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.
To be fair it was a great name for a windowing system.
Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
41–50 of 581 posts
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#42Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#43Not 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…
The models have underpredicted the temperature rise throughout my entire living memory. Even the "pessimistic" scenarios of high-temperature-rise have been blasted right through on a yearly basis. The model is drastically, dramatically understating the natural feedback loops involved and the amount of temperature rise that's going to happen. Feedback loops like methane release are likely also hugely understated, as a…
I don’t disagree that there could be lots of other forcings/tipping points etc, but I hear lots of conjecture and don’t see the effect as much in actual predictions / models. I do disagree that if they are not included in our models, then we must be systemically underestimating warming.
Why do you assume the missing effects will make the situation worse?
If the model is missing positive forcings, what makes you so sure that they have included all the negative forcings?
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#44Either 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.
This is defeatist and also not true. We adopt nuclear, invest in carbon capture technologies, and employ geoengineering strategies as needed until fusion comes online. This is a solvable technical problem with significant political hurdles.
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#45Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
There are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... The thing is, this is not a one time solution. We would have to do it continuously, or else the temperature would quickly rise again. And we would have to increase sulphur injection if the CO2 level keeps rising. It could be a temporary solution though, e.g. until al…
We ought to stop surface-level sulfur emissions, for human health and also because ship engines that produce sulfur also produce lots of other nasty shit.
Stratospheric sulfur is much more efficient, per kg, at reflecting sunlight, so we could replace the cooling effect of surface-level sulfur with stratospheric sulfur, and if we choose to, go even further to cool the planet more.
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Water is hydroxic acid /jk
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
The models have underpredicted the temperature rise throughout my entire living memory. Even the "pessimistic" scenarios of high-temperature-rise have been blasted right through on a yearly basis. The model is drastically, dramatically understating the natural feedback loops involved and the amount of temperature rise that's going to happen. Feedback loops like methane release are likely also hugely understated, as a…
I don’t disagree that there could be lots of other forcings/tipping points etc, but I hear lots of conjecture and don’t see the effect as much in actual predictions / models. I do disagree that if they are not included in our models, then we must be systemically underestimating warming. Why do you assume the missing effects will make the situation worse? If the model is missing positive forcings, what makes you so su…
> Why do you assume the missing effects will make the situation worse?
> If the model is missing positive forcings, what makes you so sure that they have included all the negative forcings?
I don't think they have included all the negative forcings, but I think that's irrelevant because the observed evidence is that the unincluded positive forcings are significantly larger than the unincluded negative forcings.
All that matters is the net balance, and the fact that the climate is systematically exceeding the most wildly pessimistic predictions our model provides, shows that the model is not neutrally-calibrated with the present assumptions. There is a significant positive net balance (including any negative forcing) that our model is understating.
At any given time that could be a lot or a little, but, right now it seems to be "a lot". And the fact that it's been that way for 30 years, says that this isn't a short-term thing. And in fact the rate of departure from the model is accelerating too - the second derivative and third derivates seem to be strongly positive. We are not just getting farther away from the model, we are getting farther away faster and accelerating as we do it.
Could that all change tomorrow when some other effect kicks in and plunges us into a nuclear winter or whatever? No, probably not, but that's the kind of hope that conservative media has been selling people for 40 years.
When scientists give a neutral "well, anything could happen but..." response, all the public hears is "you're saying there's a chance". Nope, we're blasting through all the guardrails of the model on a yearly basis, we're pretty fucked.
And yes, there's also the possibility that we've unintentionally been geoengineering something for a while and when we stop ships from putting out sulfur (because it causes acid rain) that we suddenly jump even higher.
Getting to the "disease, famine, endless wildfires (way too many to keep under control), storms with the power to level cities and blot out the sun" portion of the Toby Ruins It For Everyone video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc1vrO6iL0U
And yes, it is absolutely too late to stop and the best we can do is try to limit the impacts... which will continue to worsen until we do (and then for about another 20 years after we cease net emissions). Which is why the conservative media will jump right from "it's not real/it's not human caused/it's not bad enough to do anything about it" right to "wow it's too late, let's do nothing". Which is the same thing they've wanted us to do all along, ofc...
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ?
There are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... The thing is, this is not a one time solution. We would have to do it continuously, or else the temperature would quickly rise again. And we would have to increase sulphur injection if the CO2 level keeps rising. It could be a temporary solution though, e.g. until al…
There are ways to make clouds and have this effect that don't involve sulfur!
Re: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures
#50Either 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.
As with all things I feel like a little from column A, a little from column B