sinkingship

joined 2 years ago
[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

All good mate! xD

I just thought it funny sounding, but understood what you wanted to say.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Makes sense environmentally. But that's not the focus of our societies. Everything is about profit and costs.

The last sailing boats didn't stop because they were slower. I'm not even sure if they were, they could go almost 20 knots in ideal conditions.

The main point was labour cost. An engine ship needs just a few men to run it. A sailing ship with dozens of sails needs dozens of men. The work was incredibly hard and dangerous (like being wet and exposed to the weather for days and weeks working 14 hours or something a day and I think it was normal to consider one death per cape horn trip). If you wanted to do something like this today, you'd have to pay high salaries and probably high insurance costs.

Also sailing ships are more difficult to plan a schedule, because they can't go a constant speed. That brings higher costs for storing goods.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You're not wrong and my comment is supposed to be jokingly.

I'm sure you used your example to show how easy it is, it just sounds so terribly distopian. Your point could have been an optimistic outlook into a different future but:

Why? Why of all things that can be used to turn an alternator, why the heck does it have to be child labor?

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

Exactly! We understand that stopping climate change is possible on paper.

But we also believe that societies won't change as fast as needed and that we won't help each other as needed.

We saw the pandemic. We saw how we reacted. We know we need to voluntarily reduce emmissions faster than that without ever rebouncing. We know richer countries need to finance poorer countries' transmission.

What is happening? During the pandemic poor countries were left behind. Vaccines are still patented and were hoarded by rich countries. A lot of people celebrate the past pandemic economic rebounce. We fight some wars for different stupid reasons. And yeah, it's hot as scientists told us but we make surprised pikachu faces when there is some climate record broken in the news.

Also corporations spread lies about the climate and politicians fail to act while people point at us doomers and say we are bad for action, because we aren't optimistic.

Please, my government, take the money you take from me to make meaningful change! Man, you can even ration my meat and travel or whatever. I know it's time for the rich to step up and do their part, but I'm still ready to sacrifice if it is in the right direction. It's probably late, but as a doomer I am not advocating status quo. Heck, the opposite, let's destroy what destroys our life basis even if it is uncomfortable!

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

From the article:

In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. But reliable assessments of aerosol emissions rely on networks of mostly volunteer-driven efforts, and it could be a year or more before the full data from 2023 are available.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

You are correct with both points. I merely wanted to point out, how far we are from reaching the Paris Agreement.

1.5 may or not be a little later than 2028. The fossil consumption lines may or not be a little flatter.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I like this graph from the article: Expected fossil fuel use

Wasn't it 2028 when the carbon budget for 1.5 °C runs out? And 2050 or so for 2 °C? Lol

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the info, I didnt see too many Videos of Hossenfelder yet, but the ones I saw I found quite good.

In physics she doesn't always support a mainstream idea, like she's rejecting the theory of dark matter, which I find an interesting position.

I haven't had the impression that she does videos without research.

Anyway, as always and everywhere in life it is never good to rely on a single source. There are some differences in what scientists believe and I find it interesting to hear any side of a civil discussion.

There are still uncertainties in climate science, so maybe it's sometimes good to not only look at the most likely outcomes, especially when a lot of lives depend on the outcome.

That said, thank you very much for you suggestion, I will have a look! The only current climate scientist I follow on Youtube is ClimateAdam. And then some old videos of Carl Sagan at times.

Edit: forgot also Simon Clark

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Very good article. I've seen the video from Sabine Hossenfelder rencently, which is under attack in this video. She cautioned to not ignore the hot models, which are currently percepted as unreliable.

Still, I recommend watching Sabine Hossenfelder if you are interested in simple physics explanations, she has a great Youtube channel.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical quantum physicist and does mostly videos related to her field. She also does some climate videos and I don't doubt her ability to interpret the numbers. Fun fact, she also does some physics related 80's style music.

James Hansen is also critisized in this article for his controversial predictions, which we shouldn't take lightly. It's not like we've got a second chance.

I liked the conclusion a lot, that we shouldn't get distracted by controversies in the details and that it practically makes little difference if the future is very deadly or extremely deadly.

Edit a few months later: I don't recommend watching Dabine Hossenfelder to get news about the climate anymore. I've seen some more videos of her now and while they aren't bad, they seem to miss important points sometimes and also she sometimes advocates weird things. Just take her climate videos with a salt of grain, maybe.

[–] sinkingship@mander.xyz 8 points 2 years ago

When scientists get fed up (understandably), that they were ignored all life long and still many don't believe them today:

“We are now in the process of moving into the 1.5C world,” Hansen told the Guardian. “You can bet $100 to a donut on this and be sure of getting a free donut, if you can find a sucker willing to take the bet.”

“Passing through the 1.5C world is a significant milestone because it shows that the story being told by the United Nations, with the acquiescence of its scientific advisory body, the IPCC, is a load of bullshit,” Hansen said.

view more: ‹ prev next ›