make-you-money/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/01/what-is-thermal-ma... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/05/01/beating-the-stock-market-with-diy-insulation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/05/01/beating-the-stock-...
Aloha 10y ago
I believe strongly, we use too many irreplaceable resources, to make too many (largely disposable) things, which raise the standard of living of the few instead of benefiting the many. I also think reducing per-capita energy usage over time is a laudable goal - provided we continue the trend of increasing efficiency we've had over the last 100 years. I have no doubts that climate change is happening - I'm just not certain its the most pressing problem humanity has right now - and certainly not the most pressing problem for most developed countries. Humanity will eventually put a fix in for climate change, but we have a habit of not fixing such things (threat of global calamity) until the last possible second - and I can make a strong argument that humanities finest hour has consistently been when hope is all but lost.
woodandsteel 10y ago
>Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. That is true for developing countries. But for developed countries, the two have been disconnected for several decades, with per capita wealth going up while per capita energy use goes down.

zbyte64 10y ago

You need to add looking for another livable planet to the list. More energy * More people = more energy to dissipate. Eventually, even with the cleanest energy sources and the highest efficiencies, humanity's energy production will be too great for the planet to support. Since we don't have a planet lined-up for colonization and temperatures are already threatening stability - we need to deal with the first half of the equation before nature does it for us.

karmelapple 10y ago

> Should we stop polluting? Yes > Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes > Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes All of these questions have become weirdly politicized. It seems to come from thinking less pollution hampers business profits. If a company is required to pollute less, many think that increases cost. Two strategies that could fight this: 1. Point out how polluting less could also result in enhanced energy efficiency, which could overall reduce cost (especially when factored over many years) 2. Make it even more abundantly clear what the consequences will be. Many visualizations exist to help the consequences be visible, but they still seem very academic. Unless someone can internalize how something will negatively impact their life, inertia rules and no change will be made. I am working on something that will remind people of the concrete negative consequences more often, but I must be careful to still be accurate. Communicating what we know now in extremely concrete, easy-to-understand, visual and visceral terms, seems essential to removing the politicization of these questions.

yongjik 10y ago

Imagine somebody a hundred years ago saying: "Should we aim to reduce calorie intake per person over time? Absolutely not. Calorie intake per capita is effectively our standard of living." ...well yes it was, until some day it wasn't any more. Energy per capita is only a proxy for standard of living. You can build a well-insulated modern house that needs a fraction of the energy required to heat a 1930's house with similar size, but nobody will say the person living in the modern house is poorer for that. Compared globally, access to technologies that allow the same convenience with less energy is a better indicator for our standard of living.

shrimp_emoji 10y ago

>Our only solution to make the world better is to increase energy production. But green energy is impotent, and nuclear power is scary!

jogjayr 10y ago

> but there will probably never be a way to make heating/cooling a house or manufacturing physical products a magnitude more efficient. You'd be surprised how much more efficient houses can be with pre-existing tech and very little change in lifestyle. Measures such as: a) smaller houses (median American house size has doubled in the past 60 years or something like that) b) better-designed houses (large south-facing windows, more thermal mass, better insulation) c) more effective heating systems (eg. radiant heat) d) moving away from central heating and cooling and instead only heating/cooling the rooms you're actually in can get you a long way (actual numbers in links at bottom). If you actually want to get into "personal sacrifice", putting on thermal underwear is a great way to reduce your heating bill. It's difficult to argue that wearing thermal underwear is a diminishing of one's standard of living. It's also possible for many people to buy fewer manufactured goods with very little effect on standard of living e.g. does every homeowner need a lawnmower, instead of sharing one with a neighbor? (again, we're into "personal sacrifice" territory). > Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. Only if we're running at 100% efficiency already, which I've demonstrated that we aren't. Right now the costs of running at sub-optimal energy efficiency aren't particularly high so we choose to be comfortable instead of efficient. Source (apologies they're all from the same place) http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/03/25/cut-your-power-bill/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/03/25/cut-your-power-bil... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/02/16/the-radiant-heat-experiment/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/02/16/the-radiant-heat-e... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/01/what-is-thermal-mass-and-how-can-it-make-you-money/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/09/01/what-is-thermal-ma... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/05/01/beating-the-stock-market-with-diy-insulation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/05/01/beating-the-stock-...

Aloha 10y ago

I believe strongly, we use too many irreplaceable resources, to make too many (largely disposable) things, which raise the standard of living of the few instead of benefiting the many. I also think reducing per-capita energy usage over time is a laudable goal - provided we continue the trend of increasing efficiency we've had over the last 100 years. I have no doubts that climate change is happening - I'm just not certain its the most pressing problem humanity has right now - and certainly not the most pressing problem for most developed countries. Humanity will eventually put a fix in for climate change, but we have a habit of not fixing such things (threat of global calamity) until the last possible second - and I can make a strong argument that humanities finest hour has consistently been when hope is all but lost.

woodandsteel 10y ago

>Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. That is true for developing countries. But for developed countries, the two have been disconnected for several decades, with per capita wealth going up while per capita energy use goes down.