Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

521–530 of 581 posts

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

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loads of people don't want to live in flats and row houses though.

They don't want it so badly we made it illegal to build the things obviously people didn't want built.

Zoning doesn't change that a lot of people do want single family detached homes. Those zoning rules weren't handed down by some solo dictator far away they were decided by the people living in those areas.

I do agree there should be more options in the housing market, but in the end there is some percentage of the market which will prefer to not live in flats and rowhouses.

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

#522
post #482

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…

“ 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.” This is either dishonest or ignorant. We can make a huge difference by moving faster to solar, eating a lot less meat, living in denser settings rat…

If you look at some of the other comments, "changing the way we live and organize society" for some people means depopulation and returning to a hunter gatherer way of living. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I agree that we can all do better on our individual choices. But we're not going to convince billions of people to that in the next 10 years. We need to fix the problem now, and the solution is to power our current level of growth with clean energy.

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

#523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't want it so badly we made it illegal to build the things obviously people didn't want built.

Zoning doesn't change that a lot of people do want single family detached homes. Those zoning rules weren't handed down by some solo dictator far away they were decided by the people living in those areas. I do agree there should be more options in the housing market, but in the end there is some percentage of the market which will prefer to not live in flats and rowhouses.

And it will be a very small amount of people because if SFHs were priced appropriately they would be unaffordably expensive or incredibly remote. At the end of the day people don't want just the SFH, they want the location too.

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

#524
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aerosol…

The way to do it is to release the SO2 directly into the stratosphere, where it stays for ~2 years, and does not affect rain, which happens far below.

One of the risks of a strategy like this is that we become reliant on it and use it as an excuse to solve the actual problem slower. Then if there's ever any disruption to SO2 production we get 20 years of warming all at once that we otherwise might have worked to avoid.

Betting on never having a disruption to that supply seems high risk to me.

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

#525
post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ 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.” This is either dishonest or ignorant. We can make a huge difference by moving faster to solar, eating a lot less meat, living in denser settings rat…

If you look at some of the other comments, "changing the way we live and organize society" for some people means depopulation and returning to a hunter gatherer way of living. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I agree that we can all do better on our individual choices. But we're not going to convince billions of people to that in the next 10 years. We need to fix the problem now, and the solution is to pow…

Gotcha, wasn't clear what you were referring to.

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

#526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning doesn't change that a lot of people do want single family detached homes. Those zoning rules weren't handed down by some solo dictator far away they were decided by the people living in those areas. I do agree there should be more options in the housing market, but in the end there is some percentage of the market which will prefer to not live in flats and rowhouses.

And it will be a very small amount of people because if SFHs were priced appropriately they would be unaffordably expensive or incredibly remote. At the end of the day people don't want just the SFH, they want the location too.

> or incredibly remote

Ah, now you're understanding why US cities are so sprawled. Those SFH's are remote, and a good chunk of the people living there want it that way. Those people want a large yard away from a large city while still having things like some stores and a large airport within an hour or so. These people reject the thought of living in a place like New York or Amsterdam or London or other dense cities. They actively vote against expansion or creation of public transit options.

I know there's a lot of media online about people being anti-suburbia, and yeah that's a growing percentage of America. But there's still a massive chunk of the population that will continue to just move out further from the city as you densify or actively fight densification.

As I suggested, those zoning laws aren't writing themselves. They're not being handed down by some far away dictator. They're being written and continued by popularity elected local politicians. Democracy at work.

I've absolutely seen densification efforts massively fought by the people who currently live there. I know people who purposefully moved further out from the city. I've seen neighborhood after neighborhood that seem like nightmares to me get built way out in the middle of nowhere with people clamoring to buy into them even if there are similar purchase-price denser options further in the city. Because, they want a large yard, they want a three car garage, they want five bedrooms and a study and a theater room and a wine humidor closet.

Which buying way out there, it's cheap to have some massive house because the $/sqft for just the lot alone is massively higher in the city. A massive chunk of the value of the home in a city is the land it's on not the structure itself, unless it's a really fancy structure.

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

#527
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).

[dead]

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

#528
post #464

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…

> while putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere. So, the first one taking decades and the second one being a meme """solution""" for the science illiterate?

It won't take decades if we invest sufficient resources. It takes about 5 years to build a nuclear reactor, but you can build a bunch of them in parallel. The real problem is opposition to nuclear by the general public, not the technology.

If CDR is a meme solution for the science illiterate, then why does the IPCC include it as a key mitigation strategy?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/spm-headline-st...

>C.11 The deployment of CDR to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved. The scale and timing of deployment will depend on the trajectories of gross emission reductions in different sectors. Upscaling the deployment of CDR depends on developing effective approaches to address feasibility and sustainability constraints especially at large scales. (high confidence)

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

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the mode share of cycling has gone down in the netherlands over the last 30 years. 12% of average income households are car-free; it's 25% overall and 6% for the wealthy. this is despite the mode share of cycling in amsterdam increasing 50% in the same period. even with a cycling network fully connecting the southern half of the country, decent connectivity in the north, road design in the major cities that is intent…

Taxing externalities != Fascism

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Point” seems generous. Looking at their post history their either a shill or a troll. That said I’ve heard real people in real life with alleged “real ideas” that say that because system warming has happened in the planet’s distant past we should just accept it as Gosh’s Will or whatever and accept whatever divine punishment we deserve or something. It always gets very fuzzy on how we actually continue to have a wor…

The crazy people are the ones that think they can keep the planet's climate constant forever. Never happened, never will

[deleted]
Post reply on HN