No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance.
The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by spectrum analysis of our neighboring planets (and the moon).
Now I know that doesn't give you hard answers to questions policymakers want, like 'will New Orleans flood from increased tropical storms? Will the Middle East and India dry out?' We don't know that, and yes, that sucks.
But we do know the effect of increased amounts of greenhouse gases. (And, for what it's worth, we do also know that carbon dioxide taxes work much better than an emission trading system does, as proven by e.g. Norway vs. European Union, and as proven by the fact that industry and fossil fuel companies actually prefer it).
And the fact that the top comment on HN is about climate change denial rather than the actual article is excellent proof of the study's truth.
A lot of the data we have is incredibly inaccurate, to say the least. A recent study from Yale stated that the actual number of trees on Earth is almost 8 times the number previously estimated. EIGHT times! If we can't even count freaking trees, do you expect me to trust numbers concerning much more complex models of the atmosphere?
Also, claiming the parent post is "clearly out of ignorance" is both arrogant and disrespectful. There are published reports from reputable sources postulating vastly different theses/opinions.
"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
Norway is hardly comparable to EU energy wise, mainly because they biggest energy production is hydro, which in turn comes from unique geography.
Germany little experiment with solar is already causing massive issues, ecology wise too. Factories are already saying fuck it, building their own local generators, with worse exhaust and lower efficiency.
Keep adding more nonsense costs to industry in EU.
And you know what? China would pick up the slack, and they hardly give a shit about anything. Right now,overdoing this locally actually increases net pollution.
I guess we get to feel good.
Norway is not comparable to mainland EU, I'm not claiming that. But Norway does have an intensive oil and gas industry which emits copious amount of CO2. Because of the CO2 tax, they have implemented the worlds first (and only) commercial carbon-capture and storage (CCS) project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipner_gas_field#Carbon_capt...).
As for China stealing European industry, that's happening already, and it's really nothing a little protectionism can't help. Protectionism is bad, but so is losing jobs, and worse is acting like you are powerless when really you aren't.
We are not talking about protectionism, but not driving clean industry away with nonsensical excesses in pseudoecology (closing down the nukes is one example)
Also, Norway is just bad example, since they were literally rolling in cash.
And, if most of your energy comes from hydro, a little feelgood CCS wont drive the price through the roof.
Now, if you look at EU, it's mostly fossil fired or nukes. Close the nukes and force CCS on the rest - insane power costs
And don't give me solar, Germany is finding how it is failing. (Because every other day the energy prices go negative and wind/solar has right of way actual power plants go bankrupt. This in no way means they are unneeded,just that the law is broken)
This seems to me a form of calling names, which the HN guidelines ask you not to do. Instead of telling someone that they are ignorant, it's more civil and substantive to simply post better information. They may or may not become less ignorant, but everyone else can learn something.
You are absolutely right, I oversimplified, but that has the advantage of giving us plenty of other experimental bodies to compare with (i.e. the solar system). For what it's worth, this oversimplification gives a pretty good average temperature of 15 deg celcius on earth.
Albedo is an important factor, but there is actually very much uncertainty about human influence on earths albedo, and at any rate the effect seems to be pretty small. Humans' effect on CO2 on the other hand is extremely well-established and much greater, which is why it's logical to focus on it.
The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by spectrum analysis of our neighboring planets (and the moon).
Now I know that doesn't give you hard answers to questions policymakers want, like 'will New Orleans flood from increased tropical storms? Will the Middle East and India dry out?' We don't know that, and yes, that sucks.
But we do know the effect of increased amounts of greenhouse gases. (And, for what it's worth, we do also know that carbon dioxide taxes work much better than an emission trading system does, as proven by e.g. Norway vs. European Union, and as proven by the fact that industry and fossil fuel companies actually prefer it).
And the fact that the top comment on HN is about climate change denial rather than the actual article is excellent proof of the study's truth.