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

81–90 of 581 posts

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

#81

Post by stephen_g »

clhodapp wrote: post #25
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 ?

Hank Green, whose tweets originated this topic, addressed this on YouTube and less explicitly in the tweets. His statement was essentially that: right now, were effectively seeding clouds with sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid is bad but if the cloud seeding is actually good, we could instead seed them by spraying sea water into the air.

It totally could have been the same person but maybe they changed their profile image so I just didn’t recognise them!

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

#82

Post by lacrimacida »

scaramanga wrote: post #37
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…

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-ha…

I wouldn’t solely hold them to blame but also point to who manipulated them in the first place. While they are blamable through ignorance they are not the real culprits It’s known the masses are manipulable to do and think in certain ways, and almost always to their disadvantage

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

#83

Post by RandomLensman »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #71
RandomLensman wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It broke many times throughout its history. There is just zero evidence that we cannot adjust, mitigate, prevent etc. - otherwise we might as well do nothing because we are all doomed anyway.

You say zero evidence. Would you like to review a graph of global CO2 emissions over the last 30 years?

Irrelevant to what humans can do. If anything speaks to human geoengineering ability.

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

#84

Post by HardlyCurious »

montalbano wrote: post #77

A better wording for the title: Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships has reduced masking of global warming The word 'cause' in current title seems wrong.

In terms of total global heat content sure. In terms of surface ocean temp, I'm not so sure you have a point. It's a pretty indirect path for greenhouse gasses to heat the ocean, and they can't push the water above the temp of their air.

Less shade however can cause solar heating well above air temperatures.

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

#85

Post by brutusborn »

paulmd wrote: post #62
brutusborn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The fact that we're continually exceeding the most pessimistic projections the models can produce on a yearly basis, even after repeatedly recalibrating it to build in even more pessimistic assumptions, and that we're tending to depart more strongly from even the pessimistic models. This implies that the models are broadly understating these feedback loops, that they are net-balance in the positive-feedback direction…

That isn’t evidence of the previous statement.

If we continually exceed model predictions, it could be from underestimating known positive forcings, overestimating known negative forcings, or some combination of unknown positive/negative forcings.

Essentially I think continuous failed predictions are a red flag for any model, especially one as critical to us as the global climate models.

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

#86

Post by shagie »

userbinator wrote: post #30
PradeetPatel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, "X" in the context of Elon only brings to mind his SUV of the same name.

He's a bit fixated on that letter.

X.com (banking company that eventually became Paypal)

SpaceX

Tesla models S 3 X Y

Baby born in May of 2020: X Æ A-12 ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52557291 https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202... )

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

#87

Post by nerdponx »

mlcrypto wrote: post #55
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…

The Earth's greatest temperature was before humans ever existed

I would appreciate if humans continued existing, so I am interested in not returning to that point in prehistory.

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

#88

Post by hnuser0000 »

nosefurhairdo wrote: post #69
hnuser0000 wrote: post #56

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...

Towards the end of that article were links to a few studies. Here's the first linked study I found: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05122-0

That study says little about fewer ship tracks causing sea warming and nothing about the magnitude of any possible sea warming.

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

#89

Post by forgetfreeman »

RandomLensman wrote: post #83
forgetfreeman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say zero evidence. Would you like to review a graph of global CO2 emissions over the last 30 years?

Irrelevant to what humans can do. If anything speaks to human geoengineering ability.

Bullshit. It clearly shows humans unwillingness to engage with the problem, with no evidence as of yet to support the notion that this will change in any meaningful way at any arbitrary future date. It certainly does not demonstrate any latent ability to curb the problems created by elevated greenhouse gas emissions.

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

#90

Post by brutusborn »

scaramanga wrote: post #37
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…

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-ha…

If you think criticising a model for not matching observations is illogical, then I don’t think you have a very good understanding of logic.
Post reply on HN