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

301–310 of 581 posts

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

#301

Post by omnimus »

concordDance wrote: post #288
amrocha wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is what OP means by changing the way we live.

Sorry but getting rained on a bit is least of our troubles. Imagine there are places like Netherlands where it rains all the time and people (including very old ones) bike around the city…

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

#302

Post by concordDance »

Loic wrote: post #298
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.

Replying here to your below comment because of the "stack" limit. You wrote "I want to go to visit my friend Bob who lives 10 miles away but the rain is pouring down." as a justification for ownership of a car. We just went through 2 weeks of heavy rain here in Germany. I am only biking (not even an E-Bike) and what I did is just looked at the rain radar with a simple app, add a bit of buffer time, packed rain clothe…

I'm a biker, I commute to work via bike and mostly shop via bike.

The car is still incredibly useful for rainy days, visiting friends or when I really don't feel like tackling that hill to shop.

Maybe you enjoy half an hour cycling in rain that's going to last 6 hours, but I don't.

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

#303

Post by matsemann »

stephen_g wrote: post #8

I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already…

The way Green is presenting this doesn't sit quite right with me. From day one of the sea temperature anomalies it's been said it's mainly because of these emissions no longer happening. But I guess it's the way it has to be presented to reach the masses.

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

#304

Post by omnimus »

lordnacho wrote: post #294
fasterik wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politica…

> Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. Isn't this because we're paying them to make stuff for us? Or is there some accounting of this where its their own consumption that causes it?

Also why would developing countries have to limit carbon emissions more than non developing ones?

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

#305

Post by fasterik »

atoav wrote: post #226
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,…

>That is why discussions around such technological silver bullets are always toxic: people want to believe.

On the flip side, some people reject technological solutions on principle because for them, it's not about solving problems, it's about atoning for the sins of humanity.

What does the alternative future look like where we solve the climate crisis by changing the way we live and organize society? Personally, I would prefer to continue having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet. It seems to me that if we really wanted to, we could keep these things around while putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere. But that's not a satisfying answer for people who have made the climate crisis into a religious issue.

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

#306

Post by teamonkey »

bartimus wrote: post #283
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?

Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is geoengineering. Reducing CO2 emissions is less geoengineering.

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

#307

Post by fastball »

aziaziazi wrote: post #275
concordDance wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because the top ones won't be convinced if you don't convince the others. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

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

#309

Post by sfvisser »

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…

> 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 optimistic.

If the models are too optimistic, that still means they are wrong, right? Genuinely confused about this.

“The situation today is more dire than our previous models predict and the same models predict an even worse future so we need to take them extra seriously” doesn’t strike me as very reasonable. Not in a super non-linear system with tons of complicated feedback loops.

Any pointers to in-depth explanations of how these models work and how they are benchmarked? Definitely want to learn more.

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

#310

Post by fastball »

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.

I don't think hilariously strained analogies are helpful in this discussion.

The incredibly multi-variate nature of this problem effectively prevents any comparison that is at the scale of an individual.

Post reply on HN