Let's assume that for 100% fact, climate change is completely

>>7913229
no
yes

More complicated than that OP. We are basically too late to stop irreversible climate change, but it can be slowed down. The slower the better. Climate change is a natural thing, but rapid change is not. Naturally it is a very slow process that happens in predictable cycles, but we have knocked the Earth out of its natural cycle for good. Rapid and unpredictable change will be a bad thing for us. We still have the means to slow it down so we can adapt as it happens.

Need to find a way to start rapidly taking carbon out of the atmosphere and oceans and making it solid.

We can put iron oxide into the ocean and cause massive algae blooms. Which will capture CO2 into organic solids and liquids. Though this will have other side effects.

>>7913284
>We are basically too late to stop irreversible climate change
That's not really true.
Global warming isn't a binary "it happens or it doesn't" thing, it's a continuum that runs right from "nothing" to "we're all fucked".
Right now things are headed towards quite severe consequences, but we don't need to "solve" global warming entirely in order to lessen how bad it's going to get.

>>7913293
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is generally agreed to be MUCH harder than reducing emissions in the first place. There's a lot of work we can (and need to) do before it would be sensible to make sequestration a priority.

>>7913229
no
possibly, we don't know what global warming will bring, could be some crazy shit, could be nothing at all.

it's starting to look like nothing at all.

>>7913229
1.- It's too late to stop the damage but we can still prevent the worst effects.

2.- Sea level rise will cause a lot more than flooding in coastal areas, many countries will essentially collapse due to their fod production fucking up and will be a fucking humanitarian disaster. Yes, the middle east will be fucked and 10000x refugees will try to enter the first world. Hell, one of the initial causes of the syrian protests that led to the current mess were severe crop failure and drought.

>>7913229

How did kot get up there, doesn't its feet hurt

>>7913229
If we turned on a dime and changed the ways of the planet overnight, we could probably limit it to 1.5 degrees of warming (relative to the pre-industrial global average temperature) by the end of this century - but that's unrealistic.

If everyone sticks to the Paris agreement and really tries, we can still just about keep it below 2 degrees of warming, widely agreed to be an acceptably slow rate of warming. It would be difficult but there is still hope for this.

If we keep going as we are now without changing anything, we're looking at 4-6 degrees of warming by 2100, which ranges from bad to catastrophic.

>>7913947
I read a study that the likelihood of a country destabilising is almost directly correlated with the price of bread relative to the average salary.

A society is only three square meals away from anarchy, as the saying goes.

can we just ignite the atmosphere to remove co2

>>7913986
CO2 doesn't burn silly, it's what you get from already having burned things

>>7913284
>too late to stop irreversible climate change,
>irreversible
If climate can be changed, then change isn't "irreversible", by definition.

>>7913997
>what is hysteresis
>what are phase changes
If we let the world heat up, and then tried to cool it back down it would still be different to the pre-industrial climate. The more we let it heat up before it starts cooling down again, the more different it will be - though it's more about how quickly it heats up and cools down. For example, if we tried cooling the planet right now using aerosols it would change rainfall patterns and probably cause extensive droughts.

>>7913229
There is this real push towards carbon neutral that I don't get. The climate cycle has momentum. If we suddenly went emissions free tomorrow, the damage is already so extensive that we're essentially already fucked. Hence carbon neutral just aint good enough. We need to remove the CO2 thats already in the atmosphere. As such, I tend to see ocean fertilisation/geo-engineering as the only way. Desperate times, desperate measures.

What I'm getting from this thread is that it's better to focus more on removing carbon compared to producing less

>>7914095
>If we suddenly went emissions free tomorrow, the damage is already so extensive that we're essentially already fucked.
Not really. And that's definitely no justification for making the damage worse.

>As such, I tend to see ocean fertilisation/geo-engineering as the only way. Desperate times, desperate measures.
Until we stop making the problem worse, no amount of geo-engineering will be enough to save us.

>>7914196
>What I'm getting from this thread is that it's better to focus more on removing carbon compared to producing less
That would be dumb.
Once CO2 is already in the atmosphere, extracting and sequestrating it (on any scale that matters) is almost impossible.
The only remotely practical way to stop global warming from getting worse is to stop digging the buried carbon up in the first place.

>>7913635
Yeah, i mean we are facing the highest extinction rate on Earth's life history but GW is just a maymay xD

>>7914458
like ya like we have no like evidence but like its 2016 like omg like dont like be like our like parents like that like are like bigots XD

>>7914464
>like ya like we have no like evidence
I'm curious as to what you think scientists DO for a living.

>>7914475
sit on their ass pushing research to the deadline to keep getting their funding

>>7914458
The total population has never been as high, either, so there's that.

It's like saying starting with a sample with 2 out of 100 are cancer patients, and then noticing another sample with 20 out of 100 cancer patients and going "IT WENT FROM 2 TO 20!"

>>7913986
yeah but the liberals wont let us shoot our sky rockets off anymore

MURICA

>>7914458
GW was real and he was the cooolest pres. evar like totally.


"highest extinction rate on earth's life history"

[citation needed]

if this were in fact an epoch event, this would still only be the sixth.

Check your extinction privilege you shitlord, you arent the only extinction event to ever occur.

>>7914694
>apoc, not epoc. goddamned fingers are sticky from masturbation and cheetohs.

>>7913229
Maybe
No. Life will go on. For people? Probably.

>>7913229

What kind of cat is that?

And, how did he get on the cactus without dead?

>Would we have a chance to stop the problem within 50 years?

No and mostly because there would be too many logistical issues in applying remedies.

>Would it actually be a bad thing?

Depends on who and what gets fucked up. The best thing to do is to monitor and setup back up plans for any "economically important" plant, insect or animal that receive a significant drop in population numbers.

>>7914721
Bobcat

Being a bobcat

Sure a lot of people will die and whatever but won't conditions of the planet become more temperate? or will majority of the desert become desert?

>>7913635
Nigga look outside

>>7914624
And you think research is what...?

fucking Americans turning this into a political problem. Most cucked humans on earth, americans. Minds full of corporate propaganda they actually think parroting party line skepticism is a substitute for thinking

>>7916703
/thread

>>7916703
That's actually all over the world, bongo. Here in canada we just had our scientists unmuzzled with a new party/prime minister. The last one wouldn't let media speak to scientists and vice versa about any climate or nature studies, and there's so many fucking retards here that don't think it exists, or don't care that it exists because they want that oilfield money, so they deny it. I used to work up in the oilfield, I know the type of people.