Climate change that can't be reversed, is not a hinge of history, it's the end of history.
This would quite obviously result in death and misery for billions (again, this is the worst case scenario), but I haven't seen any evidence that the Earth will become fundamentally uninhabitable a la Venus.
So it would be a disaster in any sense of the word, but I don't see how it would become a humanity-ending event. I'd like to understand why people think otherwise.
Also with end of history, I didn't mean the end of the human race. Just the end of the current civilization and possibly written history. Another dark age, so to speak.
To echo what another reply said, our own planet contradicts the idea that we would turn into a Venus for some reason. In that all the carbon we're putting back into the atmosphere is from organic processes that took it out of the atmosphere eons ago.
So, again, yes, the change will be enormously traumatic for humanity, but I don't see any evidence that written history will somehow disappear, for example.
On the whole, the same folks who fear climate change the most, praise the mission to make life multi-planetary. Those two beliefs held concurrently are a head scratcher to me... if you believe in our ability to make life multi-planetary, then surely we can adapt here. Mars is much more unforgiving than any forest fire, hurricane, or massive earth bound event.
Venice and New Orleans might be a write-off, and NYC will have sea walls, but folks must have some drive to adapt beyond just bland acceptance.
Climate change can absolutely be reversed by sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization.
The reason most climate activists don’t acknowledge that is because they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.”
There are (expensive) geoengineering projects that would give humans direct control over global temperature.
The most common suggestion is to add particles to the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. I think sulfur was first proposed, but I think study of calcium carbonate has been ongoing to avoid the ocean acidification issues that sulfur presents.
At least at first. If we start doing it, and don't reform our ways, it gets progressively more expensive.
Probably a nice stop gap if we ever get our shit together, but are staring down some really bad after effects.
This is obviously false. Please take this nonense elsewhere.
I agree with the rest of your comment more than with the person you replied to, like, of course we can have a major effect on the climate if we see the need to (if we indeed see 8°C warming and traditional food supplies failing, suddenly the powers of this world will see ways to do something about it that they aren't doing today) and it doesn't automatically mean an imminent end to history like GP claimed. I just don't get why you had to add the cited part. We're all on the same team.
Climate change killing us, while planning on "going to Mars", is one of the funniest modern narratives.
Unabetted climate change will be "devastating" in many ways, but it likely won't wipe us off the face of the earth in a generation. We are incredibly resourceful.