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

221–230 of 581 posts

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

#221

Post by BasedAnon »

nologic01 wrote: post #156

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. It is true that we have been slowly geoengineering for ages (initially unwittingly, recently with eyes wide open) and it is also true that our mo…

>Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes.

here's one: stop writing random bits to the BIOS hoping it will fix things

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

#222

Post by BasedAnon »

aziaziazi wrote: post #201
sz3 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hopefully we have some time to practice first. Because we're the only person in the room and the patient is bleeding out.

You are the doctor and the patient at the same time. On what body do you want to practice ?

>You are the doctor and the patient at the same time.

Don't forget that, it's important!

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

#223

Post by BasedAnon »

sz3 wrote: post #203
aziaziazi wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the doctor and the patient at the same time. On what body do you want to practice ?

I feel like we're stretching the analogy pretty thin here.

(nsfl) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7WW-AsiBoE

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

#224

Post by mpweiher »

Roark66 wrote: post #211
nologic01 wrote: post #156

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. It is true that we have been slowly geoengineering for ages (initially unwittingly, recently with eyes wide open) and it is also true that our mo…

More people should upvote your post. If there is a rank of how easily humanity can destroy itself and make the earth uninhabitable for itself geoengineering is probably second only to thermonuclear war. Also I object to the use of the term geo-engineering. Engineering supposes we know exactly what the outcomes will be following centuries/decades of experience with similar systems. Including many failed experiments. T…

We have extensive records on what happens after volcano eruptions. So we know what happens. Because it has happened many times before.

And yes, if the alternative is an extinction-level event, for example a runaway greenhouse effect turning the earth into Venus, then stomping on the brakes with anything whatsoever is a perfectly valid proposal. And doing something comparable to a volcano doesn't come close to "anything whatsoever", because, as I said, we have records of how this plays out, and it happens all the time anyway.

And if you are saying that this isn't an acceptable way to proceed, which is a perfectly valid position, then very obviously the alternative cannot be an extinction-level event such as a runaway greenhouse effect that will turn Earth into Venus.

What you cannot have is have it both ways. Which is where a lot of people currently seem to be positioned. As in "we are literally destroying the planet AND geo-engineering is unacceptable". Nope. Pick one.

Furthermore, injecting SO2 into the atmosphere is easy enough that it is well in reach of pretty much every state actor whose population is going to be most severely affected by climate change, in particular "wet-bulb events". So the question of whether we want this to happen or not really isn't relevant. It almost certainly will happen.

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

#225

Post by paganel »

Meanwhile, in Tonga: "Tonga experiences unusual cold during El Nino alert" [1]

> Tonga's Meteorology Department said on Friday that the Pacific island country is experiencing unusually cold weather, with cool days and cooler nights, and climate is leaning towards El Nino conditions.

> According to the Matangi Tonga news website, a low of 9.3 degrees Celsius, recorded at the end of July in Tongatapu island where the capital Nuku'alofa is located, was the lowest on record for the island country of this year.

But because it goes against the hysteria of the "world is boiling!" this didn't get posted in here, nor was it taken by the major Western news sources (I cannot find it on the BBC website, for example).

It's the COVID hysteria all over again.

[1] https://english.news.cn/20230804/c739b0bc8f684fe9991e5c02610...

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

#226

Post by atoav »

nologic01 wrote: post #156

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. It is true that we have been slowly geoengineering for ages (initially unwittingly, recently with eyes wide open) and it is also true that our mo…

It is very uncomplicated in fact:

Most people here on HN are rationally capable of understanding the challenges humanity faces right now.

What many aren't capable of is accepting the conclusion that we all have to change the way we live and quite possibly even the way we organize society in order to mitigate the irreperable problems our way of living has already caused.

Deep down they might suspect this is necessary, but it is much more comfortable to believe in a solution that is only technological and go on as we did. That is why discussions around such technological silver bullets are always toxic: people want to believe.

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

#227

Post by brabel »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #151
adamisom wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if climate change really was an “emergency”, mitigation would be extremely cheap. With big side effects. Nevertheless if it really were an emergency … in real emergencies, triage happens, and downsides are taken for granted. Thankful that there’s no real emergency yet, but I suspect governments will drag their feet long enough that there will eventually be one, and then emergency relief will be deployed anyway,…

I don’t know. My province in Canada is experiencing anomalous weather events year after year, and while things still look “okay” we seem to be encroaching on visible threshold events quite rapidly. Sure, these events could mysteriously stop. Or stay very much the same, acting like a new normal that isn’t so destructive as to be an emergency. But the trend line is there. Fires increasing, biodiversity decreasing, floo…

> If that’s not an emergency, what is?

You know it's an emergency when the status quo is completely unacceptable and the government takes drastic measures (no more cars of any kind on the road, every physically able man/woman forced to work on whatever solution is chosen to help, that kind of thing - nothing close to what we're seeing today) with widespread support of the population.

You can't call it an emergency when no one would truly support emergency measures of the scale that would be enough to affect the climate (no, driving an electric car is not even close to helping if this was a true emergency - and I drive one myself).

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

#228

Post by thriftwy »

Roark66 wrote: post #211
nologic01 wrote: post #156

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. It is true that we have been slowly geoengineering for ages (initially unwittingly, recently with eyes wide open) and it is also true that our mo…

More people should upvote your post. If there is a rank of how easily humanity can destroy itself and make the earth uninhabitable for itself geoengineering is probably second only to thermonuclear war. Also I object to the use of the term geo-engineering. Engineering supposes we know exactly what the outcomes will be following centuries/decades of experience with similar systems. Including many failed experiments. T…

Aren't you confusing it with sea of Aral / Caspian sea?

Black sea indeed had a catastrophe but that one predated humans.

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

#229

Post by sacrosancty »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #212
szundi wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem with this, apart from convincing like 5-6 billion people to cut their standards of living to half. Also less people is needed, few children. Sounds like impossible now without concentrated media effort and all ruling parties probably would lose for decades.

5-6 billion people are going to have their living standards and reproductive opportunities destroyed anyway. If not worse. But you're really just remaking the point that as a species we're incapable of intelligent collective management of our resources.

[dead]

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

#230

Post by fredrikholm »

Roark66 wrote: post #219
sz3 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hopefully we have some time to practice first. Because we're the only person in the room and the patient is bleeding out.

So don't do a bloody tripple bypass with a butter knife. Just stop the bleeding. Jeez, this conversation is the best illustration of everything that's wrong with geoengineering ideas. Indeed we have practiced quite a bit. Read on the catastrophe that was geoengineering attempts resulting in what is now happening with the Sea of Azov.

> Just stop the bleeding.

Is that enough? AFAIK all paths forward to avoid the worst outcomes includes becoming net negative ASAP.

That's stopping the addition of 37,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 anually.

For context, a modern CCS captures some thousands of tonne, which is a comparatively tiny, tiny number.

Unless magic happens in the next decade, it appears that geoengineering is something we can't avoid, sans the suffering and death of billions.

I'd love to be wrong here.

Post reply on HN