Climate change already feels chaotic in a sense that earth is heading towards so many tipping points that it is impossible to keep track.
In addition, each aspect resides in a niche of a complex system, difficult to grasp.
AMOC collapse, melting permafrost methane release, species extinction, intense El Niño, ...
All of them are not easily to follow, let alone understand. It's getting wild.
To my surprise, media coverage nowadays is mostly about heat waves as a phenomenon, leaving human impact on it aside.
A couple years ago, I would have expected some kind of awakening with global efforts, but the opposite is the case.
>A couple years ago, I would have expected some kind of awakening with global efforts, but the opposite is the case.
The only thing we can do is slightly tweak the exponential adoption curve of solar, it's already here, already the cheapest option, already growing exponentially. We're right in the meaty part of the growth phase of solar and "moral" adoption pushes really don't have much to do with growth any more.
And also there are positives, CO2 is a potent fertilizer and there is plenty of land area which is uninhabitable and unsuitable for farmland which is going to boom with population and agriculture.
We're up for a century of change and migration and people need to change their tune from "oh no!" to "what's next?"
What's next is a lot of migration to the likes of Canada and Siberia and perhaps some active geoengineering building up the new locations around the globe for rainforests.
You have to let go of the past and embrace the future because crying about losing the Earth as it was 200 years ago will get you exactly nowhere.
That new land has thin, acidic, waterlogged soil with few nutrients, is unstable and prone to collapse (see thermokarst), with photoperiods not suited for what those crops need. What's next is a world of hurt, especially if approached with techno-optimist myopia.
How much does the increase solar production decrease world-wide CO2 emmisions? Because CO2 emissions in 2025 were still increasing. I see that in many growing countries solar power is not seen as a replacement for fossil power, but as an addition to fossil power.
There are many places where the photosynthesis is not limited in CO2 amounts, but in amounts of other elements, like iron (about one third of the surface ocean), phosphorus (tropical rainforests).
In the Earths history, we know of periods of emission of large magnitudes of CO2. One of them is Permian–Triassic extinction event (level of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose from around 400 ppm to 2,500 ppm), extinction of 57% of biological families, 62% of genera, 81% of marine species, and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species.
So wouldnt it make sense to give up on the protect a disneyland of nature idea, and genemodify the rainforrest to adapt to heat? Fast forward around die off,adaption,recovery?
The only meddling with nature that went horribly is repeatedly introducing invasive species, then seeing the result after a short time.
And the part that isn't discussed at all, of course, is that that happens all the time in nature.
Of course the solution to climate change is humanity taking control of the climate. But the problem with that is equally simple: warming is inconvenient, but generally helps everyone. Cooling, on the other hand, ... or even merely stopping the warming.
For example, changes in Himalayan glaciers melting could affect the timing and reliability of water supplies in parts of the world, especially the Ganges Basin, particularly during dry periods. 700 million people depend on that water, not even counting the fact that the other side of the same mountain is the majority of Pakistan's water supply. Massive people displacements are likely to be unavoidable.
Note that glacier melting will stop, after a balancing period, not because it starts cooling. Merely keeping the temperature level will do that.
Large areas of the planet and very significant parts of the human population depend on global warming continuing.
Climate change already feels chaotic in a sense that earth is heading towards so many tipping points that it is impossible to keep track. In addition, each aspect resides in a niche of a complex system, difficult to grasp. AMOC collapse, melting permafrost methane release, species extinction, intense El Niño, ... All of them are not easily to follow, let alone understand. It's getting wild.
To my surprise, media coverage nowadays is mostly about heat waves as a phenomenon, leaving human impact on it aside.
A couple years ago, I would have expected some kind of awakening with global efforts, but the opposite is the case.
>A couple years ago, I would have expected some kind of awakening with global efforts, but the opposite is the case.
The only thing we can do is slightly tweak the exponential adoption curve of solar, it's already here, already the cheapest option, already growing exponentially. We're right in the meaty part of the growth phase of solar and "moral" adoption pushes really don't have much to do with growth any more.
And also there are positives, CO2 is a potent fertilizer and there is plenty of land area which is uninhabitable and unsuitable for farmland which is going to boom with population and agriculture.
We're up for a century of change and migration and people need to change their tune from "oh no!" to "what's next?"
What's next is a lot of migration to the likes of Canada and Siberia and perhaps some active geoengineering building up the new locations around the globe for rainforests.
You have to let go of the past and embrace the future because crying about losing the Earth as it was 200 years ago will get you exactly nowhere.
That new land has thin, acidic, waterlogged soil with few nutrients, is unstable and prone to collapse (see thermokarst), with photoperiods not suited for what those crops need. What's next is a world of hurt, especially if approached with techno-optimist myopia.
It's fine. We can just add fertilizer -- made from petroleum extraction of course then fire up some coal power plants for artificial grow lights.
Thus solving the problem once and for all.
In the global share of primary energy solar is this very small player (less the hydro, much less then coal, or natural gas, or oil), data from 2024.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
How much does the increase solar production decrease world-wide CO2 emmisions? Because CO2 emissions in 2025 were still increasing. I see that in many growing countries solar power is not seen as a replacement for fossil power, but as an addition to fossil power.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2026/co2-em...
There are many places where the photosynthesis is not limited in CO2 amounts, but in amounts of other elements, like iron (about one third of the surface ocean), phosphorus (tropical rainforests).
https://www.us-ocb.org/microbial-iron-limitation-otz/
https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/release/2022/press202218
Warming of Siberia could increase methane leakage, which could increase global warming and then increase in methane leakage, the “methane time bomb”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-s...
In the Earths history, we know of periods of emission of large magnitudes of CO2. One of them is Permian–Triassic extinction event (level of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose from around 400 ppm to 2,500 ppm), extinction of 57% of biological families, 62% of genera, 81% of marine species, and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
Lets hope we don't reproduce the PT event.
Anybody have a non paywall link to the paper?
https://web.archive.org/web/20260711174045/https://www.pnas....
that's just background/abstract, might be better to access journals through your library
So wouldnt it make sense to give up on the protect a disneyland of nature idea, and genemodify the rainforrest to adapt to heat? Fast forward around die off,adaption,recovery?
How exactly would you do this? And over what time span would you expect it to be effective?
I only buy certified organic non-GMO rainforest, so save a patch for me before you burn the rest of it down and replace it with a monocrop.
Not sure more meddling with nature is the best idea given our past history of it. There is a good chance you fix one problem and create 10 more!
The only meddling with nature that went horribly is repeatedly introducing invasive species, then seeing the result after a short time.
And the part that isn't discussed at all, of course, is that that happens all the time in nature.
Of course the solution to climate change is humanity taking control of the climate. But the problem with that is equally simple: warming is inconvenient, but generally helps everyone. Cooling, on the other hand, ... or even merely stopping the warming.
For example, changes in Himalayan glaciers melting could affect the timing and reliability of water supplies in parts of the world, especially the Ganges Basin, particularly during dry periods. 700 million people depend on that water, not even counting the fact that the other side of the same mountain is the majority of Pakistan's water supply. Massive people displacements are likely to be unavoidable.
Note that glacier melting will stop, after a balancing period, not because it starts cooling. Merely keeping the temperature level will do that.
Large areas of the planet and very significant parts of the human population depend on global warming continuing.