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

#491

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 7:53 PM UTC

replygirl wrote: post #474

jacquesm wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i don't think a disinterest in cycling for 45 minutes in the rain each way says anything negative about me. i have a bike and use it when it makes sense. that doesn't make sense

No, but it means that you also have a car. Plenty of people don't. And rain usually doesn't stop them from doing what they want to do.

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

#492

Post by nobody9999 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 7:57 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #475

adamesque wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe? To be clear, I'm not saying that you should strongly advocate for other people to strongly believe things that you only weakly believe. But you should strongly advocate for other people to weakly believe those things. Furthermore, I don't think stro…

>Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe?

I am an atheist. As such, I strongly believe that there is no "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent 'creator'."

However, regardless of how strongly I hold that opinion (especially as it, in almost every respect, reflects our understanding of the universe and how it works), I don't do any atheism "advocacy," nor do I proselytize an atheistic viewpoint -- despite the fact that I see belief systems that include such a creator, all of them not just the Abrahamic religions, to be demonstrably false.

Another strongly held opinion of mine is that it's not my responsibility to disabuse others of their misconceptions in that respect.

Based on your statement, it seems that you would claim (incorrectly) that I don't hold my views as to the (non-)existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator, as well as my aversion to attempting to force such views down the throats of others. strongly at all. Is that the case, or am I misunderstanding your point?

Edit: Fixed typo.

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

#493

Post by geysersam » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 8:14 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #484

geysersam wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere? Because it costs money. Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper . Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in t…

Why do you think carbon capture is a scam? It's not going to replace reduction via reducing new emissions to zero like some people seem to think, but we're also going to need to pull a lot out of the carbon cycle - net zero isn't enough. We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identica…

It's a scam because the cost of removing one ton of CO2 using carbon capture (assuming we're talking about direct air capture) is so high that very few would be ready to pay the price to remove their emissions. Again, reducing how much carbon emissions we produce is way cheaper.

I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere at anywhere near the current rate.

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

#494

Post by oAlbe » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #416

Turskarama wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You have absolutely no idea if the "solutions" we try won't lead to even worse outcomes. This is absolutely untrue. The mechanisms of how SO2 in the stratosphere cools the planet are well understood and empirically observed. This includes the fact that it breaks down in ~2 years, making it self repairing, should something unforeseen happen.

> In the early 1990s, anthropogenic sulfur dominated in the Northern Hemisphere, where only 16% of annual sulfur emissions were natural, yet amounted for less than half of the emissions in the Southern Hemisphere.

> Such an increase in sulfate aerosol emissions had a variety of effects. At the time, the most visible one was acid rain, caused by precipitation from clouds carrying high concentrations of sulfate aerosols in the troposphere. At its peak, acid rain has eliminated brook trout and some other fish species and insect life from lakes and streams in geographically sensitive areas, such as Adirondack Mountains in the United States. Acid rain worsens soil function as some of its microbiota is lost and heavy metals like aluminium are mobilized (spread more easily) while essential nutrients and minerals such as magnesium can leach away because of the same. Ultimately, plants unable to tolerate lowered pH are killed, with montane forests being some of the worst-affected ecosystems due to their regular exposure to sulfate-carrying fog at high altitudes.[1]

Sure, let's have ~2 years of that.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide

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

#495

Post by detourdog » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #453

detourdog wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Makes me wonder if the offshoring of manufacturing from the USA ended up looking like efficiency gains. If we are indeed now anchoring manufacturing it will have a much smaller energy footprint than the manufacturing we lost. Which finally brings us back to the original topic delivery of goods.

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

#496

Post by kaba0 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #458

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…

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.

We are currently accelerating towards a cliff. We may not stop the car before the cliff, but the next best thing we can do is getting our legs off the pedal.

Maybe technology will help us achieve that last minute stop we so need, but we have to start somewhere.

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

#497

Post by kaba0 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 8:46 PM UTC

TatersGonnaT8 wrote: post #448

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…

Just tax carbon and everyone can decide with their wallets just how much they want to eat meat or imported Peruvian fruits

Yes, that’s definitely one of the most realistic ways going forward, though the recyclable bottles part would need separate government standards and laws.

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

#498

Post by ericd » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

geysersam wrote: post #493

ericd wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think carbon capture is a scam? It's not going to replace reduction via reducing new emissions to zero like some people seem to think, but we're also going to need to pull a lot out of the carbon cycle - net zero isn't enough. We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identica…

It's a scam because the cost of removing one ton of CO2 using carbon capture (assuming we're talking about direct air capture) is so high that very few would be ready to pay the price to remove their emissions. Again, reducing how much carbon emissions we produce is way cheaper. I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the…

Ah, but there are a bunch of other carbon capture solutions, DAC is usually considered among the highest cost.

But yeah, not emitting is cheaper in most cases, and you’re right, we can’t just slather carbon capture on our current situation and not change anything else.

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

#499

Post by jonathankoren » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:01 PM UTC

RandomLensman wrote: post #182

forgetfreeman wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if you want to proceed from a faith-based position that's a personal choice. Personally I'll start believing in bigfoot 2 seconds after I see one.

I have honestly no idea how that relates to my post. There are enormous amounts of money flowing into net zero, for example. There are people working on fusion, there is more thought given to geoengineering - to name just a couple of things.

We’ve been 20 years away from fusion for 80 years now.

Maybe someday, sure. But saying fusion is going to save us is foolish. We can’t wait that long

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

#500

Post by kaba0 » Sat, Aug 05, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

montroser wrote: post #426

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…

That all sounds okay at an individual level, but to affect the massive change we need, relying on moral self-agency is not going to suffice. So do you want governments to legislate that you must live with your parents? Or that you must not eat meat? Otherwise it's fine and good that a small share of the populace will make these choices on their own, but we need an order of magnitude more.

Carbon tax incentivizes many of my points, but it’s not like my points are the sacred script on what to follow. That and some others do require government legislations (which are a good thing in most cases, and ideally are there to protect and serve the people!), e.g. mandating a standard container, others like living with your parents would need a social change, but that can also be influenced by the government, e.g. much less tax on rent in case of multi-generational homes.