News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @04:45AM (#24774515)
well if we continue growing energy consumption 1% yoy, we boil off oceans in 400 years
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by gus_massa on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @06:17AM (#24775029)
DO you have a source for this? I cant't find something for 2400, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... the prediction of the IPCC for 2300 is an increase of 3.0 to 12.6 °C that is really bad but by far not enough to start boiling the oceans.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @07:33AM (#24775408)
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

i heartily recommend the whole series. i made a mistake in the post before - the post assumes 2.3% yoy.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by srtjstjsj on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @08:37AM (#24775795)
The article shows that 2.3% is an extreme upper bonnet because humanity has already lost its need of ability to generate 2.3% more growth per year. It's another case of people looking at a logistic graph and pretending it's exponential
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @11:16AM (#24777462)
that's the underlying theme of the series - it shows that exponential growth of economy is tied to exponential growth of energy consumption and it's something economists can't quite wrap their heads around.