<p>Our current actions are most definitely not enough to reduce the rate of climate change.  Yes, it is possible that someday we could do enough to start reversing the damage, but we aren't anywhere close to that reality given our social customs that constantly rely on combustion.  Definitely not anything "soon".  </p>

<p>The reality is that emissions still go up nearly every year.  This is largely because most of the world (especially China) is actively converting to "western" lifestyle, which uses a lot of resources per capita.  Also, it takes hundreds of years for CO2 to decrease in the atmosphere naturally.  So, while there are many efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere still goes up every year.  If we could somehow advance carbon sequestration methods to  the point where we can reduce both oceanic and atmospheric carbon, then we could theoretically get back to "normal".  To truly make a change in the right direction, though, the industrialized world needs to stop relying on combustion as the dominant energy source.  See the <a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm</a> slides (excerpt below) for more information.</p>

<p><strong>Emissions from fossil fuel use and industry:</strong>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/wfpya.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wfpya.png" alt="Emissions from fossil fuel use and industry"></a></p>

<p><strong>And here is the atmospheric concentration as measured at Mauna Loa:</strong>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/jNVb5.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/jNVb5.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-07T20:32:04.997Z
2017-03-18T06:37:57.887Z
2017-03-18T06:37:57.887Z
f.thorpe
<p>Is it possible for there to be enough change such that climate change can reduce and soon come to a stable level?</p>

<p>Yes, sort of. For some value of "soon".</p>

<p>Of all the emissions released to date, it will take another thirty years for the first stage of impacts to make itself felt. So even if we went to net zero emissions tomorrow, we've got decades of seeing the first stage of impacts, and then centuries of seeing further consequences. (of course, the global climate will continue to change at the scale of tens of thousands of years, but I've understood your question to refer to human impacts, and human lifetimes)</p>

<p>But we're not close to getting to net zero emissions. We may be close to the time when emissions stop rising. Then they've got to level off, and then fall to zero. And then probably we'll want them to be deeply negative for a while, to prevent further damage.</p>

<p>So we have decades of future climate change already built into the system. And the longer we take to get to net zero emissions, the longer it will be before things stabilise at human timescales. And the higher the cumulative emissions before we reach peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the worse the consequences for humankind.</p>

<p>If the political will was there, we could probably get to net negative emissions within 20 years. So, we could get to some kind of stability in, say 40-50 years.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-18T06:42:41.050Z
By negative emissions I assume you mean sequestration methods?  There's a lot of carbon in the ocean, which can act as a source, so that may change your estimate of 40-50 years.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-08T21:49:09.150Z
2017-03-08T21:49:09.150Z
410 gone
<p>Today, there are some scientists and people that are working on projects that will reduce the production of CO2 levels and effects of climate change. I'm very confused on whether it is possible for there to be enough change such that climate change can reduce and soon come to a stable level?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-07T21:51:40.557Z
Yes it is possible. No it is not likely to happen.
bon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-08T05:00:57.577Z
Hi Math4life... are you asking if is possible that new technology may be able to curb climate change?  Or whether current trends/actions are likely to help?  Or whether it's even possible with drastic changes?
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-18T01:30:36.560Z
If you look at the history of climate you will see that it changed massively in the past (pre industrialization) so asking for a stable climate looks a bit silly ! What I think you want is the normally unstable and variable climate which nature provided (and could theoretically provide now) but without the extra bit of human induced variability which you don't like. So you want a more acceptable degree of variability I think. Let's wave a magic wand and reduce CO2 to 270ppm right now. Are you absolutely sure that the really hot, really cold, really wet, really windy, really variable ice sheets
user7733
<climate><climate-change>
Is it possible that we can reduce climate change given our current actions?
Math4life
# Is it possible that we can reduce climate change given our current actions?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-07)

Today, there are some scientists and people that are working on projects that will reduce the production of CO2 levels and effects of climate change. I'm very confused on whether it is possible for there to be enough change such that climate change can reduce and soon come to a stable level?

**Tags:** climate, climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Yes it is possible. No it is not likely to happen.  
> **username_2**: Hi username_0... are you asking if is possible that new technology may be able to curb climate change?  Or whether current trends/actions are likely to help?  Or whether it's even possible with drastic changes?  
> **username_3**: If you look at the history of climate you will see that it changed massively in the past (pre industrialization) so asking for a stable climate looks a bit silly ! What I think you want is the normally unstable and variable climate which nature provided (and could theoretically provide now) but without the extra bit of human induced variability which you don't like. So you want a more acceptable degree of variability I think. Let's wave a magic wand and reduce CO2 to 270ppm right now. Are you absolutely sure that the really hot, really cold, really wet, really windy, really variable ice sheets  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-03-07. Score: 1

Our current actions are most definitely not enough to reduce the rate of climate change. Yes, it is possible that someday we could do enough to start reversing the damage, but we aren't anywhere close to that reality given our social customs that constantly rely on combustion. Definitely not anything "soon".

The reality is that emissions still go up nearly every year. This is largely because most of the world (especially China) is actively converting to "western" lifestyle, which uses a lot of resources per capita. Also, it takes hundreds of years for CO2 to decrease in the atmosphere naturally. So, while there are many efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere still goes up every year. If we could somehow advance carbon sequestration methods to the point where we can reduce both oceanic and atmospheric carbon, then we could theoretically get back to "normal". To truly make a change in the right direction, though, the industrialized world needs to stop relying on combustion as the dominant energy source. See the <http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm> slides (excerpt below) for more information.

**Emissions from fossil fuel use and industry:**
[![Emissions from fossil fuel use and industry](https://i.sstatic.net/wfpya.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/wfpya.png)

**And here is the atmospheric concentration as measured at Mauna Loa:**
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/jNVb5.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/jNVb5.png)


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-03-08. Score: 0

Is it possible for there to be enough change such that climate change can reduce and soon come to a stable level?

Yes, sort of. For some value of "soon".

Of all the emissions released to date, it will take another thirty years for the first stage of impacts to make itself felt. So even if we went to net zero emissions tomorrow, we've got decades of seeing the first stage of impacts, and then centuries of seeing further consequences. (of course, the global climate will continue to change at the scale of tens of thousands of years, but I've understood your question to refer to human impacts, and human lifetimes)

But we're not close to getting to net zero emissions. We may be close to the time when emissions stop rising. Then they've got to level off, and then fall to zero. And then probably we'll want them to be deeply negative for a while, to prevent further damage.

So we have decades of future climate change already built into the system. And the longer we take to get to net zero emissions, the longer it will be before things stabilise at human timescales. And the higher the cumulative emissions before we reach peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the worse the consequences for humankind.

If the political will was there, we could probably get to net negative emissions within 20 years. So, we could get to some kind of stability in, say 40-50 years.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: By negative emissions I assume you mean sequestration methods?  There's a lot of carbon in the ocean, which can act as a source, so that may change your estimate of 40-50 years.  

---

