DN Opinion. Dangerous reduce greenhouse gasses ' importance for the climate

Alf Ronnby argues in a letter to the editor in the DN of that man can not affect the global climate more than marginally, and that, therefore, we should not give priority to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This is grossly incorrect.

There is overwhelming consensus among scientists that the past century's global uppvärmningstrend has been caused by man. This consensus has been measured and quantified.

John Cook and co-author of a number of prominent universities have summarized it all in the article "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of the consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The article is available free of charge from the uk Institute of Physics Publishing. The authors come to the conclusion that between 90% and 100% of all scientists in the field agree that people are responsible for the so far measured global warming.

Ronnby a number of alleged causes for human impact on the climate, in addition to emissions of greenhouse gases, which they consider to constitute significant contribution. Two of these, namely the heating of the oceans and changes in large weather systems, are consequences of global warming, not causes it.

Changes in the earth's orbit is also mentioned, but these are of marginal importance for the rapid climate change we are now experiencing. As shown, inter alia, of the report, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States", published in 2009 by the federal American body, U. S Global Change Research Program, it is human emissions of greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of global warming.

the European environment agency (EEA) and others have stated that the main gases are carbon dioxide (contributes in the range of 60-80 per cent of the total uppvärmningseffekten), methane and nitrous oxide. This does not include water vapour, when this major greenhouse gas as soon as it works through a ”feedback effect” that amplifies the heating caused by the previously mentioned.

space for opinions. It is established facts about what the scientific community is in agreement.

with respect to our ability to achieve the so-called two-degree target has Ronnby possibly a certain amount of points in that it will be difficult. An important reason for this is that businesses and individuals are reluctant to accept the scientific facts and conclusions about what needs to be done.

Regardless of whether we can achieve the goal or not, it is however, completely absurd to draw the conclusion that, from a climate point of view is pointless to limit our carbon emissions. Even if we are breaking the target as to make further emissions consequences more problematic.

that the expected consequences include the loss of unique ecosystems, extinction of species, increased incidence of extreme weather events, loss of fresh water resources, coastal erosion, and decreased agricultural production. It is thus not just about the magical limit of 2 degrees, but rather to reduce our emissions as far as it is possible to preserve the earth as habitable as we can.

Many of the measures for adaptation to climate change as Ronnby mentions in his letter to the editor is indeed quite reasonable, but likely, it is ultimately cheaper to let as much fossil fuels as possible be left in the ground than to deal with the consequences that the combustion of the same gives rise to.