Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures • Hacker News Board

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#31

Post by XorNot » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:24 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #10

stephen_g wrote: post #8

I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…

Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?

It also causes acid rain, which while it will never be literally "acid" falling from the sky, a general decrease in the pH of water entering arable lands, estuaries and other areas is not going to be great for any of them (also the generalized increase in maintenance cost for concrete, and particularly limestone, structures).

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#32

Post by js8 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:24 AM UTC

PradeetPatel wrote: post #11

akomtu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to call it X.

I'm a bit out of the loop here, but is the letter "X" a part of Elon's company branding? Since that's not the first time he used the letter "X" in that manner. The single letter "X" is brimming with symbolism and implications. Without further explanation we may never know why the rebranding was necessary.

The rebranding was neccessary because Larry & Sergey got their ABC and Zuck went Meta. It's just a d**-measuring contest.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#33

Post by brutusborn » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:24 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #16

brutusborn wrote: post #7

Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…

> This has really shaken my faith in the climate science community Are you kidding me? Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades that IPCC reports are likely too conservative, because they represent broad consensus of climatologists. Yet climate deniers continued to decry IPCC (also for decades) as too radical, political organization. And now that the conservativism of IPCC is finally co…

There’s no reason the IPCC can’t report on more conservative models whilst keeping all relevant effects in accurate models. Usually their conservatism is in choosing more realistic assumptions. In this case they ignored a realistic effect.

I’m not siding with anyone. I’m criticising a particular groups models which they have admitted to not contain critical effects and thus don’t match recent observations. I don’t deny climate change, I deny that the IPCC models are good.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#34

Post by RandomLensman » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:24 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #16

brutusborn wrote: post #7

Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…

> This has really shaken my faith in the climate science community Are you kidding me? Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades that IPCC reports are likely too conservative, because they represent broad consensus of climatologists. Yet climate deniers continued to decry IPCC (also for decades) as too radical, political organization. And now that the conservativism of IPCC is finally co…

Where is the conservatism coming to the public consciousness? I don't think that is the case as such.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#35

Post by jonathankoren » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:25 AM UTC

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #23

Either the world accepts that nuclear energy along with wind and solar is part of the solution to climate change, or we will be forced into geoengineering solutions. We may have already reached that point.

We’re past the point that nuclear can help.

We broke the planet.

But hey. “Needs more study.” and academics are living large, unlike the poor billionaires.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#36

Post by RandomLensman » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:25 AM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #35

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #23

Either the world accepts that nuclear energy along with wind and solar is part of the solution to climate change, or we will be forced into geoengineering solutions. We may have already reached that point.

We’re past the point that nuclear can help. We broke the planet. But hey. “Needs more study.” and academics are living large, unlike the poor billionaires.

[flagged]

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#37

Post by scaramanga » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:25 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #16

brutusborn wrote: post #7

Not a bad thread but misses a critical point. If the Sulfur emissions policies were known for >5 years and discussed for >10 years why aren’t they part of mainstream climate models? The best answer I could find was essentially that models use a proxy for aerosols and so including the new policy might cause “double counting” of this forcing. This ‘conservatism’ caused this effect to be left out of the models. So the s…

> This has really shaken my faith in the climate science community Are you kidding me? Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades that IPCC reports are likely too conservative, because they represent broad consensus of climatologists. Yet climate deniers continued to decry IPCC (also for decades) as too radical, political organization. And now that the conservativism of IPCC is finally co…

Yes, this is like my relatives who voted Tory because immigrants are taking their benefits away. Only to enter old-age with the Tories taking their healthcare and their benefits away. These are tragic and self-defeating people. It doesn't mean they aren't stupid or dangerous to the rest of us. Or that they aren't responsible for the consequences of their own actions. But that they do stuff which is illogical, self-harming, or counter-productive shouldn't be surprising.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#38

Post by fnordpiglet » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:27 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #10

stephen_g wrote: post #8

I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…

Sorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?

My understanding (IANACS) is sulfur interacts with the atmosphere to form SO2 and H2S, which dissolves in water to form sulphuric acid both in water vapor (clouds) and in the ocean directly to acidity both rain and the ocean. I think it also interacts with other green house gases over a longer period increasing warming despite cooling up front.

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#39

Post by scaramanga » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:28 AM UTC

brutusborn wrote: post #33

js8 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has really shaken my faith in the climate science community Are you kidding me? Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades that IPCC reports are likely too conservative, because they represent broad consensus of climatologists. Yet climate deniers continued to decry IPCC (also for decades) as too radical, political organization. And now that the conservativism of IPCC is finally co…

There’s no reason the IPCC can’t report on more conservative models whilst keeping all relevant effects in accurate models. Usually their conservatism is in choosing more realistic assumptions. In this case they ignored a realistic effect. I’m not siding with anyone. I’m criticising a particular groups models which they have admitted to not contain critical effects and thus don’t match recent observations. I don’t de…

Yes, that's precisely the sort of thing that would elicit flak. If they openly say "here is an under-egged model for the climate deniers, but here is the real, alarming model" which one do you think their climate-denying flack machines are going to take aim at?

"No, you think fox news would really do that? cherry pick data?!" :)

Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures

#40

Post by wokwokwok » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:28 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #15

barbazoo wrote: post #4

X's threads make even less sense now unless you think everyone you want to reach is on X. Also, just what a dumb name.

Where else would they put it to reach more people?

Why does it have to reach lots of people? Does it reach lots of people?

If you have an opinion about Science, maybe “10 massively under reported things about science you need to click on now” is more about clickbait and driving people to your YouTube channel than actual science? The last tweet in this thread is literally a link off to some YouTube thing to earn those sweet sweet ad $$$.

Does 20000 likes on Twitter mean people are listening to you?

… or just self satisfaction from being upvotes by bots?

Since posting on X now actively excludes real people (Ie. Anyone not logged in), it seems kind of stupid as a place to post science news these days?

Even if it does reach a wider audience, do they care, and act, or just It’s just easy and lazy to post to X.

I find it hard to take people selling their shit on X seriously.

It is 100% nothing to do with science.