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

271–280 of 581 posts

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

#271

Post by concordDance »

szundi wrote: post #196
lm28469 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only viable alternative to doing nothing is stopping our quest for infinite growth in all sectors. You're the proverbial boiling frog

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.

Got to convince Nigeria that they shouldn't expect any further quality of life increase. Good luck.

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

#272

Post by aziaziazi »

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.

We’re actually curating it to get closer to the situation. Or are you seeing humanity as a kind of god that can play with earth without impacting it existence on it ?

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

#273

Post by concordDance »

BasedAnon wrote: post #221
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

That's an awful analogy. The science behind, say, sunshades is much stronger than the science behind climate change itself!

Eg. The odds of blocking out the sun not cooling the earth are much lower than the earth's temperature magically stabilising at current levels despite more co2 emissions.

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

#274

Post by concordDance »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #218
Roark66 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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're actually pretty good at predicting the weather for the next three days. The point about climate variability is a stock denialist talking point. In reality climate predictions have been extremely accurate. There is absolute no mystery or ambiguity here. We've been improving our CO2 models for over a century now, and in recent decades the modelling has been extremely good - although if anything it's been too opti…

CO2 caused climate change isn't an extinction risk for humanity.

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

#275

Post by aziaziazi »

concordDance wrote: post #248
Roark66 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Convincing every country in the world that they don't need fossil fuels isn't possible. Blocking some sunlight from reaching the Earth is.

Why being an absolutist? We don’t need to convince every country. Just the top ones that drive the most consumption/pollution.

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

#276

Post by tmpX7dMeXU »

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’s almost like this website is full of people that let Silicon Valley money trick them into believing they are Gods amongst men and that knowing how to write software grants them some sort of transferable expertise.

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

#277

Post by concordDance »

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…

> 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.

But emitting some sulfer oxides is not.

Geoengineering is a very broad term, yes there are things that are in the category of "geoengineering" that could make humans extinct, but none are proposed as a solution to global warming.

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

#278

Post by concordDance »

nostrebored wrote: post #167
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…

The more radical geoengineering ideas, like deflecting sunlight from space, are truly potential extinction level events that should be regulated out of existence. This should not be some VC funded endeavor.

You're really underestimating how much sun blocking would be needed to kill off humans.

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

#279

Post by fasterik »

matsemann wrote: post #235
atoav wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Especially since HNers mostly are the top top top earners in the world, having unsustainable lifestyles. No one likes to accept it can't be like this forever.

This doesn't seem right. Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. On the other hand, the HN crowd is much more likely to live in dense cities (which are more climate friendly), have access to public transportation, drive electric cars, and can afford to pay for carbon offsets.

The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the political will to invest in real solutions like nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc.

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

#280

Post by amrocha »

concordDance wrote: post #266
CalRobert wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want everyone to be able to live in a well insulated flat powered by renewable energy walking and biking distance from their daily needs, and with public transport (and rarely-needed EV share) for the rest. Combined with a low meat low dairy diet and less disposable consumer junk it seems like we could get a long ways with an arguably better quality of life. Maybe work half time too.

"Stop eating nice food" is a nonstarter, as is "give up personal all weather mobility", have these as a policy positions and we'll get 3 degrees rises as those would be a smaller quality of life decrease for the average American.

Meat != nice food

Cars != all weather mobility

And if you really want a car get ready to pay 4x current prices because that's what they actually cost without subsidies and free externalities

Post reply on HN