Theoretically speaking isn't it essentially impossible to reverse the effects of climate change?

So as I understand it 200 years of industrialization accompanied by the pumping of excess CO2 into the atmosphere got us to where we are today. So even if we could eliminate all the excess CO2 that is produced by industrialization tomorrow wouldn’t we still be stuck with the climate we have now? In other words ulless the excess CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere theoretically the situation would not improve but just stabilize?

PS - This is not argument to do nothing, but just wondering that there’s limitations to whatever efforts are implemented.

It’s too late to reverse it. It’s not too late to ensure it doesn’t get any worse.

Theoretically speaking all global actions would do would be just slowing down the production of excess CO2 brought upon by globalization. In other word just slowing the negative effects of climate change. So things will still be getting progressively worse just a little less than if nothing were done.

It’s probably better to ■■■■■■■ do something about it ASAP, in other words.

I haven’t seen the data. A concerted effort by the UN to replace destroyed forest and jungle may help.

That’s a problem caused by overpopulation. More people means more space needed and more homes to build.

I love libs. Just love them.

1 Like

Me too. :person_fencing:

1 Like

That excess CO2 has to be absorbed at a higher rate.

I love that little man too.


Overpopulation = deforestation; it’s a double edged sword.

One of the thing I’m trying to get at here is if predictive models have been actually formulated and can face the rigors of falsification? In other words doing a, b & c will result in x, y & z in such and such time frame?

1 Like

That’s not the case because were not many of the predictions from decades ago about the state of where world would be today did not come true. Furthermore any climatologist could state that if the US does a, b & c global temperatures will stabilize in x number of years. Something like is indeed a falsifiable statement. 2 + 2 = 4 is falsifiable because it is not testable and is not a scientific statement but a theorem.

No, the ecosystem is not static. Plants and oceans (plankton, algae, shellfish etc.) and even the dirt itself all absorb CO2 at various levels and also release it when they decompose. The carbon cycle is so complex that we are a very long way from having more than a basic grasp of it all. It’s a really big system.

And why do we have overpopulation?

What’s the difference between the CO2 that trees need to make oxygen and the CO2 you’re talking about?

Nothing, but there is a lot more of it now.

Trees are growing measurably faster because of it. Yes they are using more CO2 but that fast growth makes them weaker with less dense wood. They are therefore more vulnerable to storms and fires and early death. They fall down and rot and the CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere, that’s what decomposition does. Fire too.

That’s one example of thousands of systems that effect the carbon cycle.

A lot more compared to “when”?

Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere gradually by natural processes. So are other gasses such as methane, HFCs, etc. But it may take centuries to get back to pre-industrial levels if man-made emissions are eliminated.

Geoengineering is a more realistic alternative for the short term. For example, volcanic eruptions can cause immediate cooling by injecting sulfates into the stratosphere. Humans can do something similar to reduce global temperatures.

For a brief discussion of alternatives see: Climate engineering - Wikipedia

Of course while geoengineering may reduce global temperatures, it could create other problems. For example, volcanic eruptions in the early 1800s resulted in the “year without summer” in New England and crop failures and famines in parts of Europe. Also geoengineering does not address such as ocean acidification that result from high carbon dioxide levels.

Yes…it’s too late now.