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

281–290 of 581 posts

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

#281

Post by concordDance »

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…

> until all countries switch to nuclear energy eventually and reduce CO2 emissions.

I'm confused. CO2 will still be in the atmosphere warming the planet once emissions stop. So we'd still need to be constantly emitting sulfur.

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

#282

Post by concordDance »

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?

When climate change starts causing QALY losses comparable to the effects of, say, banning cars.

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

#283

Post by bartimus »

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…

Reducing atmospheric CO2 is geo-engineering just as well. Tackling climate change is going to involve climate engineering. Some solutions will work. Others will not.

> to refrain from aggravating the situation

Easier said than done. What makes you think this is going to be achievable?

Why are you assuming the HN community isn't acknowledging the complexity and not taking a holistic approach?

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

#284

Post by cubefox »

concordDance wrote: post #281
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…

> until all countries switch to nuclear energy eventually and reduce CO2 emissions. I'm confused. CO2 will still be in the atmosphere warming the planet once emissions stop. So we'd still need to be constantly emitting sulfur.

I think CO2 would go down naturally after some time. But maybe we actually need to actively remove it, which is way harder.

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

#285

Post by concordDance »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #197

I’ve unfortunately come to the conclusion that we are buggered. Watching politics in the U.K. and the rest of the world I’m seeing politicians realise that they can tap into the populist idea that anything green is “the elites trying to control and tax you”. All they care about us short term election prospects.

A lot of "green" policies are holier than thou people trying to impose their lifestyle preferences in ways that don't actually help. Good examples are the anti-nuclear power movement and the nonsense that is plastic "recycling".

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

#286

Post by concordDance »

cubefox wrote: post #284
concordDance wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until all countries switch to nuclear energy eventually and reduce CO2 emissions. I'm confused. CO2 will still be in the atmosphere warming the planet once emissions stop. So we'd still need to be constantly emitting sulfur.

I think CO2 would go down naturally after some time. But maybe we actually need to actively remove it, which is way harder.

> I think CO2 would go down naturally after some time.

How? Where does the carbon go?

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

#287

Post by atoav »

CalRobert wrote: post #255
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,…

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.

Are you sure the impact of "everybody on earth lives in a well insulated flat" on the earth climate and biodiversity is net positive?

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

#288

Post by concordDance »

amrocha wrote: post #280
concordDance wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

While some meat eating being required for nice food is subjective, I'm struggling to see what the suggested alternative to cars for all weather personal mobility is. I want to go to visit my friend Bob who lives 10 miles away but the rain is pouring down. What do I do in a carless world?

Btw: CO2 emission taxes, road taxes and congestion charges are a great idea.

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

#289

Post by prox »

0xDEF wrote: post #254
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…

How are you going to convince Asia and Africa to stop their economic growth? How are you going to convince Americans to stop driving Ford F150s? How are you going to convince Europeans to stop doing vacations that involves long-distance flights to exotic faraway countries? Geoengineering is the only solution.

Why does economic growth need to be incompatible with going green? I don’t think they are natural opposites, mostly habitual, and habits and outlooks can change if people really want. Now it’s the “really want” that’s at issue here. Maybe this year’s weather opens peoples minds.

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

#290

Post by johnnyworker »

tomp wrote: post #190
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fires are actually decreasing. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-th... https://archive.li/WfDJh

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-boreal-wild...

> From 1 January to 31 July, accumulated carbon emissions from wildfires across Canada total 290 megatonnes. This is already more than double the previous record for the year as a whole and represents over 25% of the global total for 2023 to date.

Post reply on HN