[BurningFrog]

I'm quite skeptical.

If we lower the CO2 levels (carbon sequestering) and cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight (SO2 injection in the stratosphere), I'm sure these alleged tipping points will be tipped back again, given some time.

It's good to be aware that doom sells, and the incentive to publish doom predictions for the money they make is very high. Of course, they can still be true...

We'll see how it goes :)

[skeledrew]

I don't get the reason for skepticism, when this is coming from scientists who've been studying the field for many years, and have been making predictions that have been coming true.

It's like an avalanche. After it starts you can't stop it or get all that snow back on the mountain; it has to get to level ground, melt (if it gets warm enough) and go through an entire cycle that takes time. So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself.

I don't see it as doom, just something inevitable, which we helped to cause. And it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money, in every instance, as acceptance would be bad for business.

[BurningFrog]

Well, look at this section:

> Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study.

I count to 3 maybes only there:

1. tipping points "could be triggered by much lower temperatures" 2. "some tipping points potentially already reached" 3. "according to a new study"

Number 1 and 2 says that this may possibly happen, not that it will!

Number 3 is the worst. Many - probably most - new studies with unexpected results turn out to be wrong, as the Replication Crisis has painfully taught us. They also get the most press, because "new study confirms what we thought" stories don't go viral.

> it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money

That's absolutely not true in science or publishing. The most sensational results get the most attention and grants and ad dollars.

[throw310822]

> So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself.

Humanity would be better off living at the bottom of the ocean than on any other planet; and to think that climate change could make earth less hospitable than any other planet is just absurd. So this is an incredibly naive statement.

[pests]

Yes agreed. There is no chance that humans are completely wiped out. We, or our ancestors, by definition have survived until today though multiple actual ice ages. We've survived though massive floods and glaciers and who knows what else.

On top of that, the closer we get to doomsday the more people will care.

I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that "capitalism can solve anything it just waits until the last minute".

That when the time comes enough money and resources will be poured into the solutions(s) that we can fix it.

When is that time? When profits are threatened and our continued way of existence.

[ClumsyPilot]

> If we lower the CO2 levels (carbon sequestering

This is simply fantasy. Sequestering carbon mechanically is an energy losing process. It is also inefficient.

If we burned oil in year 2,000 at (generously) 50% efficiency, it will cost us 4X more in year 2040 to sequester it at 50% (very generous) efficiency.

On the face of it, we would need a sequestering industry that is 4X bigger than the oil industry, and it will be just losing money. Politically, it’s just not going to happen.

Natural sequestration (I.e. tree planting) is not enough by a very large margin (like over 10x)

[BurningFrog]

Restoring CO₂ levels will use plenty of money and energy, however it's done. It can still be very much worth doing!

I don't believe much in tree planting, since it uses up huge areas of the planet forever.

The best way is to separate out CO2 from the atmosphere and pump it into underground cavities. This is the just reversing natural gas extraction, which means it's well established tech. Aside from the separating CO2 part, but that's being worked on.

In a decade or three I expect solar powered machines like this slowly but surely turning the atmosphere back to normal.

[spookie]

I would assume that "given some time" outlasts the median life expectancy of humans. If it ever happeens. Like others said it's a chaotic system in many ways, not as if you can predict more than a few decades.

Given this, after "giving it some time" a lot of people would be dead as a direct consequence of it not been given enough time.

[agos]

we're talking about 99 years, so outside the life expectancy of a lot of people on this thread

[courseofaction]

The climate is a chaotic system, not a seesaw.