Thanks man nice reading. I once read a book called freakenomics (pretty famous) that discussed the possibility to use machines to throw in the atmosphere particules to replicate the effect of a volcano. Its pretty crazy, like huge "hoses" hung by air ballons that would be constantly shooting a particle (cant remember which one) into the atmosphere. It would require only a few in the world and the cost would be of dozens of billions which would be very small.

Of course crazy idea with a huge change to go wrong, but interesting anyway. As I said, I'm a moderate in the subject, I believe in global warming caused by us, Im not entirely sure what if our % participation in it. But I think we should start to prepare ourelved to adapt to the new reality or how to maybe reverse the process through technology.

What gave you that idea? See bolded. The costs are immense considering the scale. But as i see it, there is not much wiggle room, no alternative. You don't seem to realize the benefits it could have. You seem to think those huge investments in achieving fusion energy are totally wasted and we will can do well without it.

It isn't a question of "Climate Change, is it real?", but an endavour human civilisation has to put up with if it wants to perpetuate as a species. Time will run out eventually, no matter what or who sets of the alarm.

This thread just goes to show the lack of critical thinking skills among much of the population, at least here at VGC (though we can see the same thing in the people at-large). The TV, some website, or a teacher says that "experts" say something, therefore, it is true in the minds of many, even when the same sources are wrong over and over again.

Someone in this thread posted a link to a US government source that backs up the US government and called it proof that the US government scientists are generally right. I mean, come on people!

Even if that were true, which is very questionable for certain areas, does it matter? While climate change can lead to an increase in wildfires in certain areas such as Alaska, the impact of climate change is also felt strongly within how fires spread and how easily they can be contained. Even if a fire is started by humans, these fires often wouldn't be much of an issue in the absence of the right climate conditions.

So what does the science say about the impact of climate change on wildfires?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2912/satellite-data-record-shows-climate-changes-impact-on-fires/

https://www.c2es.org/content/wildfires-and-climate-change/

Fixed.

Without citing scientists who are making these claims, it is difficult to take you seriously. Tell me, who is saying these things? Which peer reviewed papers? And were these opinions expressed the scientific consensus at the time, or were these fringe opinions?

If Aussie scientists are right, we are doomed whatever we do, as US industries and even more EU and Japanese industries and cars are already quite efficient, so whatever improvement in efficiency and reduction in wastes won't be enough to offset the increase in emissions of growing countries like China and India.
Unless fusion reactors become efficient and widespread enough much sooner than currently predicted or planned.

Im hearing this for at least the last 25 years, Im still here, and population keeps growing with no signs of stopping.

Get a life, you're wasting your time thinking about this stuff.

Recent News:

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/arctic-fire-siberian-heat-wave-alarms-scientists-71421935 

“The Arctic is figuratively and literally on fire — it’s warming much faster than we thought it would in response to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and this warming is leading to a rapid meltdown and increase in wildfires,” University of Michigan environmental school dean Jonathan Overpeck

I came across this video on Youtube about who produces and produced the most CO2 and who's responsible quite interesting and very informative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw

Let's make some math to gain some perspective here:

We're blowing over 50 billions tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. A fully grown tree which had about 50 years to grow normally weights around 15-20 tons depending on the type.

So we would need to plant some 2-3 billion trees every year just to cancel out what we produce right now.

While planting trees certainly helps, taken on itself it's just a drop in an ocean. What we need first and foremost are programs to reduce and avoid the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

It's sadly also something many right-wingers tout when they want to be seen as doing something for the environment or trying to discredit an opponents program over it's price, with programs for planting x 1000 trees. But as I calculated for you, that's doing pretty much nothing for the environment.

What we really need is that green energy and electric vehicles drop so much in price that they become more viable than traditional power generation and gasoline/diesel engine vehicles as developing countries will use the cheapest alternative to push their development.

This in turn would drastically reduce the amount of CO2 produced over time as greenhouse gases producing alternatives would become too expensive to use and thus replaced by greener alternatives which don't produce those gases as a byproduct.

Your video misses global footprint per/capita for every country.

It's has been pretty well known that we won't succeed when it comes to climate change, even with this year with a big down turn in gdp it's not enough to keep us under 1.5 degree celsius. I don't think we will manage 2 degree celsius, but might just succeed keeping the warming below 3.

If the world were serious about climate change we would drastically build out nuclear power, water power and public transportation. Put a big carbon tax and we should had tried electrified so much we just could. This should had been done in 1990 it's 2020 and we still not doing this, even this wouldn't be enough to solve the climate crises.

I think now only geoengineered will save us, specfically solar radiation management.