For the last time, annual adaptation to seasonal change is not the same thing as adaptation to abrupt change in the pattern of seasonal change.
No other species on Earth (except humans) can even tell the difference. And, I disagree with your use of the term "abrupt". Because climate change is anything but.
Why would we need to know the movement of every particle in the Earth's atmosphere to know the conditions of certain gases there?
Loaded question. That's not what I said. We don't need perfect measurements, we just need much more accuracy than we've currently got. And I'll tell you exactly what we do need that will make me happy: lots more measuring stations, maybe a couple thousand, spaced evenly all over the planet. In cities and in suburbs and in the wild. Over land and over water. High up and down low. And
underwater. So that we can see, with reasonable accuracy, where CO2 is coming from and where it's going.
Side note: practically the moment I typed that, I found a claim somewhere on the Internet that CO2 is a fast-mixing gas. Making it (supposedly) very difficult to tell where high CO2 levels are coming from. I threw that claim away, because it makes the problem untestable. Gremlin in the fridge.
I'm certainly glad you're not my doctor, since your blood work would ask the lab techs to perform infinite pricks at every location of the body.
Consider me like House. I'm a jerk, but I
will find out what your medical problem actually is. Instead of doing the wrong treatment and getting you killed, which as I pointed out with attempts to clean up pollution in the 70's, may have happened with climate change already.
Sure, but they'd be heavily mitigated by that point; you must also show good use of statistics. Find the natural level of substances in the air - by averages if we must - and make it so cleanup doesn't occur below those levels.
We will never know what those levels are, because the human race didn't have the ability to measure until well after the Industrial Revolution screwed those natural levels all to crap.
I understand it's a common act to misread what someone says(especially in politics where our human biases like to simplify it and assume what the person's argument is), but I never said we did better before factories. I said we did just fine in terms of environment before factories
I know. I understood you perfectly. And my reply remains the same. We cannot go back to where we were
in terms of environment. Because that means giving up things we cannot bear to live without. Just by reading this post, you're generating 20 grams of CO2
per second. I don't see you shutting off that PC and throwing it away, do I? And here's the fun part (i.e. most annoying for you): if you reply to this, or indeed if you ever post anything in here again, the act of doing so shows me and everybody else that you still have that PC, thereby proving me right.
This means if we can keep the current factories but make their emissions near-zero, wonderful! Clean industry.
In theory: absolutely. In practice: you might want to smack China around a bit, because they're dragging us in the wrong direction. How do you force a nation such as China to switch to clean industry?? There's no way to do it.
As you went around your volcano mistake?
Me? Mistake?? This is
BasketCase you're talking to. Unless I made a typo somewhere, claiming that I made a msitake is a mistake.
Here's one mistake somebody else made, though: during my research I found a claim that a volcanic eruption can spew as much CO2 as the entire human race generates in a DECADE. That one was definitely bogus. Anyway, here's where you went wrong: I said
one volcano spews a hell of a lot (actually,
CAN spew a hell of a lot). You listed total annual emissions by all eruptions. Different thing. One volcanic eruption can spew a hell of a lot of CO2--but such eruptions are rare.
I fixed that for you 
