4 ms·

yet we dont have a ballpark number that says how much is human made and how much is natural. It doesent exist even in the IPCC report. You are welcome to prove

yet we dont have a ballpark number that says how much is human made and how much is natural. It doesent exist even in the IPCC report. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

imtringued 6y ago
I think this satisfies your desire for a "ballpark number" https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 Come on. You're just putting your head in the sand and pretending the sand is the real world.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  That talks about countries contributing relative to each other NOT relative to natural. Please point to the number. It's not there because it doesn't exist because we don't know. And let me put it like this. If you know the number send it to the nobel committee and you would be getting one.
  - martinpw 6y ago
    It is pretty uncontroversial that CO2 increase in the atmosphere is almost all from human activity, and that a large part of that comes from burning fossil fuels. For example the US EPA website says: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. and there is a link right on that paragraph to the IPCC report. Given the current EPA director, you might expect that to have been removed if there was any controversy about it. And there are multiple lines of evidence to indicate fossil fuels are the major source, including carbon isotope ratios: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-mu... Finally, if there was any doubt about it you could be sure the oil companies would be trumpeting it.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      So in other words. You can't give me a number, not even a ballpark number. Why do you think that is? Why isn't it important to you if it's 10% or 51% or 99%?
      - martinpw 6y ago
        The EPA quote clearly implies that for the US it is > 50%. The realclimate article says: "the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation". So then the question is what is the ratio between those two sources. Quote here says ~10% of total is from tropical deforestation: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/deforestation/ https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/deforestation/ So ballpark figure is 90% from fossil fuels? The exact number doesn't matter for the basic argument of the paper though, as long as it is the vast majority of the source.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        ask yourself why they cant be precise
        adrianN 6y ago
        Just by following references in the Wikipedia about the carbon cycle I found this book chapter https://scihub.wikicn.top/https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0070-4571%2808%2970338-8 https://scihub.wikicn.top/https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0070-45... that contains numbers (and error bars), alas from 1985. I'm confident that our knowledge about the carbon cycle has improved since then, given the amount of research climate change has gotten in the last thirty years.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        Yes it's from 1985 and no it doesn't actually give a number either. The fact that you can't find it and have to go to 1 article which isn't even giving you that number, should tell you that maybe you haven't gotten all the facts here. This is exactly what started my journey from worrying about the climate to understanding it to realizing the base for all this is much much much fragile and much much much more politisized.

yet we dont have a ballpark number that says how much is human made and how much is natural. It doesent exist even in the IPCC report. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

imtringued 6y ago

I think this satisfies your desire for a "ballpark number" https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 Come on. You're just putting your head in the sand and pretending the sand is the real world.

ThomPete 6y ago
That talks about countries contributing relative to each other NOT relative to natural. Please point to the number. It's not there because it doesn't exist because we don't know. And let me put it like this. If you know the number send it to the nobel committee and you would be getting one.
- martinpw 6y ago
  It is pretty uncontroversial that CO2 increase in the atmosphere is almost all from human activity, and that a large part of that comes from burning fossil fuels. For example the US EPA website says: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. and there is a link right on that paragraph to the IPCC report. Given the current EPA director, you might expect that to have been removed if there was any controversy about it. And there are multiple lines of evidence to indicate fossil fuels are the major source, including carbon isotope ratios: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-mu... Finally, if there was any doubt about it you could be sure the oil companies would be trumpeting it.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    So in other words. You can't give me a number, not even a ballpark number. Why do you think that is? Why isn't it important to you if it's 10% or 51% or 99%?
    - martinpw 6y ago
      The EPA quote clearly implies that for the US it is > 50%. The realclimate article says: "the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation". So then the question is what is the ratio between those two sources. Quote here says ~10% of total is from tropical deforestation: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/deforestation/ https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/deforestation/ So ballpark figure is 90% from fossil fuels? The exact number doesn't matter for the basic argument of the paper though, as long as it is the vast majority of the source.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        ask yourself why they cant be precise
        adrianN 6y ago
        Just by following references in the Wikipedia about the carbon cycle I found this book chapter https://scihub.wikicn.top/https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0070-4571%2808%2970338-8 https://scihub.wikicn.top/https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0070-45... that contains numbers (and error bars), alas from 1985. I'm confident that our knowledge about the carbon cycle has improved since then, given the amount of research climate change has gotten in the last thirty years.
        ThomPete 6y ago
        Yes it's from 1985 and no it doesn't actually give a number either. The fact that you can't find it and have to go to 1 article which isn't even giving you that number, should tell you that maybe you haven't gotten all the facts here. This is exactly what started my journey from worrying about the climate to understanding it to realizing the base for all this is much much much fragile and much much much more politisized.