Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 581 posts

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

#551

Post by tekknik »

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #46
cubefox wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... The thing is, this is not a one time solution. We would have to do it continuously, or else the temperature would quickly rise again. And we would have to increase sulphur injection if the CO2 level keeps rising. It could be a temporary solution though, e.g. until al…

We ought to stop surface-level sulfur emissions, for human health and also because ship engines that produce sulfur also produce lots of other nasty shit. Stratospheric sulfur is much more efficient, per kg, at reflecting sunlight, so we could replace the cooling effect of surface-level sulfur with stratospheric sulfur, and if we choose to, go even further to cool the planet more.

This will be the trigger that destroys us all, man thinking he has the knowledge to force climate change by manipulating atmospheric composition and then acting on it. Oh well.

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

#552

Post by tekknik »

BurningFrog wrote: post #432
marcosdumay wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, if we did mostly stop fossil fuel exploration and emissions right now we would get a quick reduction of antropogenic warming into some 80% to 90% of the current amount in some 4 decades due to some fast-degrading gases that are not CO2. That said, we won't stop fossil fuel exploration and the related emissions, so yes, it's temporary.

Fossil fuels are being replaced pretty fast, but it will be several decades before the transition is complete.

It will not complete in your lifetime. While rich countries may be able to force conversion, we haven’t started thinking about the poorer ones. Even in the rich countries there are holdouts, like myself, who needs something with a transportable spare fuel source as EV range needs to triple for it to be useful for me.

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

#553

Post by tekknik »

jamesssssss833 wrote: post #103
colordrops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point?

“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…

> but with religious fanatics I expect that Sky Daddy will come save them personally so they are unconcerned

Bigot much?

Do you think this class is anymore likely to listen to you now after you’ve insulted them?

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

#554

Post by vel0city »

amrocha wrote: post #542
vel0city wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

The sprawl is real but large swathes of cities zoned exclusively for SFHs is also real. Vancouver is 80% SFHs because of zoning. Recently the government allowed multiplexes in SFH zones, and suddenly every new construction is a multiplex, and families are looking at rebuilding their houses to maximize value. If there was no artificial zoning, then Vancouver would be a lot denser and current SFHs would be a lot more e…

> If there was no artificial zoning, then Vancouver would be a lot denser and current SFHs would be a lot more expensive

Can you expand on why these SFH's would be more expensive if the zoning policies were different?

If people prefer the flats and rowhouse, and we expand the availability of the things they prefer, wouldn't the thing they don't prefer (SFH) fall?

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

#555

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

notmypenguin wrote: post #535
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has changed in 20 years? Realistically. When we’re the ClimateGate emails? Do you think the industry got itself together after that?

That’s a bunch of FUD. Climate science is and has been solid, but fossil fuel industry lobbies have tried to add doubt to what is certain and known. I see your tactics and I call you out on them.

Are you saying those emails weren’t real?

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

#556

Post by dghughes »

blackoil wrote: post #206
amateurCoder5 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. No, water is a base - hydrogen hydroxide!

Ain't water neutral by definition?

Yes water is a neutral compound (pH 7) , an electrically neutral molecule. I was just putting one of its chemical names as a bad joke.

I believe amateurCoder5 was as well retorting with another name for water as an alkaline compound.

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

#557

Post by amrocha »

vel0city wrote: post #554
amrocha wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sprawl is real but large swathes of cities zoned exclusively for SFHs is also real. Vancouver is 80% SFHs because of zoning. Recently the government allowed multiplexes in SFH zones, and suddenly every new construction is a multiplex, and families are looking at rebuilding their houses to maximize value. If there was no artificial zoning, then Vancouver would be a lot denser and current SFHs would be a lot more e…

> If there was no artificial zoning, then Vancouver would be a lot denser and current SFHs would be a lot more expensive Can you expand on why these SFH's would be more expensive if the zoning policies were different? If people prefer the flats and rowhouse, and we expand the availability of the things they prefer, wouldn't the thing they don't prefer (SFH) fall ?

Because of opportunity cost relative to other housing options. Right now you're only allowed to build SFHs, and the market will only bear a price of 2-3M before most people are priced out, so that's what they cost.

If instead of one SFH with a large yard you build 5 row houses in the same plot, and sell each one for 1M, the SFH is only 50% efficient compared to the row houses, so its price needs to increase for it to be worth building.

It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the underlying idea. It's the same reason you don't see SFHs in Manhattan, because the opportunity cost is too high.

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

#558

Post by shawnz »

nobody9999 wrote: post #492
shawnz wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 uni…

No, I'm not saying you don't hold your views strongly. What I am saying is that I disagree that it's not your responsibility to convince others of your point of view. It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them.

Consider for example how your own opinion was formed based on reasoning that was at least in part put forward by people who came before you. If they had all kept to themselves and you never had access to the ideas/thinking of past atheists to help you make an informed decision, don't you think they would have effectively been doing you a disservice?

Note that I'm not necessarily saying hardcore proselytizing is the right approach to achieve that. In fact hardcore proselytizing can in some cases turn people away from your opinions, so it could actually be worse than doing nothing.

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

#559

Post by brabel »

krisoft wrote: post #501
brabel wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if we never acknowledge it it is never an emergency? Exactly. Do you think an emergency has some objective trigger?? No it does not, it's subjective, the people involved in the event are the ones who deem whether it's an emergency or not, even if they may be wrong about the gravity of the situation (which is why sometimes the rescue service may disagree with you whether you're in an emergency situation or not an…

> Do you think an emergency has some objective trigger?? No. But it feels faulty to define an emergency by the reaction of the government. For example if we would have multiple years of crop failures, with associated mass starvation and unrest but let’s say the government sticks their fingers in their ears and proclaims “let them eat cake”. That would not count as an emergency per your definition. Do you feel that is…

> Do you feel that is right?

No, but that would never happen in a democracy. I am using "government" here losely as "the voice of the people" which is roughly correct in most democratic, non-corrupt countries.

> Did the Marshall plan employ every able bodied adult? I must have missed that part of the history.

I don't know why you feel the need to ridiculize my argument. You know all too well, I'm sure, that while not every single person was involved, as many as deemed necessary were... if things got so bad the germans/japanese were approaching the American shore, I don't doubt every single person, except those already tasked with food production, would be called and happily accept their call of duty.

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

#560

Post by nostrebored »

krisoft wrote: post #322
nostrebored wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more radical geoengineering ideas, like deflecting sunlight from space, are truly potential extinction level events that should be regulated out of existence. This should not be some VC funded endeavor.

> This should not be some VC funded endeavor. How would it be VC funded? Where would the return on investment hypothetically come from? If you could produce localised effects while being able to turn them on or off then maybe you could charge for it as a service, but is that at all realistic?

There are already VC funded companies doing exactly this.
Post reply on HN