CO2
illconsidered | March 26, 2006This 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…
illconsidered | March 25, 2006This 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:
It's clear from the ice cores and other geological history that CO2 fluctuates naturally. It is a bogus assumption that the rise happening today has to be from humans.
Answer:
Surely it is not so hard to believe that since we emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and, lo and behold, there is more CO2 in the air, therefore the CO2 rise is our fault. But if this simple common sense is not enough there is more to the case than that and…
illconsidered | March 25, 2006This 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:
If you look back over the last 600 million years you see that there really is not much correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels. Clearly CO2 is not a climate driver.
Answer:
While there are indeed poorly understood ancient climates and rather controversial climate changes in Earth's long geological history, there are no clear contradictions to greenhouse theory to be found. What we do have is an unfortunate lack of comprehensive and…
illconsidered | March 25, 2006This 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:
CO2 levels are recorded on top of Mauna Loa...a VOLCANO!! No wonder the levels are so high.
Answer:
Yes, it's true, Mauna Loa is an active volcano. In fact it's the biggest volcano on earth! So, should we suppose that Charles Keeling didn't know that? Well, no, he did know this. And using subtle scientific indicators like "wind direction" he was even able to ensure that his readings were not contaminated by any out gassing when it was…
illconsidered | February 25, 2006This 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:
One good volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than a decade of human emissions. It is ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 will have any effect.
Answer:
Not only is this untrue, but it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If this were true, that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2…
illconsidered | February 25, 2006This 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:
The CO2 concentration lags behind temperature by centuries in the glacial-interglacial cycles, so clearly CO2 does not cause temperatures to rise, temperatures cause CO2 to rise.
Answer:
A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is…
illconsidered | February 25, 2006This 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:
Correlation is not proof of causation. There is simply no proof that CO2 is the cause of the current warming.
Answer:
There is no "proof" in science, that is a property of mathematics. In science, one must look at the balance of evidence and formulate theories that can explain this evidence. Where possible scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify or contradict their theories and must modify these theories as new…