This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference will any reductions we try to do make?
Answer:
This is quite true that the natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But in the natural process, for roughly the last 10K years until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out. What we have done is to alter only one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.
Thankfully, nature is actually compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half of the CO2 we are emitting is staying in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%. So whatever the total amounts going in and out on their own, humans have clearly upset the pre-existing balance and altered significantly an important part of the climate system.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"Natural Emissions Dwarf Human's" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Coby, which sources would you consider to be the more realistic example of human emissions? I've seen numbers ranging from 6 to 10 GtC/yr (I suspect land use changes are included in some of them while others may only mention fossil fuels, but I've been wrong on this before), and I'm trying to narrow down which ones I should cite when asked this. A citation would be useful, and I'm not having much consistent luck on Google Scholar.
Posted by: Brian D | October 22, 2008 2:23 PM
I've always used this as a primary source:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
Posted by: coby | October 22, 2008 8:28 PM
Unless you mean one human is causing this problem, your title needs to say " Humans' " instead of " Human's ".
If you do mean one, please tell us his or her name (I'm betting it's a guy, probably in the midwest, probably a big sports fan)so we can go to his house and straighten him out.
Please correct your title, both here and where it's referenced (the list of denier points, etc.)
Posted by: J4zonian | March 17, 2009 3:27 PM
Thanks J4zonian, I have made the changes.
Posted by: coby | March 17, 2009 10:29 PM
Carbon dioxide is potent stuff. There's only a small amount in the atmosphere but it keeps us warm and allows plants to grow. Shift the CO2 budget just a bit and a significant amount of this potent stuff can build up.
Here's an illustration that shows the total quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (natural and anthropogenic) with the United Kingdom for scale: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonquilt/3987382740/
Here's a movie showing the total volume of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere in real-time (as it's actually happening): http://carbonquilt.org/gallery/videos#video-o1vbtnExw_g (There are similar movies on the same page.)
Posted by: Adam Nieman | December 4, 2009 10:00 AM
Please, don't give me this Gore's bullshit all over again... Nobody cosidering himself a reasonable man can deny our affecting the Earth's climate, however, the proportions and relations seem inadequate... First, carbon dioxide is not the only one element of this puzzle - steam and methan have been produced and emited ever since life started here and before... In a geological scale we're just a piece of nothing. I think the world will go round long after we spent the last dollar or euro to stop something we can't change or even reduce and die of hunger feedeng all the "wise guys" to the very end...
Posted by: Robert Raczyński | January 17, 2010 6:59 AM
Of course. So what? We're focused on how climate will change in the next century or two, not over million-year geological timescales.
In other words, you've raised a strawman.
Yes. No one claims that AGW will "destroy the world". The claim is that over the next century, at least, if we do nothing there will be a significant *human* cost.
If all we care about is the earth itself after humanity disappears, sure, AGW is no problem.
Neither is nuclear war. Hey, let's drop the big one, and see what happens!
Posted by: dhogaza | January 17, 2010 10:37 AM
Forget it Dho.
This guy's a Walkaway Joe. He's done his drive-by; we'll never hear from him again.
Posted by: skip | January 17, 2010 11:32 AM
You bet! I'm not a native speaker of English so I might not have put myself clearly. What I meant was not to underestimate the significace of the process. Still, I strongly disagree with the statement that if we limit the CO2 emmission, we'll solve the problem and live happily ever after. This is a topic for a longer discussion, but to convince "the sceptic" (usually not very bright or aware one) it is not enough to show him some charts and figures! People are bored with primitive eko-nazism or "intelectual" preaching. What they see is a total economical failure of 'green technologies'! What do you propose for now? "Intelligent houses"? "electric cars"? No beef? Only underaged emos and hippies get hooked on it. Greetings to all Walkaway Joes, anyway...
Posted by: Robert Raczyński | January 18, 2010 6:55 AM
Robert,
You're right that if we limit CO2 emissions, there will still be many environmental problems, but if we limit emissions, then we can avoid the particular problem of excess CO2.
Regarding our insignificance, think of a tiny rudder steering a large boat. If the rudder is pointing straight, then the water places a huge drag on both sides of the ship, and it goes straight. If the rudder points left, this "piece of nothing" causes an imbalance in the drag, which causes the whole ship to change course. Similarly, our small emissions can cause big changes in the balance.
Regarding "economic" failure of green technology, note that many are only "uneconomic" if the cost of pollution (and resource depletion) are not considered. It is hard to make direct connections between the economic effect of severe weather events (floods, droughts, storms) and a particular "ungreen technology", but the economic cost of these indirect consequences is nonetheless very high, if the scientists are right.
Posted by: Lachlan | January 19, 2010 1:34 AM
Hey Lachlan,
I understand the comparison you're making, but the "science" on the effect of a rudder on a ship is not disputed.
The science, dear Dhogaza, on the effect of dropping nuclear weapons on cities and the environment is not disputed, nor
is the effect of tiny, insignificant viruses and bacteria. (as you have mentioned before)
The fact is that a small (perhaps also insignificant) number of people stand to make incredible amounts of money out of Carbon Trading. They seem to be the ones creating their market out of the disputed science.
Posted by: michael | January 19, 2010 1:41 PM
michael
You are confusing carbon trading etc with climate change.
Carbon trading is a proposed mechanism to use market forces to reduce CO2 emissions. It may or may not work. In any case, it is a political and economic argument and there are probably many 'right' answers depending on your own political and economic circumstances.
On the other hand, climate change is a scientific argument. The simple fact that anthropogenic factors are influencing climate cannot be reasonably disputed. Note I said reasonably. Just because there are many who wish to dispute it does not make their position correct.
So if you want to have an opinion on carbon trading go ahead. But if you want to have an opnion on climate change you need to base it on science, not on politics.
Posted by: mandas | January 19, 2010 2:16 PM
I dont agree Mandas i think the two (ETS and AGW) are joined at the hip.
For example when the CSIRO make this scientific statement in Sept 2009
"September 2009: A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change."
KRudd then climbs up on his soap box and preaches the need for an ETS with the obligatory statement "the science in settled".
But then when one of the lead authors of the study has this to say
"Jan 2010: One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ”no evidence” linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin"
The KRudd needs to climb down of the soap box.
Of course that idiot Green politician Brown (the irony)is now calling the CSIRO a bunch of sceptics and caving in to political pressure. What pressure? From Abbott? (if i have anything thing to thank Skip for it would be the knowledge he has shared of narratives).
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/droughts-might-not-be-due-to-carbon-dioxide-says-csiro/#more-6109
Posted by: crakar24 | January 19, 2010 8:42 PM
crakar
As I have said repeatedly, you should not rely on blog posts or newspaper articles for your information. The link you gave me is to a newspaper article, and hence I will actually wait until I have read the paper before I make any sort of informed comment. However, if you are going to rely on these sorts of sources, you may wish to read the whole thing before you comment. Have a look at the last couple of paragraphs where the scientist says the glaciers are temporarily growing because of increased moisture from warming oceans (note - warming oceans), and the temporary increase is about to be overtaken by melting due to increased temperatures. However, none of what is written in the article is proof or evidence of anything. If you have the paper, read it and then tell us what it says.
And I'm not sure what you don't understand about the difference between climate change and an ETS. And ETS is simply a political and economic mechanism to deal with climate change. You can accept the truth of climate change but still think an ETS is a bad idea - a lot of people do. And I'm pretty confident the PM was talking about an ETS long before September 2009. I also seem to recall it was Coalition policy at the last election - and I am pretty sure (without any direct evidence except your obvious hatred for the PM) that you voted for the Coalition.
And to be quite frank, I am getting sick of clicking on your links of 'proof' of things, only to discover that it is a link to a web blog of a denialist or similar. The link that the CSIRO has doubts about climate change etc is a joke. Joanne Nova??? Is that your proof? I am not doing your research for you on this one. Find the paper, then find the dissenting view by David Post - then we will talk.
Posted by: mandas | January 19, 2010 10:12 PM
At least he didn't plagiarize it.
Crakar is being true to his word on that so for so let's celebrate some progress.
Posted by: skip | January 20, 2010 8:24 AM
crakar
I apologise, I lied to you. I said I wasn't going to do your research for you on this one, but my curiosity was peaked so I hunted around and guess what?? I found the study referred to. Here is a link:
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/tassy/
What is absolutely hilarious is what the study is really all about. Have a read and see for yourself! It's part of a wider set of studies on water use sustainability in the Murray-Darling, Western Australia and Tasmania.
And here is a REAL news item about the study, rather than an idiotic denialist blogger spin:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201001/s2795899.htm
I will accept a grovelling apology - but I am sure one won't be forthcoming.
Posted by: mandas | January 20, 2010 3:52 PM
crakar
I just bumped this thread back to the recent posts lists so you can see the information re the CSIRO.
I am having a fun coversation over at Jo Nova's website as well - thank's for that link. She doesn't check her sources or facts either, and is VERY easy to call out.
Posted by: mandas | January 21, 2010 2:48 PM
Firstly to Skip,
Thanks for that i will once again take this as a compliment if that is OK.
To Mandas,
Thanks for the link, as yet i have not read the study but i will in due course. Just to keep things moving along are you saying the report says "global warming is causing or will cause drought in Tasmania" or words to that effect?
If so then why would a co author say this "At this stage, we'd prefer to say we're talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it's climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that" Dr Post said.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-on-climate-change-csiro/1728307.aspx
Note the words "the science is not sufficiently advanced". We then get a verbal tirade of bullshit from Idiot Brown accusing the CSIRO of all sorts of things, because why? Because Post told the truth? He stated that at this point in time rainfall variability can be attributed to natural causes and for this he gets it in the neck from idiot Brown.
Sorry Mandas but i do not see why i owe you an apology.
If there is no need to reduce emissions is there a need for an ETS? No
If we need to reduce emissions do we need an ETS? Yes, the reason why is because the Gov knows no other way.
By the way in regards to my voting history i generally do not vote for Lib or Labor, i am one of the unfortunate ones that live in Mayo. So i had a choice between Downer and no one. Labor did not even bother putting up a candidate.
So i voted for Skippy the kangaroo, then Downer quit and we had candidates for the by election that no one had ever heard of so i voted for Skippy again old habits and all that.
For the senate i voted for an independant because i liked his "take no shit" attitude. Something sadly lacking in todays current crop of jokers.
I am glad you like Jo's site i will have a look at your posts.
Posted by: crakar24 | January 21, 2010 7:33 PM
I read your posts Mandas, dont be too disheartened, it may take you awhile to find your feet. Once you have done this you will find the art of dodging peanuts can be quite easy and also a lot of fun (at times).
Posted by: crakar24 | January 21, 2010 7:52 PM
crakar
No, I am not saying the report says that global warming is causing the drought in Tasmania. The report says nothing about climate change because it is not about climate change. The report is about examining water use and sustainability in Tasmania - that's it! It uses a number of scenarios to predict water use and requirements, including wetter, drier, and current conditions. It makes no comment on what may be more likely and makes no predictions about whether climate change exists or what causes it. That is why the whole newspaper article is a crock.
The reason you owe an apology (not to me but to everyone here) is because you linked (in post #13) about a study on the Murray Darling basin which concludes that the drought is probably related to climate change (and the CSIRO study DOES conclude that for the Murray Darling), then tried to deny the credibility of that report by claiming that one of the authors of the report (Dr David Post) came to a different conclusion. The problem is that Dr Post was not one of the authors of the study on the Murray Darling basin. He was the project leader of a completely different study on water sustainability in Tasmania and the two studies are not the same.
If you did your research (as I keep saying over and over again), you would have discovered that Dr Post accepts the facts of anthropogenic climate change, but stops short of attributing the current drought in Tasmania to climate change, because the evidence is not overwhelming. His views are perfectly consistent with those of a proper scientist who wants evidence before drawing a conclusion. He was probably asked whether the drought (in Tasmania) was caused by climate change, and he responded properly saying that the jury was still out. He did not say that rainfall variations can be attributed to natural causes - he just said, quite plainly, that he could not confirm it either way ('the jury is still out').
Finally, I neither know nor care what Bob Brown had to say on the issue, and I can't confirm it because there is nothing on their website. But anyone who thinks the CSIRO does not accept climate change as fact is an idiot.
Posted by: mandas | January 21, 2010 8:14 PM
Re post 13,
Facts as i see them,
I claimed that AGW and ETS are joined at the hip.
In support of this i quoted a study from the CSIRO which claimed AGW was the cause of droughts is SE Australia
I then said KRudd would have used this study to push his ETS from his soap box.
I then produced a quote from Post which says that there is no evidence of AGW but natural variability (in Tassie).
And then produced another quote from Idiot Brown squealing like a pig.
Now the point of all this was to show that when the CSIRO say AGW did it they are carried through the streets on the shoulders of politicians pushing the great green tax, but when the CSIRO say things like no evidence here of AGW they are spat on and abused by the very same. Thus the science of AGW and ETS are joined at the hip.
Hence my comment "If i have anything to thank Skip for it would be the knowledge he has shared of narratives."
You need to remember what we were discussing Mandas, the two quotes were not intended to prove a contradiction between two people but to highlight the narratives
(yes i know Skip its a bit thin i was planning on writing an indepth version and sending it to you for red penning if interested)
of self serving politicians. Due to this i did not care which study they came from and did not check because there was no point, it was idiot Browns response that i wanted to show to prove my point.
However Mandas has asked that i apologies to all and just to keep the peace i will, i apologies for not making it clear in my post there was a distinction between the two quotes.
Posted by: crakar24 | January 21, 2010 8:52 PM
crakar
I see what you are saying, even if I think you have shifted position slightly. But you also have to remember that the CSIRO is not saying there is no evidence of climate change (because they have said that for the Murray Darling), just that they cannot say for sure is causing the drought in Tasmania (ie 'the jury is out').
I do not disgree with your assertion about self serving politicians, which is why I don't use them as sources for anything. You also may remember that I work in a Commonwealth Government department, so I am used to dealing with them every day. I put no credence in what Bob Brown is alleged to have said. If he really said that, it is disengenuous and would certainly have pissed off the scientists.
But I also do not see anything wrong with the government using the Murray Darling study as justification for action. It clearly is appropriate under the circumstance. I offer no opinion on whether an ETS is the best way of dealing with it though. That being said, I don't like the one being offered by the Government, but am pragmatic enough to understand the political processes involved and what may or may not be practically achieved.
Have a good weekend. Golf for me!
Posted by: mandas | January 21, 2010 9:11 PM
Interesting exchange, but I would add this, Crakar.
In general avoid the guilt-by-association argument: "Idiot X is on your side; therefore you're position is idiotic."
I don't know anything about OZ politics (is there a sheep-shagging lobby or a Fosters political action committee?) but I hate when my American denier antagonists flip me shit about Al Gore AS IF I GIVE A DAMN. Its about the scientific consensus, not how some self-serving politico attaches himself to it.
Posted by: skip | January 22, 2010 8:44 AM