If humans produce less then 4% of all carbon emissions on Earth, how can we possibly slow climate change?

Question

Should we address the leading causes of carbon emission (volcanoes, brush fires, and plant decay) be eliminated? If the majority of carbon emission is naturally occurring, is it our best interest to intervene?

Answer 1

Your edit is a very good point. I constantly hear AGW proponents playing the very God many of them vehemently protest. They are the ones who have the right to define what is and is not natural. Instead of God= good, it's nature= good. And of course man is a completely unnatural being performing unnatural acts. Hypocrisy knows no bounds in the minds of  these radical environmentalist liberals. Truth is relative to their agendas.

Answer 2

I think this is a good question.

Actually, human produced carbon emissions are about 0.9% of total produced by fossil fuel consumption and normal respiration.

If we add a bit more for man-made forest fires and other fires, you are probably approaching 1% of natures normal production.

This is far less than your 4% figure, but assuming even if your 4% figure were correct, it is still so insignificant, as to make this issue of so-called man-made 'Global Warming' laughable(if it wasn't so sad).

There is no way to intervene or change nature, and CO2 is the life-giving gas that we all require for our very existence.

Without it there would be no life on earth(at least not as we know it).

Even if we assume 4% to be correct, that would still make man's contribution to be only 4% of less than .04% or .0015% of our total contribution to the atmosphere of a required gas that we all need for our very existence, and although it may be a minor 'greenhouse gas', compared to water vapour, it is in such minute levels as to be completely ignored.

If we did not have some 'greenhouse gas' in our atmosphere, we would not be able to survive the extreme fluctuations between daytime and night-time temperatures either.

Climate always has, and always will change.

We are simply living in one of the milder periods.

Edit:

In response to your additional details about dead planets.

All of the other planets in our solar system are 'dead planets' for various reasons, and can not be compared to earth.

Answer 3

Thanks to Jonnie for the botany lesson. Plants need CO2? DUH!!! That's not the question. We're not out to reduce natural causes of CO2, only that which humans emit and nothing in the natural carbon cycle.

EDIT - here is a definition of NATURAL, Joe.

"in accordance with the usual course of nature"

Answer 4

global warming is a scam by the elite.

according to scientists, not al gore, we are going into global cooling wich is way worse than global warming.  

Answer 5

I say we need to enjoy ourselves while we can. The natural cycle of this planet will not have us in mind. This planet seems to go through a cycle. The next phase seems unclear, but I believe it to follow history's pattern. If that is the case then we must prepare for whats coming instead of trying to prevent it.

When you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.

Answer 6

Humans emit approximately 130 times what volcanoes do in a year. Plant decay is part of the natural carbon cycle. Our carbon emissions are not.

USGS:

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

Answer 7

Some fact checking might be called for

(a) Human co2 emissions are ~150 times the co2 produced by volcanoes

(b) Yes less than 4% is a small amount, unless you are talking about a gas that can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100 years and while ~50% of man made co2 is being absorbed by natural processes the ~2% over the last several decades of steeper co2 rise, have increased co2 to 390ppm or about 35% total over the last century

Answer 8

We can't.  This co2 scam is just the excuse governments need to raise taxes and reduce individual freedoms.

Everyone who has studied the climate will tell you that the Sun is the largest contributor of warmth to this planet.

Answer 9

Water vapor (humidity) is 99% of the global warming gases in the atmosphere. Figure a way to strip humidity out of the air and things would cool down quickly, Oh wait there is a way to force the humidity to condense and fall out of the air. It is called dry ice pellets and it is one of the number one tools used to deal with this kind of problem.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spen...

Answer 10

you just answered your own question

Answer 11

There are lots of things which leftists tend to believe more so than do conservatives.  One of those things is that if it has to do with humans it must be bad.   When you have leftists running a park for example, they will likely restrict access so that humans don't "interfere" with the animals.  I can't walk on my favorite trail because because some flaming leftist decided I might interfere with mating habits of the Western Arroyo Toad, like I would (everyone is restricted from using the trail except probably that idiot bureacrat that restricted everyone elses access).  Anyway, my long winded point is that if CO2 emissions are from humans, then the left is far more likely to view them as a poison to the Earth IMO.

Answer 12

For us to live there must be CO2 , if it was not here the plants would die . The plants would not be able to recycle the CO2 to oxygen. That is not good, we would cutting our own throats.  

Answer 13

There is a carbon cycle on Earth.  This carbon cycle is normally in balance - there are 'natural' sources and sinks of carbon and they emit and absorb roughly the same amount (actually the cycle absorbs slightly more carbon than it emits).

When humans burn fossil fuels, we're releasing carbon which has been trapped for millions of years.  We're adding more carbon to the system, and it's more than can be absorbed.  Thus it accumulates in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

It makes literally no difference what percentage of CO2 emissions humans account for.  There could be 500 trillion tons of carbon naturally emitted and 500 trillion tons naturally absorbed as part of the carbon cycle with humans just emitting 30 billion tons per year from fossil fuels.  That 30 billion tons would be a tiny fraction of a percent of total CO2 emissions, but they would still throw the cycle out of balance, accumulate in the atmosphere, and cause global warming.

Also, as others have noted, human CO2 emissions dwarf volcanic emissions.  See Myths #3 and #7 in the link below.

Answer 14

I just love all these ZERO SUM natural carbon cycles-- I suppose today's carbon cycle is JUDGED the optimum carbon cycle for the Earth, which is about 4 Billion years old.

Answer 15

4% is a little low.  Any reference about the number.  Looking at the historical high concentration of CO2 (300 ppm) and the current concentration (380 ppm), human influence may have increased CO2 concentration as much as ~27%.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

This is high for the amount humans directly emit into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion or land use changes though.  It includes increased decomposition and CO2 releases from permafrost thawing and such.  

The natural state is equilibrium.  The carbon cycle is just about a steady state system (what is put into the system through forest fires, respiration and decay) is used by plants (aquatic and terrestrial) to make food for all animals on the earth.  The system is knocked out of balance by emitting ~20 gigatons (billions of tons) of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels each year.  This is much more than volcanic eruptions (search the USGS site, but I think I read 100 megatons of CO2 per year was about average for volcanoes).  the equilibrium is out of whack for excessive fossil fuel combustion.  Besides, we can't much about natural sources anyway.  We only have control over human sources.

I also think you are trying to get at CO2 is a very minor part of the atmosphere (0.03%).  This minor component plays a huge role in regulating climate and supplying a lot of what plants need to make carbohydrates and oxygen for all animal life on this planet.  It is like having 50 1-dollar bills and a couple of 100-dollar bills.  The 100-dollar bills make a difference.