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

#401

Post by gilbetron » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:17 PM 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…

We already are performing geoengineering on the Earth, as you point out. We can't not do geoengineering anymore. Either we can continue the geoengineering we have been doing, or change the geoengineering to work towards some other goal, but there isn't an option where we don't do geoengineering. If you are driving a car towards what you think might be a cliff, you can't choose not to drive. You can continue driving the way you are, you can turn, you can brake, but you can't not drive.

Anything we choose to do will require geoengineering. We can continue dumping CO2 into the air, which is geoengineering. We can try to make our atmosphere more reflective, which is geoengineering. We can try to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, which is geoengineering. We can try to completely stop putting CO2 in the air, which is geoengineering. We need to change the state of Earth, which, pretty much by definition, is geoengineering.

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

#402

Post by Contusion3532 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:17 PM UTC

omnimus wrote: post #304

lordnacho wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Exactly. The cumulative emissions of the United States dwarf the rest of the countries in the world[1].

The powerhouse that is the United States was built on the externality of carbon emissions. Now that the West has built their economies of this externality, they're trying to prevent developing nations from catching up by utilizing the same externality.

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-2...

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

#403

Post by Contusion3532 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:19 PM UTC

fasterik wrote: post #353

benhurmarcel wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 emissions per capita (tons/person/year): Canada 18.72 United States 15.32 China 7.44 Brazil 2.24 Indonesia 2.02 India 1.89

Yes, and when you multiply per capita by population, you end up with China and India emitting over double what the United States emits. There is also the delta to take into account. Industrialized countries are decarbonizing and switching to renewables, while industrializing countries are building new coal plants.

It's not exactly fair for industrialized nations to have taken advantage of the externality of their historic carbon emissions, but then prevent developing nations from doing the same.

The ethical solution would be for industrialized nations to subsidize the development and decarbonization of developing nations.

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

#404

Post by Contusion3532 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

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.

There is no solution. The industrialized nations used the externality of carbon emissions to build their current status. These nations are unwilling to subsidize and compensate developing nations so that they can develop while using clean energy.

Politicians can't tell their constituents the truth -- that their lifestyles are destroying the planet and are unsustainable. They'll be replaced be politicians that tell voters what they want to hear or scapegoat others.

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

#405

Post by diziet » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:27 PM UTC

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.

I want everyone to be able to do that too. I just don't want everyone to be forced to do so.

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

#406

Post by zagrebian » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:32 PM UTC

zith wrote: post #214

Climate models take this into account [0], contrary to what some people here seem to imply. It is also very likely that this is part of, but not the major factor of recent warming. [1] I would like to point out that this is not something we're just figuring out "this week" as Hank Green seems to want to frame it. There's no need to sensationalize. There is no conspiracy here. This is well known. It's good to educate…

If Hank was less excited about it, the video would not reach nearly as many viewers, so from an educational perspective, he’s succeeding at educating many more people about this topic. It matters less when we “figured this out”. The educational value is in the details.

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

#407

Post by brutusborn » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 2:54 PM UTC

hotdogscout wrote: post #390

brutusborn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it is the media conflated “ClimateGate deniers think global warming is false” with “ClimateGate deniers think global warming models aren’t scientific.” Any politicised science should be treated with extreme. skepticism

>Any politicised science should be treated with extreme. skepticism Proximal Origin[1] and the deliberate manufactured narrative of conflating criticism of it's blatant flaws to a conspiracy theory[2,3,4] was diabolical, I personally hope Nature's reputation is destroyed because of it. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 [2] https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/covid-documents-house-re... [3] https:/…

I find the Covid origin stuff weird because it seems so obvious that a lab leak was a possibility. Politicising the lab leak hypothesis did a lot of damage to institutional trust.

Covid origins, vaccine harms and global warming are just the most obvious examples of politicised science causing problems. It’s basically irreversible once sides have chosen their respective beliefs to include in their dogma. Take this thread as an example: I comment on accuracy of climate models and someone compares me to Trump.

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

#408

Post by dosenbrot » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:10 PM UTC

It’s off topic, but am I the only one who wanted to press the x button in the top left corner to close the window?

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

#409

Post by jonathankoren » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:17 PM UTC

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #240

jonathankoren wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude. Nuclear takes decades to build, and that’s IF you can even build it. There’s zero appetite for it in the US or even formerly nuclear happy Europe. We’re literally decommissioning more reactors than we build. Carbon capture doesn’t work. Even if you did manage to capture it from a coal plant, that’s not enough. You have to suck it from the air, and a scalable technology doesn’t exist, and even if it did, we’d ne…

Better to do something (build nuclear) than do nothing (cry on twitter).

You should do something that actually has a chance to work, rather than feel good about doing something that that doesn’t.

When your house is on fire, you don’t start shopping for sprinklers saying, “Good news everyone! The sprinkler system will be installed in three weeks!”, instead of calling the fire department

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

#410

Post by jonathankoren » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 3:21 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #144

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.

Humanity has not "broken" the planet; to argue such is the epitome of conceit. We are not special nor powerful. Humanity is just one of many lifeforms the planet had, has, and will have over the course of its vast existence transcending any human sense of time.

We can all take comfort in your wise words that a ball of rock will still be here even after the planet has become literally unlivable for humans across vast swaths of previously populated areas, and the planet violent has undergone a completely predictable and preventable ecological collapse.

Yes. Very wise.