logoalt Hacker News

paganeltoday at 2:53 PM3 repliesview on HN

> 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-2...


Replies

nielsbottoday at 5:57 PM

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

wat10000today at 7:17 PM

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.

mistrial9today at 3:33 PM

"those three ants there ruined my picnic" ?