this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
123 points (97.7% liked)

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

5295 readers
460 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: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
123
‘Thirsty’ ChatGPT uses four times more water than previously thought (www.thetimes.com)
submitted 2 days ago by cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/32023985

Writing a 100-word email using ChatGPT (GPT-4, latest model) consumes 1 x 500ml bottle of water It uses 140Wh of energy, enough for 7 full charges of an iPhone Pro Max

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It seems like it wouldn’t be insanely costly to make the system near closed loop with minimal water loss.

[–] MoonMelon@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Could do what nuke plants do and have another heat exchanger between the clean water and the water that evaporates, then use less clean water for that loop. If that's too expensive it just means they aren't being charged enough for potable water.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 day ago

And possibly even use the hot water to generate electricity if it’s at a scale.

[–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 3 points 1 day ago

That would take a lot of energy for a facility that is very energy hungry already. It is cheaper to pull in cold water from the mains and flush hot water down the sewer.