From what I understand, the sun has also been getting hotter, hasn't it? I agree that man contributes to climate change, but quantifying this is where I think the conversation gets interesting. I haven't really gone very far down this hole though as it seems too muddled. And then if you do conclude man is primarily at fault, what do you do? The US is only responsible for so much output, for example, and sources like nuclear aren't viewed positively.
The US is only responsible for for so much of worldwide murders. Why trying to limit the number of murders in the US, then? It won’t change the total number of murders on the planet in a significant way.
That analogy doesn't really apply imo.. Global murder totals don't impact me like murders in America do. Similarly, climate change effects all parties, no matter their contribution. A better analogy, imo, would be something like a leaking ship, where the portion we're responsible for has a pinhole that we're debating on if/how to patch up, while other parties have gaping holes gushing in water constantly with no clear intent to fix the hole, as we all begin our descent.
And in this case, I don't think buying a Tesla or some vegan burgers is going to make a substantial difference. As long as there's economic incentive to negatively contribute climate change, it will happen.
The point of the analogy was to represent that our actions may be essentially inconsequential if all holes are not sealed, and that larger holes or offenders should take priority. The hole size wasn't really all that important, but yes, a more accurate description would've involved a larger hole, probably.
How do we even get emission data anyway? Especially for other countries like China. For example this source is telling me our per capita emissions are higher than China, which I very much doubt:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Why would you doubt that? People are so much richer in the US, they drive more, they have bigger houses to heat and cool, they consume more in general.
Yeah, that's true. And they have a large population to dilute the mean. I'm surprised we're so close to them in terms of total Co2 output too, I thought they dwarfed us given how much production takes place there coupled with a more lax attitude.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
> 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:
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.
Thanks! Yeah it's all too easy to lump people into stubborn camps, especially on the internet, but I appreciate you not dismissing me. I like nature as much as the next guy, but I'm just naturally a bit skeptical and that can come off as entrenched in some contrary viewpoint I guess.
