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

141–150 of 581 posts

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

#141

Post by gcoakes »

adrianN wrote: post #101
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.

There are lots of nuclear reactors being built world wide currently. The problem is that it takes forever to build nuclear reactors and we would need twenty times as much nuclear as we have right now just to replace coal. An additional twenty times as much as we have now to replace oil. And an additional fifteen times as much as we have right now to replace gas. Nuclear is not particularly cheap either.

Are those real numbers? Also, do you mean additive or multiplicative (i.e.: 20 + 20 + 15 vs. 20 * 20 * 15).

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

#142

Post by epivosism »

Vecr wrote: post #140
epivosism wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The final 1/3 of the book would be an amazing role-playing scenario. When you think about it, it's almost designed that way. The underground area, the floaters, the various "classes" of people we meet, their interesting combinations...

I think the final 1/3rd of that book is actually a horrible situation to actually be in. "Someone else's dream" for sure.

Have you played Dungeons and Dragons? It's not supposed to be fun as a place to really live, living in a land harassed by monsters, demons, no security, etc. It's an interesting scenario to explore creativity and conflict in difficult situations.

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

#143

Post by ankit219 »

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...

See this thread: https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1633566568528375811

It still lacks scientific models, though it is too recent a phenomenon for us to have an accurate modelling. Even then, in the last three years we had La Nina which kept the temperatures cold, while this year it's el Nino which is increasing the effect.

Leon Simons presented his findings in front of aerosol society.

I also wanted to ask, what is the certain narrative it fits?

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

#144

Post by Dalewyn »

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.

Humanity has not "broken" the planet; to argue such is the epitome of conceit. We are not special nor powerful.

Humanity is just one of many lifeforms the planet had, has, and will have over the course of its vast existence transcending any human sense of time.

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

#145

Post by adrianN »

gcoakes wrote: post #141
adrianN wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of nuclear reactors being built world wide currently. The problem is that it takes forever to build nuclear reactors and we would need twenty times as much nuclear as we have right now just to replace coal. An additional twenty times as much as we have now to replace oil. And an additional fifteen times as much as we have right now to replace gas. Nuclear is not particularly cheap either.

Are those real numbers? Also, do you mean additive or multiplicative (i.e.: 20 + 20 + 15 vs. 20 * 20 * 15).

We have about 2500TWh/a of nuclear worldwide. 42000TWh/a coal, 48000TWh/a oil, and 38000TWh/a gas. Give or take a few thousand TWh.

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

#146

Post by ido »

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.

Why not both?

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

#147

Post by adrianN »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #124
adrianN wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of nuclear reactors being built world wide currently. The problem is that it takes forever to build nuclear reactors and we would need twenty times as much nuclear as we have right now just to replace coal. An additional twenty times as much as we have now to replace oil. And an additional fifteen times as much as we have right now to replace gas. Nuclear is not particularly cheap either.

Renewables still have a grid level storage issue. Having enough nuclear as a backbone would be the best we can do right now until battery tech catches up

"Right now" is incompatible with nuclear. It takes at least a decade to build a nuclear power plant. By that time we can have a lot of hydrogen storage and electrolysis.

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

#148

Post by mdekkers »

epivosism wrote: post #139
mdekkers wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global overpopulation is absolutely a part of the equation, and everyone is deeply uncomfortable talking about it because there are no palatable solutions to that specific problem. Humans, as a species, exhibit all the damaging properties of a cancerous growth, and our habitat can no longer support us. As George Carlin said: the planet will be fine, it’s the humans that are fucked!

This seems a bit out of date. I think you need to mention how you feel about below replacement TFR in most of the world to make this position understandable.

Good point. As per wiki:

> As of 2020, the total fertility rate for the world is 2.3. The global TFR has declined rapidly since the 1960s, and some forecasters like Sanjeev Sanyal argue that the effective global fertility rate will fall below global replacement rate, estimated to be 2.3, in the 2020s. This would stabilize world population sometime during the period 2050–2070. The United Nations predicts that global fertility will continue to decline for the remainder of this century and reach a below-replacement level of 1.8 by 2100, and that world population will peak during the period 2084-2088.

Whilst there is obviously nuance here, even assuming that world population peaks well before 2088, that means we still have a lot of growth to support until that time, and then we have many generations to go before we see a decline to a point where this planet can reasonably be expected to sustain us. Do you believe, given the pace of change we are seeing in this environments’ systems, viewed in the context of the actual tangible change we are implementing to mitigate the negative impacts to us as a species, that there is enough time for that?

EDIT: for some perspective, see also the current headcount: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ and expected future headcount: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...

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

#149

Post by sassy_quat »

adrianN wrote: post #145
gcoakes wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those real numbers? Also, do you mean additive or multiplicative (i.e.: 20 + 20 + 15 vs. 20 * 20 * 15).

We have about 2500TWh/a of nuclear worldwide. 42000TWh/a coal, 48000TWh/a oil, and 38000TWh/a gas. Give or take a few thousand TWh.

[dead]

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

#150

Post by ido »

mdekkers wrote: post #120
forgetfreeman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Global overpopulation is absolutely a part of the equation, and everyone is deeply uncomfortable talking about it because there are no palatable solutions to that specific problem. Humans, as a species, exhibit all the damaging properties of a cancerous growth, and our habitat can no longer support us. As George Carlin said: the planet will be fine, it’s the humans that are fucked!

We’re already heading towards a peak mid-century and then a slow decline of global populations based on existing trends.
Post reply on HN