Is this not anxiety inducing for anyone else? Is that why I see these posts fall away quickly, or is news like this just expected now, and so not that interesting?
I have had enough life experience to know that so much is beyond our control. We could die of a car accident tomorrow. Cancer could strike us down within the next six months.
We know the problem here. We have some solutions. We just need to act!
Yes! You could die in a car accident tomorrow, you can also ask the car companies to make safer cars. You could die of cancer within the next six months, and you can also ask the medical companies to make drugs to fight cancer.
Here’s my issue. What amount of carbon cutting would satisfy you?
If we cut by 50% and the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more? How far do you want to go and how much needs to be risked Before you’re satisfied that our carbon levels are acceptable. Sorry that you feel the world isn’t following your desires and expectations but they need more than a promise that things may get better to enact policy that will dramatically alter their entire economy, way of living, and social order.
Edit: sure downvote me and throw insults. That’s a good way to promote healthy discussion.
That's covered fairly extensively in the vast amounts of literature on climate change mitigation, with all due respect. Carbon neutral in the next few decades is the short answer to your question.
Otherwise increasingly severe floods, droughts and storms will dramatically alter the economy, way of living and social order for billions of people anyway.
I have heard it claimed that 90% would be enough. I don’t know why, as at first glance that seems like it would merely slow down the rate of increase of CO2, not prevent further increases.
Likewise, I don’t know how close the world temperature is to the equilibrium for the current level of greenhouse gasses. If levels remain constant, is the global average temperature going to go up 0.5C? 0.01C? Or is equilibrium reached faster than the seasons change?
That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
> I have heard it claimed that 90% would be enough. I don’t know why, as at first glance that seems like it would merely slow down the rate of increase of CO2, not prevent further increases.
CO₂ isn't a fixed quantity in the atmosphere that we add to. If we don't add to it, it gradually gets absorbed by natural processes on the Earth's surface.
The reason the amount in the upper atmosphere is rising is because we're producing more faster than the other processes can absorb it.
The picture is a little more complicated than that though. We are also destroying some of those absorption processes. For example through deforestation of the Amazon.
Also, CO₂ is now a proxy measure for other greenhouse gases produced by human activity. Methane in particular is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, so that matters too and the aborption processes are different. So there are a number of cycles of different things going on, and it's a fairly complicated picture, thus all the models.
However, there are some useful simplifications, and it's too important to let arguing over details be used to avoid dealing with the basic problem. CO₂ is still the main concern and target, because it's produced by a large number of human activities, and they can be changed. Basically anything that involves burning things, whether obviously like in a car, or hidden away in some power station where you can't see it.
All that said, even if we get net CO₂ emissions down to zero now, or even negative (if we find a way), it is generally accepted that we are too late to stop a significant average temperature rise that will cause significant climate changes affecting us, and especially affecting nature across the world.
Because of this, targets these days are the result of negotiating some kind of "realistic" level of harm, which of course involves setting temperature-rise targets, and lots of politics, and plenty of political and industrial leaders trying to see what they can get away with. Nobody is really happy because some people would like less harm than the "realistic" minimum now, and some people would like to carry on with life as before because it was fun, and maybe their wealth depends on it.
> That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
I'm completely with you on this. Technology will save the day if... well, the trouble is technology can't be taken for granted, even if there are plenty of great inventions around, and potential future inventions.
Technology can only save the day if politics, behaviour and the economy line up to allow it to happen.
I really don't think we can assume politics and people are collectively all that aligned on these issues or much else at the moment. We can't even agree on whether to protect each other from Covid or not by simple behavioral changes (social distancing, mask use etc), and that's a much more visible, short-term and simpler issue to understand than climate change.
> the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more
Cutting human carbon emission to zero today would still result in temperature increases over the next decade or so, because there's a planet-sized throughput delay in the system. Can't turn the oil tanker around that quickly.
The IPCC suggested target is 1.5-2C over the next century as being both reasonably achievable while not having too drastic an impact on the environment and agriculture.
So, being genuine here. I don't care about carbon fuel, in the sense I have no particular attachment to it.
In every case where I've replaced carbon with something else, it's turned out to be preferable. Cleaner, quieter, lighter, longer lasting.
To me, there are lots of other reasons for cutting carbon than the environment. The environment is just a big plus. If we cut all carbon fuel and ended up with longer lasting, more efficient products, but global warming increased, why would I think cutting carbon had been a waste?
Personally, I'd like to see some state where there was a hypercompetitive market of many different energy sources, rather than being dominated by carbon. I'm not sure what that would eventually look like — maybe carbon would be a part, maybe not — but it would be better.
I believe at this point it's negative, negative carbon. We are at the point where we have to start taking carbon out of the air soon. It's also not about satisfying "us" whoever "us" is. It's about preventing collapse of all life on earth including ours.
If a million people have "money" but there's enough food for 900,000 people, you're going to find the price rises to just a bit more than you can afford. No matter how much money you have, the price will rise to more. See sibling comment about wheelbarrows full of devalued currency.
Food, ironically unlike money, grows in trees. It cannot be magicked into existence and there is a very high risk that there aren't enough people with guns to stop starving mobs.
If things go wrong you'll need a better plan than "I have money". If food supplies literally run out, money will be worthless.
They will become unbearable for billions of people in your life time. Maybe not where you live, but literally billions of people. Will you welcome some of them into your home?
Now, all we need is a place to vote if we want Climate Warning or not!
Instead, we have vote for president. That vote may affect the actions on climate change, but it may not be in the way you want. And it has lots and lots of related side affects.
Let us say that the president who would take more steps to curb global warming would also cause growth in a non US country that is environmentally destructive. Or that they themselves would make so many deals and compromises that the deal that gets passed is actually a long term net loss.
I am totally not saying that will happen, but making things too black and white can lead to surprises.
It is distinctly unhelpful to keep trying to make people feel bad. People experiencing negative emotions are less capable of effecting positive outcomes.
It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. It's hypocritical and provides ammunition to climate change deniers when they say things like "But this spring was really cold!" Weather is not climate and a year over year comparison of one calendar month is not a trend.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense article I would publish if I were a climate change denier.
> It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative.
I don't know if you're in the US, but this is untrue here.
Our most-watched media outlet spreads climate-change denial, as does the (minority) party that has controlled our federal -- and most state -- governments for the last few years.
One of their tactics is literally to say that there is still snow, so global warming can't be real[1].
Articles like this are the counterpoints to that narrative, and there is evidence that individual data points are convincing[2] to people who are not able (or willing) to understand long-term statistical information.
If your plan is to defend the truth with lies, don't be surprised when your political opponents don't take you seriously.
The environmentalist movement has long been dogged by a sizeable aura of people who dilute the message with craziness and false claims. They are the major reason why progress is so slow - very few people trust them anywhere near anything important. I've yet to see an English-speaking Green party that I'd accept as competent to set policy even assuming they have the correct problems identified.
> dogged by a sizeable aura of people who dilute the message with craziness and false claims
Maybe .. but on the other hand, craziness and false claims emanating from right-wingers and even the Presidential Twitter Account seem to get taken seriously and make progress.
Scottish Green Party (separate from the Green Party of England And Wales, who do indeed have a bit of a lunatic fringe and ended up picketing their own council at one point) seem to be pretty good to me. Including sensible but difficult to implement policies like "how about we don't have a hundred-foot column of gas flame over Fife all the time".
Your comment supposes that people are unable to make changes to their condition though.
This kind of data is helpful for people who like to make evidence-based decisions in life. If an asteroid were heading for Earth would you want the news to ignore it?
Normalcy bias is a huge problem but if you're paying attention it is prudent to use information like this to decide where to live, whether to have kids, etc. it could have a huge impact on decisions like "Should I apply for job in Los Angeles, or Toronto?" So far, I haven't regretted moving from the place the article uses to illustrate hot weather to a cooler, wetter, more stable country.
It depends. For quick specific actions it is a proper method to make people feel bad. Examples: "Fire! Get out!" Or "Hot September! Sign petition here!"
However, if you want people to find creative solutions to complex problems, a positive message works better. "Yes, we can!"
> It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. It's hypocritical and provides ammunition to climate change deniers when they say things like "But this spring was really cold!"
I don’t know why you are bringing this up. The article is talking about global temperatures and global records. Not a cold snap in your local town.
It should not be about feeling bad or better presentation. The only filter that should be applied is whether the information is scientifically valid and relevant. This is usually a bad faith argument, that interestingly climate change deniers push.
Do you think they should not be publishing news on the fact that this September had the hottest global temperature average on record and that the previous record had been set just last year? If this is not newsworthy, I don't know what is.
The trend is extremely scary, and we sure as hell should be scared:
I've looked a few times, but I have been unable to find a table of global average temperatures by month for the past few decades. The only "true facts" that newspapers publish are those that are cherry-picked.
I, personally, accept climate change on faith because I defer to the experts. However, it's shocking to me how inaccessible unbiased facts are. It is conceivable that record cold temps are being set just as often. It's conceivable that nearly everything is a record if global averages are just now being recorded by month (or if they have been rebaselined after a methodology change).
Articles like this raise more questions than they answer. They aren't going to convince someone who isn't already convinced, and they only demoralize those who already are convinced.
I believe that being exposed to the same piece of information repeatedly causes us humans to believe it is true, whether it's true or not. So the evidence suggests that articles like this actually are helpful, since there are only so many times you can read that this is the warmest [month] on record before you start to believe that things probably are getting warmer overall.
But as to what you were seeking, here were my first DDG results:
I think newspapers publish things that are news, which means it's something that happens at a given point in time. A monthly number is news, while "the past few decades" is not. An organization putting out a press release is news, so if that mentions a long-term trend, that can become news, but if it hasn't changed in any detail since the last report, then it's not really news either.
Newspapers, and news sources in generally, are really bad at communicating long-term trends like global climate change, unfortunately.
Everyone should agree with the first point that it's unhelpful to try to make people feel bad, but I don't think that is what's happening here. Healthy people, almost by definition, should be able to look at all the major headlines in the world without getting emotional and going into a spiral of depression. We both probably have parents/friends with unhealthy emotional processing habits, but we shouldn't accept our distorted reality on how normal, healthy people emotionally process news.
In any important social movement, there is a large amount of people who will do nothing, there is a smaller amount of people that would provide support, and there is a much smaller group who will do the majority of the work.
The "make people feel bad" will only affect the large amount of people who wouldn't do anything anyway and who wouldn't be convinced to do anything until there is much larger social pressure.
These kinds of articles might actually inspire that smaller group do do more because it's so so bad. The data is REALLY bad. That small group will create a larger group who would provide support (financial, etc). Once a critical mass is hit, the larger group who was turned away because of bad feelings will come around.
It's more important to focus on the people who would actually do something and who would provide support. These articles and stories don't turn away the people doing all the work, it actually inspires them more.
For example, I am one of those people and this article makes me want to do more and puts more urgency into it.
It’s hard to take NYT seriously. I do not understand why it is allowed on here. Their inherent bias and target audience (policy makers and influencers) runs counter to startup culture, innovation, and hacking. Mainstream News posted here should be apolitical if not providing divergent opinions... since this article is, respectfully, an opinion of a paid government research group and not demonstrated fact...
Excuse me, are you insane? What fact other than temperature do you need? What other facts are you counting on to show that 2020 did not have the warmest September?
Are you insane? Temp alone is NOT proof that their is man made global warming.
The world was covered in ice without humans. So the ability of the planet to change temperature inherently is self evident. All you do when you call people insane for bringing their counter points to YOUR argument is stymie discussion and polarize the subject.
> How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
> Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.
> Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
> All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt.
Correlation and causation, yes...
Once correlation starts to wink at you and leaves their number on a napkin, it might be time to put the clues together though.
It actually makes sense for Climate Change Deniers to deny it's man made. Think about it - if it's not man made, then people don't need to adjust behavior at all since their behavior didn't cause the problem in the first place.
To them, cutting down emissions might be as inefficient solution for climate change as it is for solving the lava problem.
Reasoning backwards is fine. Going from desired outcome to figure out what would be necessary to produce it is useful.
It's another thing to work back from desired outcome to necessary facts and use it to deem those facts true, rather than testing if they are actually true.
> Are you insane? Temp alone is NOT proof that their is man made global warming.
Technically correct I guess. Let us just say that the average temperature is rising from year to year. CO2 levels correlate very closely with this increase in temperature.
Let's say this correlation is not sufficient evidence and we know nothing about CO2 as a greenhouse gas. What would be the next best explanation?
My point was We have no data on how much or rapidly the earth cooled during an ice age and any data presented For that would be extremely dubious at best. So again, correlation could be causation here and there is merit to limiting CO2 to see the effects but maybe the problem needs more studying instead of the proposed vast economic and social policy changes that aren’t guaranteed to work and will usurp tons of resources in the process.
I expected more from Covid, for it to be a miracle cure for global warming, what with planes grounded and people not in the same consumption patterns.
But no, turning off the taps or turning down the taps a tiny bit isn't going to suddenly bring a halt to warming temperatures.
Interestingly though we have some people wanting to bring emissions to a halt for climate change reasons. But, with things like Chess you have to think a few moves ahead. Has anyone thought ahead past a drastic cut in emissions? If everyone stopped consuming (as if) and temperatures still went up, how would that work out? It would be a bit like Covid where lockdowns happen but the pandemic is not brought under control, maybe just slowed down for a bit.
Why would you have expected Covid to have any effect on the current climate? Even the most short-lived greenhouse gas (methyl bromide) has a lifetime of 0.7 years, so any changes in emissions would not show up until now. And its relevance today is next to zero, since it's been banned along with many CFCs since the Montreal Protocol. The relevant greenhouse gases have lifetimes of years to decades.
My point is that even if we were able to drastically cut emissions (which is the current campaigning goal) we actually need to think a step further ahead than that, as in okay, we cut emissions, what now?
I have been reading the news on this climate chaos for decades so I am not naive enough to think that the planet will be magically restored to perfect tranquillity the minute the last burger eating SUV driver throws away their car keys and goes vegan. We all know we must cut emissions and go carbon negative but Covid has given us a glimpse as to how much work this really entails and how long we can sustain change for.
The really scary thing about climate change is the time lag. The warming we are experiencing today is the effects of the carbon emitted 20 years ago. If we stopped cold turkey right now we’d still get another 20 years of warming- but we won’t. So 20 years from now, we’re going to look around and go, gee, this is getting bad, but at that point we will be committed already to another 20 years of warming after that.
73 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] threadWe know the problem here. We have some solutions. We just need to act!
If we cut by 50% and the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more? How far do you want to go and how much needs to be risked Before you’re satisfied that our carbon levels are acceptable. Sorry that you feel the world isn’t following your desires and expectations but they need more than a promise that things may get better to enact policy that will dramatically alter their entire economy, way of living, and social order.
Edit: sure downvote me and throw insults. That’s a good way to promote healthy discussion.
Otherwise increasingly severe floods, droughts and storms will dramatically alter the economy, way of living and social order for billions of people anyway.
Likewise, I don’t know how close the world temperature is to the equilibrium for the current level of greenhouse gasses. If levels remain constant, is the global average temperature going to go up 0.5C? 0.01C? Or is equilibrium reached faster than the seasons change?
That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
CO₂ isn't a fixed quantity in the atmosphere that we add to. If we don't add to it, it gradually gets absorbed by natural processes on the Earth's surface.
The reason the amount in the upper atmosphere is rising is because we're producing more faster than the other processes can absorb it.
The picture is a little more complicated than that though. We are also destroying some of those absorption processes. For example through deforestation of the Amazon.
Also, CO₂ is now a proxy measure for other greenhouse gases produced by human activity. Methane in particular is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, so that matters too and the aborption processes are different. So there are a number of cycles of different things going on, and it's a fairly complicated picture, thus all the models.
However, there are some useful simplifications, and it's too important to let arguing over details be used to avoid dealing with the basic problem. CO₂ is still the main concern and target, because it's produced by a large number of human activities, and they can be changed. Basically anything that involves burning things, whether obviously like in a car, or hidden away in some power station where you can't see it.
All that said, even if we get net CO₂ emissions down to zero now, or even negative (if we find a way), it is generally accepted that we are too late to stop a significant average temperature rise that will cause significant climate changes affecting us, and especially affecting nature across the world.
Because of this, targets these days are the result of negotiating some kind of "realistic" level of harm, which of course involves setting temperature-rise targets, and lots of politics, and plenty of political and industrial leaders trying to see what they can get away with. Nobody is really happy because some people would like less harm than the "realistic" minimum now, and some people would like to carry on with life as before because it was fun, and maybe their wealth depends on it.
> That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
I'm completely with you on this. Technology will save the day if... well, the trouble is technology can't be taken for granted, even if there are plenty of great inventions around, and potential future inventions.
Technology can only save the day if politics, behaviour and the economy line up to allow it to happen.
I really don't think we can assume politics and people are collectively all that aligned on these issues or much else at the moment. We can't even agree on whether to protect each other from Covid or not by simple behavioral changes (social distancing, mask use etc), and that's a much more visible, short-term and simpler issue to understand than climate change.
Cutting human carbon emission to zero today would still result in temperature increases over the next decade or so, because there's a planet-sized throughput delay in the system. Can't turn the oil tanker around that quickly.
The IPCC suggested target is 1.5-2C over the next century as being both reasonably achievable while not having too drastic an impact on the environment and agriculture.
In every case where I've replaced carbon with something else, it's turned out to be preferable. Cleaner, quieter, lighter, longer lasting.
To me, there are lots of other reasons for cutting carbon than the environment. The environment is just a big plus. If we cut all carbon fuel and ended up with longer lasting, more efficient products, but global warming increased, why would I think cutting carbon had been a waste?
Personally, I'd like to see some state where there was a hypercompetitive market of many different energy sources, rather than being dominated by carbon. I'm not sure what that would eventually look like — maybe carbon would be a part, maybe not — but it would be better.
Isn't so fun being a subsistence farmer in deteriorating conditions.
I would tell you that I don't care, but then I would be called a troll, despite mine being the mainstream position.
If a million people have "money" but there's enough food for 900,000 people, you're going to find the price rises to just a bit more than you can afford. No matter how much money you have, the price will rise to more. See sibling comment about wheelbarrows full of devalued currency.
If things go wrong you'll need a better plan than "I have money". If food supplies literally run out, money will be worthless.
Instead, we have vote for president. That vote may affect the actions on climate change, but it may not be in the way you want. And it has lots and lots of related side affects.
Let us say that the president who would take more steps to curb global warming would also cause growth in a non US country that is environmentally destructive. Or that they themselves would make so many deals and compromises that the deal that gets passed is actually a long term net loss.
I am totally not saying that will happen, but making things too black and white can lead to surprises.
It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. It's hypocritical and provides ammunition to climate change deniers when they say things like "But this spring was really cold!" Weather is not climate and a year over year comparison of one calendar month is not a trend.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense article I would publish if I were a climate change denier.
I don't know if you're in the US, but this is untrue here.
Our most-watched media outlet spreads climate-change denial, as does the (minority) party that has controlled our federal -- and most state -- governments for the last few years.
One of their tactics is literally to say that there is still snow, so global warming can't be real[1].
Articles like this are the counterpoints to that narrative, and there is evidence that individual data points are convincing[2] to people who are not able (or willing) to understand long-term statistical information.
1. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/3-years-ago-...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-chan...
The environmentalist movement has long been dogged by a sizeable aura of people who dilute the message with craziness and false claims. They are the major reason why progress is so slow - very few people trust them anywhere near anything important. I've yet to see an English-speaking Green party that I'd accept as competent to set policy even assuming they have the correct problems identified.
Surely you must mean "false" claims?
Maybe .. but on the other hand, craziness and false claims emanating from right-wingers and even the Presidential Twitter Account seem to get taken seriously and make progress.
Scottish Green Party (separate from the Green Party of England And Wales, who do indeed have a bit of a lunatic fringe and ended up picketing their own council at one point) seem to be pretty good to me. Including sensible but difficult to implement policies like "how about we don't have a hundred-foot column of gas flame over Fife all the time".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-5... (yes, this is a pet issue, but I can see a lot of CO2 right there)
I'm in my 40s and I've been seeing headlines like "hottest September on record" since my twenties. This is just the most recent one.
This kind of data is helpful for people who like to make evidence-based decisions in life. If an asteroid were heading for Earth would you want the news to ignore it?
Normalcy bias is a huge problem but if you're paying attention it is prudent to use information like this to decide where to live, whether to have kids, etc. it could have a huge impact on decisions like "Should I apply for job in Los Angeles, or Toronto?" So far, I haven't regretted moving from the place the article uses to illustrate hot weather to a cooler, wetter, more stable country.
However, if you want people to find creative solutions to complex problems, a positive message works better. "Yes, we can!"
I don’t know why you are bringing this up. The article is talking about global temperatures and global records. Not a cold snap in your local town.
The trend is extremely scary, and we sure as hell should be scared:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
Let's say we stop publishing true facts like this, in order to maintain some sort of message control. What do you propose that message actually be?
I, personally, accept climate change on faith because I defer to the experts. However, it's shocking to me how inaccessible unbiased facts are. It is conceivable that record cold temps are being set just as often. It's conceivable that nearly everything is a record if global averages are just now being recorded by month (or if they have been rebaselined after a methodology change).
Articles like this raise more questions than they answer. They aren't going to convince someone who isn't already convinced, and they only demoralize those who already are convinced.
But as to what you were seeking, here were my first DDG results:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
I think newspapers publish things that are news, which means it's something that happens at a given point in time. A monthly number is news, while "the past few decades" is not. An organization putting out a press release is news, so if that mentions a long-term trend, that can become news, but if it hasn't changed in any detail since the last report, then it's not really news either.
Newspapers, and news sources in generally, are really bad at communicating long-term trends like global climate change, unfortunately.
The "make people feel bad" will only affect the large amount of people who wouldn't do anything anyway and who wouldn't be convinced to do anything until there is much larger social pressure.
These kinds of articles might actually inspire that smaller group do do more because it's so so bad. The data is REALLY bad. That small group will create a larger group who would provide support (financial, etc). Once a critical mass is hit, the larger group who was turned away because of bad feelings will come around.
It's more important to focus on the people who would actually do something and who would provide support. These articles and stories don't turn away the people doing all the work, it actually inspires them more.
For example, I am one of those people and this article makes me want to do more and puts more urgency into it.
The world was covered in ice without humans. So the ability of the planet to change temperature inherently is self evident. All you do when you call people insane for bringing their counter points to YOUR argument is stymie discussion and polarize the subject.
> How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
> Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.
> Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?
> All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt.
If a volcano erupts and the lava is coming your way, are you going to stand still because the lava isn't man's fault?
To them, cutting down emissions might be as inefficient solution for climate change as it is for solving the lava problem.
It's another thing to work back from desired outcome to necessary facts and use it to deem those facts true, rather than testing if they are actually true.
Technically correct I guess. Let us just say that the average temperature is rising from year to year. CO2 levels correlate very closely with this increase in temperature.
Let's say this correlation is not sufficient evidence and we know nothing about CO2 as a greenhouse gas. What would be the next best explanation?
But no, turning off the taps or turning down the taps a tiny bit isn't going to suddenly bring a halt to warming temperatures.
Interestingly though we have some people wanting to bring emissions to a halt for climate change reasons. But, with things like Chess you have to think a few moves ahead. Has anyone thought ahead past a drastic cut in emissions? If everyone stopped consuming (as if) and temperatures still went up, how would that work out? It would be a bit like Covid where lockdowns happen but the pandemic is not brought under control, maybe just slowed down for a bit.
I have been reading the news on this climate chaos for decades so I am not naive enough to think that the planet will be magically restored to perfect tranquillity the minute the last burger eating SUV driver throws away their car keys and goes vegan. We all know we must cut emissions and go carbon negative but Covid has given us a glimpse as to how much work this really entails and how long we can sustain change for.