Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy • Hacker News Board

Re: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy

#61

Post by squiggleblaz » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #57

growlist wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to say our leaders, the EU and globalism in general seem to be looking decidedly worse off: many leaders are following rather than leading; the EU love-fest has disintegrated into closed borders and selfish refusals for assistance; and globalism looks to have delivered us a rapid, efficient and apparently unblockable conduit for spreading a dangerous disease to all corners of the earth. Yay open borders!

Was surprised to hear it was China that was offering help to the EU first, yet none of the other countries seemed to care for Italy. So much for the United States of Europe ever forming. Its also surprising so many people thought globalism would be with no significant downsides whatsoever. A virus wreaking havoc was waiting to happen, and we never thought about creating a plan. You'd figure these are the times you'd…

Well it's probably better for those of us who can continue business as usual to continue business as usual, and for those who can't (because their companies are closed frex) to voluntarily take up these emergency work roles. Once we run out of people looking for work, maybe then we can consider a bit of conscription.

But in general, yes. Governments are underresponding and underdelivering. There is no creativity left.

Re: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy

#62

Post by easytiger » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #53

easytiger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airline co2 emissions represent an irrelevant amount compared to the great benefits it provides

CO2 isn't everything, what about disrupted air streams or high altitude pollution (NO2, NOx, PM2.5, &c.) ? Surely burning 1L of jet fuel at sea level is not the same as at 15k feet (ozone layer ?) It's very easy to focus on CO2, it's probably the least harmful thing a jet engine will exhaust.

> It's very easy to focus on CO2, it's probably the least harmful thing a jet engine will exhaust.

Not when the focus is on global warming

Re: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy

#63

Post by bamboozled » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #35

bamboozled wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% anecdotal but I saw it snow the other day in Tokyo in March and it’s been very cold. It’s been a while since it’s snowed in March I’m sure. I’ve also noticed the Japanese alps we’re having a super bad winter until a few weeks back when things kicked into gear and the snow started falling again. I have absolutely no idea but Is it possible to have a short term decrease in emissions change the weather like…

> I have absolutely no idea but Is it possible to have a short term decrease in emissions change the weather like this ? no

So like, really reducing air pollution honestly has no effect on "weather"? Seems like it would go somewhat against common sense.

Take a look at the meteorological effects the forrest fires had on Australia recently.

I would say you're hyper smug answer might be right and might be wrong at the same time.

Re: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy

#64

Post by joshspankit » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 12:01 PM UTC

brain5ide wrote: post #29

zemvpferreira wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be a downer but the opposite could also be true. The less economic activity, the less particle emissions. While those particle emissions eventually contribute to global warming, they actually prevent a rise in temperatures in the short-term by blocking sunlight. Like you mentioned, the highs are higher and the lows are lower. We could actually see an acceleration of some of global warmings' effects on the clim…

I hope you understand that your declaration sounds bonkers to any rational person? I understand of course that there is a possibility as the system is chaotic. But narrative wise this creates an impossible situation, where everything, even the movement in the supposedly right direction is bad? I would consider "What else do you want from me? ---- off" a normal and valid reaction to this.

This theory speaks more to me of “because our effect on the environment is so excessive and unknown, we have no idea how the environment actually is naturally (in 2020)”

Re: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy

#65

Post by kurthr » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #55

taeric wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many places, the tests run are well behind people already recovering from the mild cases. Would they show as negative or positive? (Genuinely asking.)

Tests are negative once you're recovered. The tests check for the presence if viral RNA.

Yes, we would need an antibody test (typically much easier/faster/cheaper) to detect whether you had the disease and developed antibodies... although those antibodies fade with time, and it doesn't tell you if you're currently infections. So it would make sense at some future date to run a quick antibody test, and if positive run the longer 6+hr RT-PCR for 2019-nCoV.

The concern is that someone could become reinfected either due to insufficient immune response or small evolution in the virus surface protiens, which could also make it more or less virulent.

Re: Nitrogen dioxide emissions drop over Italy

#66

Post by fyfy18 » Sat, Mar 21, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

squiggleblaz wrote: post #60

fyfy18 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business travel is also something we should look to curtail. I expect there are a high number of business trips that could be replaced with virtual meetings if they needed to be (say, if there was a global pandemic restricting travel). In the US around 1/5 of domestic flights are for business purposes [0]. If you also include people who relocated for work, and are travelling to visit family, I expect it would be much…

With respect, travelling to relocate for work or to visit family seem like they fall into the category of necessary flights - I mean, if you said to everyone "you can only take 10 return flights in your life from now on", people would spend them on relocating and family visits with considerable ease. They would think twice about that ski trip though. As you say, the average business trip is more about status and coul…

My point about relocation is a lot of people relocate for jobs that they could easily do at home or in a satellite office. I get that some people want to move so they aren't stuck in the same town of pop. 1,200 all their life (that's my situation), but I don't think most people are in that situation.

Say you were raised in Wichita, KS. I've never been there, but given its size I assume you can have a pretty good lifestyle living there. However if you want to work in tech, media, journalism, law, finance or a whole bunch of other industries, you would really be limiting your opportunities if you stayed there.