The answer to your question is not an easy one. Some geologists believe that in ancient time, the earth has experienced a similar conditions. Unlike the GHGs that absorb heat in the atmosphere, Sulphur has a reflecting effect on the sun radiations. They call it solar radiation management. Solar radiation management is a controversial and theoretical proposal for addressing some of the risks of climate change.
Solar radiation management is an idea that can reduce some of the risks of global warming by blocking out a small amount of sunlight. It sounds like science fiction, and is only in the early stages of research, but it’s being taken seriously by climate scientists and environmentalists. Social scientists concerned with the potential effects of global warming are also taking an interest.
It involves spraying tiny reflective particles – such as sulphur dioxide – into the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere. They would remain up there for a year or two, reflecting away some of the energy from the sun before it reaches the Earth’s lower atmosphere.
Another idea would involve spraying seawater into low-lying marine clouds, where the tiny droplets would act as ‘cloud condensation nuclei’ – particles which attract water – to make them whiter and brighter and more reflective.
Cannot be averted at this stage due to the monumental pollution present in the air, which is not visible, but we know it is there from chemical analysis.
In the geologic past, lots of things have happened caused by this and that. As an example, the famous "gas attack" some 3 billion years ago was caused by the first appearance of oxygen in the air which killed bacteria that did not like oxygen.
Today, after polluting the air for more than 100 years, we have landed into many new phenomena that we can't get away from.
In my location we have been covered with a semi-continuous fog for about 5 months and the weather report dismisses it as "cloud". In other words, no one wants to admit that things are changing. We are under an umbrella of high humidity that has brought an epidemic of breathing diseases which we can't get rid of.
There are measures that can be taken to avert the worst effects of climate change, but is there the political will to implement them? Our economy is based on fossil fuels, which have remained relatively cheap for many years. The advent of fracking has lowered the cost further in the USA as well as increasing recoverable reserves. Any move away from fossil fuels will likely raise energy costs and so the cost of all manufactured goods, food, transportation, and heating. No government is going implementing measures that damage its economy if other governments do not make corresponding changes.
Some limited measures that we can all do in our private lives are as follows. Use resources more efficiently by increasing recycling, limiting travel where possible, and cutting down on clothes shopping. Reduce food waste; produce has a CO2 footprint from fertilization, handling and transportation, and so too does the waste from transportation handling and methane release during decomposition.
The IPCC report calls for net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C. In 2018, the EU issued its plans on how to achieve this objective. The measures represent a massive and unprecedented shift in how energy is generated and consumed. Some features of the plan and the link are presented below.
o · Energy consumption decreases by 30 to 50%, achieved primarily by efficiency improvements and smart technologies.
o Thermal efficiency of all buildings will be improved and industrial processes modernized.
o Measures to enable a shift from aviation and sea-born transport to high-speed rail will be introduced. Citizens will be encouraged not to travel to distant places, Bournemouth not Borneo
- The high-speed rail will be electrically driven, not by hydrogen the focus of much current R&D
o Most of the energy will be supplied by zero-carbon electricity. Renewable sources will account for +80% of generation (wind 50%, solar 15%, with the remainder primarily from biomass and stored hydro), nuclear will be 12 to 16%, and fossil fuels (coal and gas) less than 5%.
Hydrogen may be supplied for high-temperature industrial heating but this will be generated by electrolysis, not methane-steam reforming.
Although still in the research phase, electrification is anticipated for heavy vehicles and shipping, even for aviation.
The circular economy will be developed, including the production of biofuels for transportation (still mainly driven by electricity). This will involve CO2 capture technologies but not storage.
o · Natural carbon sinks will be developed by sustainable land-use and improved agricultural methods and limited forestation.
o If this does not reduce GHG emissions sufficiently then negative emission technologies will be deployed such as BECCS, capturing and storing the CO2 from bio-wastes (wood and agricultural residues). Energy-crop schemes are eschewed because of the large land areas they occupy.
All this is to be achieved by 2050, 30 years hence. Over this period the EU’s population is projected to increase by 20 million, from 510 to 530 million (minus 65 million once/if the UK leaves). The change in society (living, travelling, working) is gargantuan, and how does society respond to change? Certainly not meekly, ask the gilets jaunes protesters in France.
Presumably, all EU nations will suffer similarly, but if it adversely affects the collective economy will the policy still be implemented? Meanwhile, how will other nations respond? Further, if the changes are implemented will citizens comply given the radical change to their lifestyle?
Change has to come and it will be as soon as possible, but regrettably, I think that it will take more than 30 years and the global temperature rise will be more than 1.5C.
Climate change cannot be avoided but surely it can be slowed down and its impact ca be minimized if global level coordinated actions are initiated. This has to do not only with climate smart intervention in agriculture, industry, service but the global community need to rethink about its life style. Our per per capita consumption (necessary or not) has been continuously increasing. There has to be a debate on this aspects as well along with climate smart technologies.
Global warming from artificial input of greenhouse can not be avoided it has already happened. That being said the unintentional use of fossil fuels can be reversed and changes of the environmental management can both mitigate the short medium and long term effects. This can be done without any wild geo chemical experimentation but with conscious effort to conclusively lower emissions and to conclusively increase sequestrations related to natural biogeochemical cycles. This is exactly what the IPCC has recommended a sensible transition away from fossil fuel dependence and emphasis on ecological management which lead to greenhouse gas sequestration. This can be accomplished within a few generations when this would targeted and prioritized.
Is it possible to completely prevent negative climate change, including the ongoing global warming process? Can this process be stopped or reversed? Unfortunately, the long-term climate change forecast models show that this is unlikely. But even if stopping and reversing the global warming process is rather impossible, you should do everything possible to slow it down. In order to slow down this process, a pro-ecological transformation of the traditional brown economy into a sustainable green economy / circular economy should be carried out. The key element of this transformation is the efficient and possibly quick implementation of the pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector consisting in the development of renewable energy sources.
I think we can do something to prevent a further rise in temperature. We cannot avoid global warming as we would like.
To limit global warming to 1, 5 ° C or less, scientists agree that carbon emissions are expected to peak in 2020, and then rapidly decline to zero by the middle of the century, or a little later.
"Whether we can do this, whether it is economically and technically viable, are legitimate questions to ask. But the scientific community has shown that it is possible, and in most cases, economically viable, with great benefits for sustainable development," he said. Bill Hare to the BBC.
There is no secret formula of how to reduce climate change, science is simple and clear. However, some governments are still subsidizing the oil industry to drive the air temperature even higher. When the USA president says "he hates science and scientists" just after he was cured from covid-19(!), one concludes that humans do not want to avert climate change.
Yes it can be. But everyone has to play role by reducing the use of fossil fuels, reduce use polyethylene bags and by reducing production of CFC gasses.
You have raised a great question by asking about if climate changes can be avoided.
There are various reasons for climate changes. Those reasons have not been stopped or they cannot be avoided. For example, can man ever think of de-industrialization? Right now, it is not possible. This is one of the main factors that contributed towards environmental pollution and thus, towards climate change. So, there is no possibility of averting climate change. At least, I have full faith in the abilities of man to contribute more towards climate change and then eventually one day bring his own downfall.
Responding to climate change involves two possible approaches: reducing and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (“mitigation”) and/or adapting to the climate change already in the pipeline (“adaptation”). https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/
While climate change cannot be stopped, it can be slowed. To avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner. https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/solutions
Some of the most promising ways to mitigate climate change are what we call “natural climate solutions”: the conservation, restoration, and improved management of land, in order to increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse-gas emissions in landscapes worldwide. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/natural-solutions-to-climate-change/
We can avert irreversible climate change. Action is both essential and affordable — but it demands international leaders' ... https://www.ft.com/content/edefd3fe-858b-4891-bddb-0d48b31f2ab8
Climate change and adaptation are the continuous process or these are the two sides of a coin. On geological scale, evolution and step wise rise of Himalayas, development of Rajasthan plains and shifting of river Ganga and the genesis of Indo- Gangetic plains are the testimony of climate change. It is primarily related to the tectonics triggered by extensive siltation into the sea. The moraines graded from Holocene to Pleistocene in Kashmir valleys are another evidence of climate change.
Rise of Aravalli and Adman plateau are the other related geological events. Rise of Aravalli particularly at Raiseena in Delhi region is one of the reasons for painful weather during October and November in the capital city of India till the onset of severe winter. It is also reported that number of lakes are increasing in the Himalayas. Further the study reveals that Sundarban delta is expanding. Thus the process of erosion and deposition of sediment in sea continues and therefore climate change is inevitable.
In other word, erosion and sedimentation is the continuous natural process that can not be averted and therefore climate change can not be ruled out. However, climate smart agriculture including extensive soil and water conservation measures helps in the adaptation of changed climate