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

#451

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

replygirl wrote: post #443

jacquesm wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If rain were a major impediment to functioning Ireland and NL should be abandoned. But it isn't. Rain is a minor nuisance. As for your friendships: in the past people would usually be good friends with people living close to them because they lacked transport. I have friends all over the world on account of the internet and I'm well aware that going to visit them is in many cases out of the question. That's much easi…

It's just unreasonable to suggest people not visit their friends within the same metro area

If a bit of rain would stop you then that says a lot. I bike thousands of km per year and get caught in the rain frequently, it doesn't even factor into the decision of whether or not I will go because when you bike a longer distance in NL the chances of getting rained on approach certainty.

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

#452

Post by cutemonster » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

tticvs wrote: post #425

kaba0 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have enough resources to provide heating and running water for every living person on Earth, it is just not allocated fairly and smartly (e.g. in my country we flush the toilet with very good grade water meant for drinking, because historically we don’t have separate piping for less potable water and we are rich in waters). But do we really need to be able to order some bullshit plastic shit from China for 2 dolla…

But none of the examples you give move the needle enough with regards to climate change. You're just following what feels like it would be good for the environment (and maybe it is good for your local environment) but isn't actually impactful at a large scale. You write eloquently, but futilely.

I think it's not meant to be an exhaustive list of things to do.

Instead, what if it's a mindset: Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others.

And you can add to the list (instead of just saying "it won't work").

E.g. high car gas taxes, so there'll be trains, buses and bike lanes instead for everyone.

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

#453

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

detourdog wrote: post #383

jacquesm wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What drives it doesn't matter. Some areas may simply not be habitable sustainably.

I understand I was just trying to explain to myself how they were #1 in usage. I was surprised. I was also trying to define the problem since they were outpacing the USA. Looks like Niagara falls only produces about 16 billion BTUs or 4.9 Million kWs.

Up North there are stacks of firewood everywhere and prepping for winter is an exercise in logistics. Also still many oil furnaces in active use.

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

#454

Post by tticvs » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #369

fasterik wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's a magic fix, I'm saying it's a really hard problem that we can solve if we put the resources and brain power into it. But some people apparently think that even trying to solve the problem is pointless. Needless to say, I disagree. >Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, w…

> We came from a history of mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort. I think this nostalgia for the past is a golden age fallacy that needs to die. Technology has vastly improved human life and taking it away is essentially a call for reducing the standard of living for everybody. The past wasn't sunbeams and frolic…

Without modern, western, industrial technology 50% of all people die before reaching adulthood: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

This is reproducible across time, geography and culture. It is the basic condition of humanity.

> I invite you to visit basically any place on Earth that is not Europe or North America. It's frankly a white/western superiority complex and technology is just a fig leaf over it, a fundamental belief that today's way of life is the only one worth living

I invite you to do the same, and ask the people you'd meet if they'd prefer if half their children died in their arms or if they'd prefer to live without electricity, or antibiotics, or fertilizer, or telecommunications, or vaccines, or, or, or....

> But under no configuration is modern life sustainable for 8 billion people, energy, living space, and raw materials wise, so this situation is going to keep drawing down the reservoir until there is a brutal correction.

If billions are going to die either way then instead of just giving up we should be trying everything in our power to improve our technology to increase the carrying capacity of the earth and escape another malthusian trap as we've done so many times in the past.

Unless of course you want billions to die.

As an aside, I'm very disturbed to realize this screed is coming from someone of your stature in the tech community.

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

#455

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:07 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…

It’s reasonable to be skeptical since past climate models (eg from 20 years ago) didn’t do great over the subsequent period. It could be that current ones are much better (but we won’t know for a while).

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

#456

Post by adamesque » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #434

jjallen wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah unfortunately if some people are click-baity it makes it where basically everyone has to be if they want to maximize their views/revenue on YouTube.

We all have a responsibility to be the strongest possible advocates of our own opinions

We absolutely do not. We have a responsibility to seek out the truth and act in the interest of the common good. Quite often this means NOT strongly or blindly advocating our own opinions when our knowledge is incomplete or motivated by self-interest. Many times our responsibility is to advocate someone else’s opinion or present multiple options.

I have many many opinions and very few of them would benefit from my strongest advocacy.

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

#457

Post by amrocha » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

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.

A lot of people replied to you and stuff, but I don't agree with them all so I want to answer you personally.

I live in Tokyo. As I'm replying to you, I'm coming back from meeting my friends that live 13 miles away. This isn't uncommon. One of my best friends, I see her almost every week, lives 15 miles away from me.

Here's what I did: I cycled 5 minutes to the train station; I got on the train; I ran into a friend in the train, and we chatted the whole way; I got to the station, went to our meeting spot, and we hung out for hours, drank a bunch, had fun, until last train; then we all went back to the station, rode the train for 45 minutes, and now I'm home.

It wasn't raining today, but I hang out with my friends when it's raining too. We don't let that stop us. Take an umbrella or a raincoat or just walk for 5 minutes in the rain. It's not a big deal.

At the same time, I understand that this can feel very foreign to you. Our thoughts are molded by our environment. But I'm sure that if you lived in Tokyo you would also change your mind.

I don't know how to change your mind, but I can tell you that if you gave it a try you would change your mind. l

I'm not saying cars have no place, but they don't need to be the be all end all of transportation. There's very real negatives to cars, we're just blinded to them as long as we live in a car centric society.

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

#458

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

kaba0 wrote: post #351

fasterik wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 w…

We have enough resources to provide heating and running water for every living person on Earth, it is just not allocated fairly and smartly (e.g. in my country we flush the toilet with very good grade water meant for drinking, because historically we don’t have separate piping for less potable water and we are rich in waters). But do we really need to be able to order some bullshit plastic shit from China for 2 dolla…

The problem is that absent technology we need to reach 0 carbon emissions. Not just what it was in 1950 or 1900 but actually 0. This implies a standard of living far worse than you suggest. And even at 0 it will take hundreds of years to undo current warming.

It’s not going to be politically feasible since 99% of people don’t want to live that way. Thus we have to pursue alternatives.

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

#459

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #381

jacquesm wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care about what people call me, I'm just pointing out there are too many of us. Historically when there were too many people we ended up with wars or famine. I don't think this time around it will be an exception to that rule, but it's the first time this is happening at this scale. In that sense all bets are off, it is also possible that given such stakes humanity can find it in itself to pull the cart as on…

> I don't care about what people call me I hope it's clear from context that I wasn't directing anything at you; we're basically in complete agreement.

We're well into 'uncomfortable truth' territory on this subject, so you can expect namecalling and downvoting rather than discussion, nothing surprising but people don't like to hear that their life style isn't sustainable.

The majority of people around me would rather invest in holidays and luxury goods than sustainability and aim to increase their footprint rather than that they reduce it. I'm just as guilty because I too live in a wealthy country. And even though I bike when I can and have spent a small fortune on making this house less dependent on outside energy I make myself no illusions: I'm still a net negative on the environment, far in excess of any developing world denizen. All I have to do to have that reinforced is to look at our trash can, food bill and fuel bill for the times when we do drive. Each of those alone is probably well in excess of our 'proper' budget that would be sustainable.

And for the life of me without stopping all activity I have no idea how I can further reduce it, this is just the world I happen to live in. I guess I could not have had kids, I guess I could live in a tiny shack. But overall everybody in the developed world will increase the problem by virtue of being alive. That's not good news, but I don't have anything better.

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

#460

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

virgildotcodes wrote: post #423

fasterik wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the term "silver bullet" when used in these discussions is that it's used to dismiss any proposal for a technological solution. I can flip that around and say "a societal silver bullet would be cool but the reality is that we aren't going to convince people to reduce their consumption." Which I actually sort of believe. I think a technological solution has a much better chance of succeeding than a so…

If someone came to you with a problem on a project, and you had a hard deadline of the end of the week, and you had two ways to go about it - 1) this is gonna be a pain in the ass to implement, you'll all be pulling 12 hour days but it's straightforward and crystal clear in how this directly addresses the problem, and 2) some completely unproven solution, that even when fully implemented the math/logic doesn't really…

It’s a very bad analogy because we have no know working solution. We simply have never achieved zero carbon emissions given a modern world of 8 billion people.