The very fact that I am breathing is a testament to the adaptability of life to mutate over time and incorporate
available atmospheric gasses as a means of furthering its own functioning.
Not exact matches
The thrust of my question is this: If we were in the future looking at ice cores from the last few years with today's best
available scientific practices, would we be able to measure today's rapid change in
atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentration?
I wrote before, «Easily
available reserves of conventional oil and
gas are enough to take
atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth.»
The Montreal Protocol may have prevented the
atmospheric concentrations of chlorine from getting worse by getting rid of CFCs in developed countries (but the black market will ensure they are readily
available in developing countries for years to come unless more is done soon), and because the CFCs are enormously powerful greenhouse
gases (5000 - 11,000 time more powerful than CO2, in round figures) Montreal has done 5 times more to abate emissions than Kyoto will in the first commitment period.
Apart from (deliberately) excluding part of the
available data, it is ignoring the underlying physical science — the fact that rising
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases cause warming.
There is the «business as usual» case that assumes 4 degrees of global warming is inevitable, so we should use the cheapest and most plentiful energy sources
available regardless of the fact that burning these fuels will raise
atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations 40 percent higher than current levels.
But the basic point is that we know there's enough CO2 in the easily
available oil and
gas to take us up to the dangerous level of
atmospheric CO2.