3 ms·
Who, exactly, is hypothesizing this? Because I couldn’t find any reference to such a hypothesis.
by mynameisvlad 3y ago
Who, exactly, is hypothesizing this? Because I couldn’t find any reference to such a hypothesis.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoThere is tons of research if you search for "low sulphur shipping rules", e.g. https://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/ https://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/analysis-how-low-sulphur...
- swatcoder 3y agoBeing more reserved about phrases like "tons of research" and "primary hypothesized reason" when sharing one study that proposes a small but unexpected contributing factor and some intra-industry coverage of that study would have saved you some downvotes and conflict here. It's a really fascinating phenomenon and I'm glad you shared it, but the researchers likely wouldn't stand by your phrasing and if you trace the stories and search results, you can see that it's really all just reporting about the same single bit of research from those researchers. So those pushing back on your own claims about it here have a point.
- mynameisvlad 3y agoThe linked article (notably not a paper nor reviewed) states: > Taking the high end of the range of estimates of radiative forcing could result in up to 0.18C additional warming by 2030 and 0.25C additional warming by 2050, though most studies have found lower forcing estimates than this. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin... That’s nowhere near enough to back your previous claim. In fact, that entire article looks at decade-long scales.