4 ms·

> The elderly, women, and residents of lower-income countries are impacted most If small increases in global temperature can impact sleep enough to care about,

by gwern 4y ago

> The elderly, women, and residents of lower-income countries are impacted most If small increases in global temperature can impact sleep enough to care about, then that is a much stronger additional argument for economic growth( to make AC, which can reduce night temperatures by a lot, affordable and universal) than it is for trading growth for some small avoidance of further temp growth. The latter is how I expect most people will read this result...

BurningFrog 4y ago
The "elderly, women, and residents of lower-income countries" is about 80% of humanity.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Also coincidentally, the exact people the ruling elite gives zero fucks about.
dotancohen 4y ago
What about all the non-human primates/mammals/vertebrates/animals affected?
gumby 4y ago
AC heats up the planet though (just think of the thermodynamics: not only to you pull out the heat and expel it outdoors, but that takes energy, which ends up as heat exhaust as well). People need cool air, no question, but it's not a free lunch. We need to cool the climate as well. (BTW I do believe everybody should have access to as much energy as the OECD countries use per capita. Sadly even this is controversial)
- zionic 4y ago
  Waste heat from AC is nothing compared to the ~1.3kw per square meter of solar irradiance. Side note: We really need better solar panels!
- ephbit 4y ago
  > AC heats up the planet though .. It doesn't. The name heat pump explains it pretty well. It "pumps" heat from one place to another. In case of your AC from inside the building to outside. Yes, it generates additional heat from the electricity it uses. But ... It doesn't matter how you use energy on earth (except for mostly weird examples), because basically except for these weird examples, almost 100 % of the used energy will end up as heat anyway. It doesn't matter through what cascade of transformations the energy ends up as heat, whether you use electricity to boil water, or to power an EV, or to power a heat pump, almost 100 % of the input power will end up as heat anyway. What are some weird examples? You convert captured solar energy into chemical energy (for example pure carbon or hydrocarbons) and store the chemicals forever, then you've prevented some of the captured energy from being turned into heat. Another would be to emit electromagnetic radiation into outer space. Or you could carry rocket fuel into space and just dump it there, unused.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    That's not correct. Every transformation has efficiency loss. If you pipe the same amount of energy through a less efficient process, less useful work gets done for that amount of energy. Therefore to hit your target of useful work via an inefficient process, you'll have to send more energy through it, and thus more energy also goes to waste (heat).
    - ephbit 4y ago
      You're writing past what I wrote. > Every transformation has efficiency loss. I didn't deny that. > If you pipe the same amount of energy through a less efficient process, less useful work gets done for that amount of energy. Therefore to hit your target of useful work via an inefficient process, you'll have to send more energy through it, and thus more energy also goes to waste (heat). The point in the post I was replying to wasn't about efficiency. The question was, whether heat pumps heat up the earth. They don't. Why? Because the energy that's used to power heat pumps would (as I've explained) have ended up as heat anyway. If you use fossil fuels as energy source to power heat pumps, then yes, you convert chemical energy to thermal energy. But it doesn't matter if you use that fossil energy to power a heat pump or to power an EV or a computer, the energy always ends up as heat. So it's not the apparatus "heat pump" that's a problem, but the fact that someone is using fossil energy at all. No, heat pumps don't heat up the earth. Using fossil fuels does. If you were to power the heat pump using solar energy, you'd mostly leave the earth's energy balance untouched. The main point where you then interfere with the earth's energy balance is through altering the way that radiation gets absorbed/reflected/emitted by the solar panels as opposed to no solar panels being put up. Some processes that indeed heat up the earth are: - radiation from the sun (and earth) gets partially trapped by the atmosphere (absorbed/reflected) - nuclear fission processes produce energy that gets converted to heat through a cascade of processes
HWR_14 4y ago
I don't see your argument at all. I see this as a powerful reason why even seemingly small changes in temperature can have a huge impact on human life. If this was the literal only issue, that could be an argument. But it's not. It's one of many. My hope is that people will read this and say "it's not just the animals, the plants, crops, drought, it's people directly affected too". Although I apparently overlooked the "fuck the environment, fuck the poor, get AC" argument.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The study suggests that nighttime temps over 25°C are detrimental to sleep. One of the most obvious ways to get nighttime temps well under that is via AC. It doesn’t seem outrageous nor “fuck the poor” to ask the question “is there a reasonable path to get AC more widely deployed to help more people sleep better?”
- starkd 4y ago
  It's not about "fuck the environment". That's an extremely uncharitable interpretation to take of your neighbors. People are willing to to sacrifice, but only IF they see it as a meaningful sacrifice that actually does something. Sort of like why recycling rates are going down because more and more people realize most of winds up in the landfill anyway.
- zionic 4y ago
  Solar panels + heat pump (an AC that can cool or heat your home) completely solves this problem. We have simple solutions to this issue, the only thing to do is make it more affordable.
- gwern 4y ago
  > "fuck the environment, fuck the poor, get AC" argument Arguing that the benefits of economic growth for the poor are underrated and supported by OP more than more politically-palatable interpretations is precisely the opposite of 'fuck the poor', and given what we know about the other benefits, probably the opposite of 'fuck the environment' too.

by gwern 4y ago

BurningFrog 4y ago

The "elderly, women, and residents of lower-income countries" is about 80% of humanity.

moffkalast 4y ago
Also coincidentally, the exact people the ruling elite gives zero fucks about.

dotancohen 4y ago

What about all the non-human primates/mammals/vertebrates/animals affected?

gumby 4y ago

AC heats up the planet though (just think of the thermodynamics: not only to you pull out the heat and expel it outdoors, but that takes energy, which ends up as heat exhaust as well). People need cool air, no question, but it's not a free lunch. We need to cool the climate as well. (BTW I do believe everybody should have access to as much energy as the OECD countries use per capita. Sadly even this is controversial)

zionic 4y ago
Waste heat from AC is nothing compared to the ~1.3kw per square meter of solar irradiance. Side note: We really need better solar panels!
ephbit 4y ago
> AC heats up the planet though .. It doesn't. The name heat pump explains it pretty well. It "pumps" heat from one place to another. In case of your AC from inside the building to outside. Yes, it generates additional heat from the electricity it uses. But ... It doesn't matter how you use energy on earth (except for mostly weird examples), because basically except for these weird examples, almost 100 % of the used energy will end up as heat anyway. It doesn't matter through what cascade of transformations the energy ends up as heat, whether you use electricity to boil water, or to power an EV, or to power a heat pump, almost 100 % of the input power will end up as heat anyway. What are some weird examples? You convert captured solar energy into chemical energy (for example pure carbon or hydrocarbons) and store the chemicals forever, then you've prevented some of the captured energy from being turned into heat. Another would be to emit electromagnetic radiation into outer space. Or you could carry rocket fuel into space and just dump it there, unused.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  That's not correct. Every transformation has efficiency loss. If you pipe the same amount of energy through a less efficient process, less useful work gets done for that amount of energy. Therefore to hit your target of useful work via an inefficient process, you'll have to send more energy through it, and thus more energy also goes to waste (heat).
  - ephbit 4y ago
    You're writing past what I wrote. > Every transformation has efficiency loss. I didn't deny that. > If you pipe the same amount of energy through a less efficient process, less useful work gets done for that amount of energy. Therefore to hit your target of useful work via an inefficient process, you'll have to send more energy through it, and thus more energy also goes to waste (heat). The point in the post I was replying to wasn't about efficiency. The question was, whether heat pumps heat up the earth. They don't. Why? Because the energy that's used to power heat pumps would (as I've explained) have ended up as heat anyway. If you use fossil fuels as energy source to power heat pumps, then yes, you convert chemical energy to thermal energy. But it doesn't matter if you use that fossil energy to power a heat pump or to power an EV or a computer, the energy always ends up as heat. So it's not the apparatus "heat pump" that's a problem, but the fact that someone is using fossil energy at all. No, heat pumps don't heat up the earth. Using fossil fuels does. If you were to power the heat pump using solar energy, you'd mostly leave the earth's energy balance untouched. The main point where you then interfere with the earth's energy balance is through altering the way that radiation gets absorbed/reflected/emitted by the solar panels as opposed to no solar panels being put up. Some processes that indeed heat up the earth are: - radiation from the sun (and earth) gets partially trapped by the atmosphere (absorbed/reflected) - nuclear fission processes produce energy that gets converted to heat through a cascade of processes

HWR_14 4y ago

I don't see your argument at all. I see this as a powerful reason why even seemingly small changes in temperature can have a huge impact on human life. If this was the literal only issue, that could be an argument. But it's not. It's one of many. My hope is that people will read this and say "it's not just the animals, the plants, crops, drought, it's people directly affected too". Although I apparently overlooked the "fuck the environment, fuck the poor, get AC" argument.

sokoloff 4y ago
The study suggests that nighttime temps over 25°C are detrimental to sleep. One of the most obvious ways to get nighttime temps well under that is via AC. It doesn’t seem outrageous nor “fuck the poor” to ask the question “is there a reasonable path to get AC more widely deployed to help more people sleep better?”
starkd 4y ago
It's not about "fuck the environment". That's an extremely uncharitable interpretation to take of your neighbors. People are willing to to sacrifice, but only IF they see it as a meaningful sacrifice that actually does something. Sort of like why recycling rates are going down because more and more people realize most of winds up in the landfill anyway.
zionic 4y ago
Solar panels + heat pump (an AC that can cool or heat your home) completely solves this problem. We have simple solutions to this issue, the only thing to do is make it more affordable.
gwern 4y ago
> "fuck the environment, fuck the poor, get AC" argument Arguing that the benefits of economic growth for the poor are underrated and supported by OP more than more politically-palatable interpretations is precisely the opposite of 'fuck the poor', and given what we know about the other benefits, probably the opposite of 'fuck the environment' too.