4 ms·

That's a tired talking point. The investigation has been done and it's human activity by a country mile. You can Google it if you're curious. Basically all cou

by eloff 5y ago

That's a tired talking point. The investigation has been done and it's human activity by a country mile. You can Google it if you're curious. Basically all countries have to cut emissions to zero or nearly zero. I think this is actually looking hopeful. Even China and India are on board. The US must do it's part too and demonstrate leadership in this area. There's a massive phase change in the global economy away from fossil fuels. The counties that embrace it last will find the market already captured. It pays in this case to lead the way.

noobly 5y ago
>That's a tired talking point. Well, I don't talk about this much so wouldn't know. From what I understand, atmospheric physics is extremely complicated, and it sounds like a _very_ hard problem to develop accurate models for, and we're limited to a relatively small sample size. I just have a hard time seeing it, as a field, arriving at clean conclusions.. I'll have to read into it more later, though.
- eloff 5y ago
  > From what I understand, atmospheric physics is extremely complicated, and it sounds like a _very_ hard problem to develop accurate models for. You are very right about that.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    Then how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that the majority of climate change is caused by man? I think it’s obvious that man is messing up the climate but I don’t know it’s obvious that they are the main cause “by a country mile.”
    - eloff 5y ago
      That's the consensus view. If you want to present evidence to support your contrarian argument, I'll discuss with you.
      - noobly 5y ago
        The key phrase in the question was 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm not versed in atmospheric physics, so of course I can't present an educated counter arguement to the consensus, but it's complexity alone makes me skeptical of any consensus that's reached. It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? If you have any quality sources (books, videos, etc) I'd be interested in reading up more, it's an interesting topic that unfortunately developed a polarizing and polemic dialogue.
        eloff 5y ago
        > It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? Yeah, we go through ice age cycles. We've disrupted that now, and that might actually be a good thing on a long enough timescale. I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations. There's lots of evidence apart from simulations, which I'm also skeptical of. Some reading material to get an overview of what we know and don't know and how we know it: https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ This one specifically addresses your question about how much is attributable to humans vs natural factors: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-10...
        noobly 5y ago
        >I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations Yeah, models are known to fail and I was under the impression this contributes to consensus heavily. Thanks for the links, I'll read these tonight!
        eloff 5y ago
        This is one of those rare few times where I feel I did not waste my time disagreeing with someone on HN. I like your attitude towards things you don't understand.

by eloff 5y ago

noobly 5y ago

>That's a tired talking point. Well, I don't talk about this much so wouldn't know. From what I understand, atmospheric physics is extremely complicated, and it sounds like a _very_ hard problem to develop accurate models for, and we're limited to a relatively small sample size. I just have a hard time seeing it, as a field, arriving at clean conclusions.. I'll have to read into it more later, though.

eloff 5y ago
> From what I understand, atmospheric physics is extremely complicated, and it sounds like a _very_ hard problem to develop accurate models for. You are very right about that.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Then how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that the majority of climate change is caused by man? I think it’s obvious that man is messing up the climate but I don’t know it’s obvious that they are the main cause “by a country mile.”
  - eloff 5y ago
    That's the consensus view. If you want to present evidence to support your contrarian argument, I'll discuss with you.
    - noobly 5y ago
      The key phrase in the question was 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm not versed in atmospheric physics, so of course I can't present an educated counter arguement to the consensus, but it's complexity alone makes me skeptical of any consensus that's reached. It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? If you have any quality sources (books, videos, etc) I'd be interested in reading up more, it's an interesting topic that unfortunately developed a polarizing and polemic dialogue.
      - eloff 5y ago
        > It was only so long ago that an ice age was eminent, right? Yeah, we go through ice age cycles. We've disrupted that now, and that might actually be a good thing on a long enough timescale. I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations. There's lots of evidence apart from simulations, which I'm also skeptical of. Some reading material to get an overview of what we know and don't know and how we know it: https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ This one specifically addresses your question about how much is attributable to humans vs natural factors: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-10...
        noobly 5y ago
        >I think your hang up is that you think it's all based on climate simulations Yeah, models are known to fail and I was under the impression this contributes to consensus heavily. Thanks for the links, I'll read these tonight!
        eloff 5y ago
        This is one of those rare few times where I feel I did not waste my time disagreeing with someone on HN. I like your attitude towards things you don't understand.