Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

501–510 of 581 posts

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

#501
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know it's an emergency when the status quo is completely unacceptable and the government takes drastic measures So if we never acknowledge it it is never an emergency? > every physically able man/woman forced to work on whatever solution is chosen to help Doing what? How will the physical power of the masses help us here?

> 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 right?

In fact when people are arguing if it is an emergency or not, they often argue about it because they do expect their government to do/don’t do things based on which side they are arguing. If we would define an emergency based on the actions of the government solely this would be totally falacious. But it is not. “We are in a climate emergency therefore the gov should do X.” is a perfectly valid thing to believe in. (And so is the opposite of course.)

> Think about the Marshall Plan...

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

> I am sure we can get every man and woman to work on the manufacture and use of whatever device can collect CO2 from the atmosphere or whatever.

I will go with whatever then. We have these things called factories. They made manufacturing very efficient. There is zero chance that you could employ every man and woman meaningfully on a task like this. Simply you would run out of raw materials or organisational capacity before that happens.

There is a more fitting historical paralel to what you are proposing. It is very much akin to Mao’s Great Leap Forward. He got a lot of people to do a thing, but since it wasn’t the right thing to do it ended up as a total catastrophy.

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

#502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trams or buses to your friend Bob's flat or rowhouse would be helpful here.

Statistically speaking in the US Bob doesn't live in a flat or rowhouse.

Yes. The US is bad.

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

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we should fix that

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.

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

#504
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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.

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

#505
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eating less beef will reduce the market price and make it cheaper for everyone else, increasing their consumption accordingly.

The whole point of a capitalist economy is to “route around inefficiency”, in the same way the internet is designed to “route around damage”. Any single player or even a large contingent of players, who act inefficiently, are only increasing the alpha available for another player to exploit.

“Inefficiency” in this sense is anything that doesn’t maximize personal benefit - profit or other quality of life. Anything that is legal according to the rules of the game (or tolerated by society) is going to happen whether it’s you that does it or someone else.

The only long term solution is that if this is what needs to happen, we have to encode that into “the rules” so everyone plays by that rule. Personal recycling or personal consumption reduction does nothing at a social level, and in fact is pushed as a deliberate stalling tactic to avoid and stall those political actions which could have a real impact.

This is also the problem with bitcoin - any one player choosing not to participate in mining only increases the reward for the remaining players who will continue to participate. If there is only one person on the planet willing to mine, she gets all the rewards. So simply choosing not to mine does nothing, you’re just transferring profit to someone else.

Humanity has already built the first AIs, they are emergent paperclip-maximizers encoded into the bylaws of corporations and market structures. And they will route around any attempt to un-maximize paperclip production according to whatever levers we continue to give them. If you don’t want people to eat as much beef, you have to build that rule into the system, it’ll never happen due to personal-level changes in behavior.

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

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>far fewer people Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights or "cleansing" populations?

That is a very good question, but it is also the wrong question. The better one would be how are we collectively going to avoid nature doing it for us? Because I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the alternative is going to be no fun at all. One possibility is that we all end up agreeing that we should at least try to reduce our numbers. My parents brought me up with 'replacement' numbers so that we'…

This has been my "thing" for some time. Now, carrying capacity for Earth is a function, and one of the arguments is lifestyle, but I believe that we are beyond most values of that function for anything beyond "miserable and half-starved." The population will drop. We can do it or Nature will do it for us.

Nature will be wanton, cruel, perhaps overshoot. It will be ugly and horrific. We will not be left in great shape. The only fairness it will possess is unpredictable randomness.

Or, we can do it. Harsh. Belt-tightening. Unpleasant conversations. Lengthy debates about worth. Whole societies wanting their turn at the trough. Deprivation. Lifeboat politics. The Cold Equations in a hot, hot world.

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

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It will be part of the saving. Investment in fusion was and is still tiny compared to fossil fuel or fission.

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

#508
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…

I don’t think he ever claimed that it’s only just been figured out but that it is under reported in a time where many other topics are over reported

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

#509

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…

Worry yourself. We're going to do it while you post about your worrying.

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

#510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very good question, but it is also the wrong question. The better one would be how are we collectively going to avoid nature doing it for us? Because I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the alternative is going to be no fun at all. One possibility is that we all end up agreeing that we should at least try to reduce our numbers. My parents brought me up with 'replacement' numbers so that we'…

This has been my "thing" for some time. Now, carrying capacity for Earth is a function, and one of the arguments is lifestyle, but I believe that we are beyond most values of that function for anything beyond "miserable and half-starved." The population will drop. We can do it or Nature will do it for us. Nature will be wanton, cruel, perhaps overshoot. It will be ugly and horrific. We will not be left in great shape…

These “unpleasant conversations” have been universally the powerful talking about how to genocide the powerless. Frankly, I’d rather nature do it than follow the population control proposals we’ve seen.

Everybody who decides that what they need to do is kill extremely large numbers of other people can just off themselves instead.

Post reply on HN