Release of CO2 has entered a positive feedback loop. Thawing tundra, burning forests, ocean acidification.
Even this we could counter (painfully) with massive industrial scale sequestration.
What worries me is methane. I'm not sure we can mitigate methane released from the tundra. And if the stuff tucked under the ocean pops, we're toast.
If we were in a positive feedback loop, then global warming will just continue to accelerate no matter how small our emissions are. In fact, we'd be equally screwed if we magically stopped emitting CO2 in 1950, it would just take a little bit longer before we're screwed.
Can anyone explain how to reconcile these arguments?
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-4...
Citations elided:
"Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems (particularly ombrotrophic bog communities, see Glossary) above permafrost were considered likely to be most vulnerable to climatic changes, since impacts may turn Arctic regions from a net carbon sink to a net source. Literature since the TAR suggests that changes in albedo and an increased release of methane from carbon stocks, whose magnitudes were previously substantially underestimated, will lead to positive radiative climate forcing throughout the Arctic region."
On our current course I'm quite optimistic that we'll be able to turn the ship around - I think between tech accelerating and the climate itself starting to put the screws on us, we'll have powerful enough tools and enough resources poured into them to save ourselves. However, that's if we stay on the apparent current course. I'm really scared we'll hit a discontinuity of some sort.