Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 581 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

ChatGTP wrote: post #29
cubefox wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah I just read this, not really sure what the alternatives are now? Looks like the situation is spiraling out of control so...?? Cover Greenland in a reflective blanket? Sounds like it is time to panic...and actually do what needs to be done.

[deleted]

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

#52

Post by nequo »

RandomLensman wrote: post #36
jonathankoren wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It came broken in the mail?

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

#53

Post by brutusborn »

scaramanga wrote: post #39
brutusborn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!" :)

So just to clarify, you agree that “the models are inaccurate” is true, but that is is because of pressure from climate deniers and is systematically conservative.

So because of political pressure, the modellers didn’t include a well known effect and missed predicting the highest temperatures on record. A model confirming event which could have convinced millions that climate is worth worrying about.

But instead the IPCC listened to fox and neutered their models? I think that is a lot less likely than “their models aren’t very accurate, they simplified a part of the model which turned out to be very important.”

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

#54

Post by brutusborn »

MattGaiser wrote: post #12
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…

ClimateGate alleged a conspiracy. This is a difference of assumptions.

I’m saying I used to think climategate was all conspiracy theory nonsense. Now I think there was likely an attempt to hide unhelpful data.

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

#55

Post by mlcrypto »

cubefox wrote: post #19
ChatGTP wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

The Earth's greatest temperature was before humans ever existed

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

#56

Post by hnuser0000 »

This lacks scientific models or sources that quantify the magnitude of the reduction in ship tracks and the resulting impact on sea temperatures. They are not in the science.org article[1] he links either.

Usually posts with little evidence and the use of the phrase "may be causing" result in flagged posts, but not when it fits a certain narrative?

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unfo...

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

#57

Post by brutusborn »

paulmd wrote: post #48
brutusborn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

What’s the evidence for “observed evidence is that the unincluded positive forcings are significantly larger than the unincluded negative forcings”?

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

#58

Post by czbond »

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #44
jonathankoren wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you for being optimistic and realistic concurrently. We need more people to have such approaches to the topic.

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

#59

Post by taftster »

dmbche wrote: post #2

Related article from 2018 if anyone wants to read more : https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/01/22/67402/were-about...

Thank you. I honestly had no context for the discussion, the linked tweet didn't really much help. This article helped clear up the concept and I appreciate the link.

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

#60

Post by uxamanda »

For anyone interested in a near-future sci-fi look at how sulfur as a form of geoengineering might play out, check out out Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson[0]. The title[1] refers to what happens when you suddenly stop an effort like that...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering#Maintenan...

Post reply on HN