4 ms·

> https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries... It can also be clearly seen tha

by paganel 6mo ago

> https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries... It can also be clearly seen that the 2020 limit on the sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships [1] had quite the negative effects when it comes to surface sea temperatures, but I haven't that many climate (and not only) scientists taking responsibility of that act (even though related warnings had been made, I remember reading one just before the measure went in effect). [1] https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2...

mistrial9 6mo ago
"those three ants there ruined my picnic" ?
nielsbot 6mo ago
What should they say? “Turns out there’s a side effect we should put the sulfur back in diesel”?
- paganel 6mo ago
  Something like: What we scientifically thought was going to improve things has made them worst.
  - nielsbot 6mo ago
    Scientists are saying that tho. We’re talking about those findings rn. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Scientists don’t own their mistakes?
  - jfengel 6mo ago
    It didn't make them worse. It solved one problem. That made the extent of the other existing problem more apparent. That was known and expected. We could not continue to put sulfur in the air; it causes acid rain. The fact that we also cannot afford to put CO2 into the air is a separate problem. That goes beyond temperature: even if additional sulfur would mitigate the temperature increase, it would also make ocean acidification worse.
wat10000 6mo ago
Cutting sulphur content wasn't about climate. Why would climate scientists be taking responsibility? Blasting pollution into the air is generally a bad idea. If it becomes necessary in order to fight warming, it should be done deliberately and with due consideration, not by having a bunch of ships burning dirty fuel.
- paganel 6mo ago
  So, who decides what? What's worst? Dirtier air or a hotter climate? Who makes those decisions? On what considerations?
  - wat10000 6mo ago
    Those questions sum up one of the great problems of our time.

by paganel 6mo ago

mistrial9 6mo ago

"those three ants there ruined my picnic" ?

nielsbot 6mo ago

What should they say? “Turns out there’s a side effect we should put the sulfur back in diesel”?

paganel 6mo ago
Something like: What we scientifically thought was going to improve things has made them worst.
- nielsbot 6mo ago
  Scientists are saying that tho. We’re talking about those findings rn. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Scientists don’t own their mistakes?
- jfengel 6mo ago
  It didn't make them worse. It solved one problem. That made the extent of the other existing problem more apparent. That was known and expected. We could not continue to put sulfur in the air; it causes acid rain. The fact that we also cannot afford to put CO2 into the air is a separate problem. That goes beyond temperature: even if additional sulfur would mitigate the temperature increase, it would also make ocean acidification worse.

wat10000 6mo ago

Cutting sulphur content wasn't about climate. Why would climate scientists be taking responsibility? Blasting pollution into the air is generally a bad idea. If it becomes necessary in order to fight warming, it should be done deliberately and with due consideration, not by having a bunch of ships burning dirty fuel.

paganel 6mo ago
So, who decides what? What's worst? Dirtier air or a hotter climate? Who makes those decisions? On what considerations?
- wat10000 6mo ago
  Those questions sum up one of the great problems of our time.