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

571–580 of 581 posts

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

#571

Post by Turskarama »

tekknik wrote: post #550
defrost wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe you've heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

Well, this is the statistics. There's nothing more misleading than the truth taken out of context.

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

#572

Post by petre »

aCoreyJ wrote: post #512
petre wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what happens to soil when it rains salt from the clouds, right? Sulphur at least is more natural, as it's also released by volcanoes. https://extension.psu.edu/sulfur-fertility-management-for-gr...

The salt water comes from the ocean and goes back to the ocean. I'm not sure what to take from the natural comment or if it's serious... Natural things can be profoundly bad for the earth and things that live on it, like poison... Or volcanos... Also salt water, incredibly natural it turns out.

Salt water = natural. Salt rain ≄ natural. Salting agriculturaly viable soil is not good at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_salinity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth

Agreed, being natural is not necessariliy good. Solar flare, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, eathquakes, polar ice cap and glaciers melting are all natural phenomena. Mabye they're good for the planet but not good at all for the puny earthlings, us.

Also, "we'll just do it over the oceans where impact should be limited" is risk prone, just like controlled burns.

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

#573

Post by csense »

AJRF wrote: post #437

I'd wager a lot of money we've not seen that last of humanity screwing around with the climate in well-intentioned but bad-outcome ways. Is there a name for this phenomenon of harmful actions because by an "increase" of understanding of the underlying system? I imagine there are similar outcomes in many areas, politics, economics, code bases. Kind of like requiring helmets (protect personal health) for cycling leadin…

Overconfidence? Hubris? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

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

#574

Post by UncleMeat »

at_a_remove wrote: post #516
UncleMeat wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See, this is what I am talking about. You immediately leap to the problems of the past as a way to misinterpret what was said. This is why people simply cannot agree on a way forward and why Nature will be doing it for us. Some have even codified this into an ethical stance. And so the scavengers will feast and the plagues will bloom again. And because no-one will agree, we will have little local wars over resources.…

You can feel free to detail your proposed way forward. But I don't think I've ever seen anything proposed that isn't active genocide of the less powerful, let along anything resembling justice. Maybe all the mass executions in your plan will be of wealthy and middle class Americans. You might surprise me.

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

#575

Post by taftster »

delecti wrote: post #131
taftster wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I honestly had no context for the discussion, the linked tweet didn't really much help. This article helped clear up the concept and I appreciate the link.

The first tweet has a picture (graph) that shows the North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly data over the past few decades, and the data for so far in 2023 is significantly higher than any previous year. That's the context. The linked tweet was also the first in a thread which went on to establish the rest of what people are discussing. Twitter only shows the first tweet if you're not logged in though, so you…

Yup, I reasonably don't log into twitter anymore.

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

#576

Post by at_a_remove »

UncleMeat wrote: post #574
at_a_remove wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, this is what I am talking about. You immediately leap to the problems of the past as a way to misinterpret what was said. This is why people simply cannot agree on a way forward and why Nature will be doing it for us. Some have even codified this into an ethical stance. And so the scavengers will feast and the plagues will bloom again. And because no-one will agree, we will have little local wars over resources.…

You can feel free to detail your proposed way forward. But I don't think I've ever seen anything proposed that isn't active genocide of the less powerful, let along anything resembling justice. Maybe all the mass executions in your plan will be of wealthy and middle class Americans. You might surprise me.

There's no executions planned. None. Zero. I just ... if this is really where your mind goes, we may as well saddle up for Nature's Own Holocausts.

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

#577

Post by UncleMeat »

at_a_remove wrote: post #576
UncleMeat wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can feel free to detail your proposed way forward. But I don't think I've ever seen anything proposed that isn't active genocide of the less powerful, let along anything resembling justice. Maybe all the mass executions in your plan will be of wealthy and middle class Americans. You might surprise me.

There's no executions planned. None. Zero. I just ... if this is really where your mind goes, we may as well saddle up for Nature's Own Holocausts.

Well if billions of people need to die and it isn't nature doing it, what's it gonna be?

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

#578

Post by at_a_remove »

UncleMeat wrote: post #577
at_a_remove wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no executions planned. None. Zero. I just ... if this is really where your mind goes, we may as well saddle up for Nature's Own Holocausts.

Well if billions of people need to die and it isn't nature doing it, what's it gonna be?

... you really can't seem to figure out a third proposal for changing a population number from N to some number less than N? Have you excluded the middle that hard that only orchestrated murder or Nature's nasty negligence are the only things which appear to you? If you are legitimately that baffled, I am not sure we can manage to communicate at all.

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

#579

Post by tekknik »

defrost wrote: post #568
tekknik wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're seriously asking for my recommendation, as if that wasn't already apparent to the meanest intellect, then I would strongly suggest you look to the raw data and read informed papers on the aquisition and interpretation. All 'news' papers, especially those that are heavily political and editorially biased (Murdoch's media empire, for example), will shape for eyeballs and reduce to the lowest common denominato…

Many people do not have the time to read papers, jobs and life get in the way, which is why we use newspapers. WSJ happens to be one of the least biased papers, with a slight right lean.

Fires decreasing globally is not out of context here. I find that information interesting. Sure fires are increasing in other places but it seems to me your main concern is around people hearing that fires globally are decreasing.

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

#580

Post by tekknik »

Turskarama wrote: post #571
tekknik wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe you've heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Well, this is the statistics. There's nothing more misleading than the truth taken out of context.

The assumption it’s being taken out of context infers the readers of WSJ are incapable of understanding what it means. It’s yet again an insult.
Post reply on HN