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

541–550 of 581 posts

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

#541

Post by amrocha »

concordDance wrote: post #538
amrocha wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> I can tell you that if you gave it a try you would change your mind I've been cycling and using public transport in the south east UK as my primary means of travel for 12 years, the car is a supplement. Update your mental models accordingly.

So your issue is that walking around in the rain is unpleasant and you'd rather drive?

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

#542

Post by amrocha »

vel0city wrote: post #526
amrocha wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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 expensive (and they're already expensive, 2M on average). This is true across most NA cities.

My argument is not that nobody wants SFHs. I'm sure they do, but desires are not fixed. If you had to choose between an SFH 1 hour away from the city, and a row house 15 minutes away, you might go with the row house.

And yes, sometimes people want to live far. There's lots of reasons for that, and that's ok, as long as they're paying the real value of it. By the way, this would mean massive property taxes because sparse infrastructure is very expensive.

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

#543

Post by omnimus »

replygirl wrote: post #424
omnimus wrote: post #301

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…

Its exactly those type of people who call biking fascism who (once it will get tough) will bring fascism as only viable solution. Handmaids tale style.

People biking are just happily chugging along. They are not the fascists.

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

#544

Post by melagonster »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #466
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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

science is getting better. most of government hired people to research it, if they can can't promote anything, it is weird.

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

#545

Post by BurningFrog »

Turskarama wrote: post #524
BurningFrog wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ending fossil fuel usage and removing the excess CO2 will take at least 50 years.

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

#546

Post by mikrotikker »

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…

Because like the meme about finding solutions to software development problems on forums, a good way to find more info is to put your opinions out there in order for them to be challenged.

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

#547

Post by mikrotikker »

marcosdumay wrote: post #94
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…

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.

Yes it would stop warning but it would be akin to genocide. The inertia around fossil fuels use in the modern world would cause the death of millions or maybe billions if stopped suddenly.

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

#548

Post by mikrotikker »

Filligree wrote: post #332
concordDance wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think CO2 would go down naturally after some time. How? Where does the carbon go?

Eaten by plants, turned into coal. Atmospheric CO2 will indeed go down, after… some time.

I thought all coal was created in the carboniferous because no organisms had yet developed to break down that material?

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

#550

Post by tekknik »

defrost wrote: post #238
tomp wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fires are actually decreasing. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-th... https://archive.li/WfDJh

It's technically true that total area burned globally has been on a downward trend. That's a real piece of misdirect by Murdoch press though and typical of their editorial stance. To quote Multi-decadal trends and variability in burned area from the 5th version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED5) [1] (one of many similar studies) * Burned area declined by 1.21±0.66% yr-1 20 , a cumulative decrease of 24.2±1…

So the article is true, but you don’t like it because it’s from WSJ?

Let me guess, I should be reading CNN, TheHill or WaPo?

If people keep demanding sensationalist news that drives people to action then you’ll end up with people that mistrust the media.

Post reply on HN