Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships may be causing rising sea temperatures • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by fasterik » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:41 AM UTC

matsemann wrote: post #295

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…

Well, you're saying "new carbon emissions", of course those are coming from developing countries. It's not the same statement as I said. And of course they should be allowed to improve their quality of life. My point is that an average HNer lives in a country where per capita co2 per person is >10x as much as the poorer countries. And since the average HNer is a well off person with a lavish lifestyle, international…

Carbon emissions per capita is going down in developed countries. It's going up in developing countries. Your implication was that the current problem is the level of consumption in the richest countries. But in reality that only accounts for a small portion of the expected carbon emissions over the next century.

We don't need to "cut back" to a sustainable level. A sustainable level is whatever amount of energy we can produce without increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. If we built more nuclear, solar, and wind power, and invested more in carbon capture and storage, we could sustain a much higher level of consumption than we currently are, while emitting less carbon.

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

#312

Post by fastball » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:41 AM UTC

Turskarama wrote: post #205

sz3 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no alternative. We have "aggravated the situation" (as you put it) beyond recovery. Doing nothing will now surely lead to an unacceptable outcome. We are going to have to fix it, or resign ourselves to a huge shrinking of the habitable region of the planet, with the hunger/famine/war that will accompany that. Obviously we can always make things worse. But when doing nothing is unacceptable, we have to start…

You have absolutely no idea if the "solutions" we try won't lead to even worse outcomes. Up until the point climate change is becoming an existential threat, which it isn't yet, we shouldn't go doing anything too drastic. There is plenty of evidence that we can still avert the worst of it without resorting to geoengineering.

Why exactly do you place faith in evidence that says "we can still avert the worst of it" and are not willing to do the same for evidence that says "we can do even better with geo-engineering"? Presumably the scale of the problem is the same either way, so well-reasoned evidence should be able to persuade you of either.

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

#313

Post by ChatGTP » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:42 AM UTC

adamisom wrote: post #125

junofan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I understanding that page correctly? Sounds like 3–4 deg C of cooling for an estimated $5 bn/yr.

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,…

We are in an emergency, look at those graphs ?

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

#314

Post by fastball » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:44 AM UTC

teamonkey wrote: post #306

bartimus wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is more like geo-fly-tipping. Engineering implies we are being thoughtful about it (which is more true in the reduction case than the dumping case).

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

#315

Post by ChatGTP » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:45 AM UTC

adamisom wrote: post #125

junofan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I understanding that page correctly? Sounds like 3–4 deg C of cooling for an estimated $5 bn/yr.

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,…

We are in an emergency, look at those graphs ?

Imo governments know this , just not yet sure what to do yet.

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

#316

Post by fasterik » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:45 AM UTC

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?

It's because they're industrializing, have higher population growth, and are primarily building coal power plants to keep up with it.

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

#317

Post by hkt » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:48 AM UTC

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,…

The thing that is galling is that we already have the technology to live sustainably if people do change their lifestyles.

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

#318

Post by Tuna-Fish » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:50 AM UTC

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 Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes.

There are methods of geoengineering that you can stop doing at any point, at which point they stop having an effect.

The one proposed in this twitter thread, marine cloud brightening by spraying seawater in the air, is one of those.

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

#319

Post by teamonkey » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:51 AM UTC

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #44

jonathankoren wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is defeatist and also not true. We adopt nuclear, invest in carbon capture technologies, and employ geoengineering strategies as needed until fusion comes online. This is a solvable technical problem with significant political hurdles.

> adopt nuclear

Not possible in the timescales required.

> carbon capture technologies

Don’t exist.

> geoengineering strategies

Unproven and potentially catastrophic.

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

#320

Post by californical » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:52 AM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #296

teamonkey wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that your friend lives 10 miles away and you don’t have adequate public transportation, not that life without cars is impossible.

Public transportation still requires you to go to the bus stop in the rain. I'm also unsure what the proposed solution to Bob being 10 miles away is. Should I only make friends with people who work at the same place?

The solution is that Bob isn’t 10 miles away because the town is more dense. And carrying an umbrella to the tram or train stop 3 blocks away is easy