Climate change has turned permafrost into a carbon emitter (opens in new tab)

Here are a few:

increased temp > increased evaporation > increased cloud coverage which reflects more sunlight

increased co2 > increased tree growth

increased co2 > increased algae, plankton growth to absorb co2... other marine animals will also feed on these, increasing their mass, and when they die, they'll sink to the bottom, where they'll mostly remain.

increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater.. clams, oysters, etc combine this carbon with calcium to produce shells.. and when they die, they accumulate on the sea floor eventually turning into rock.

Unfortunately, the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're overwhelming these.. I take zero comfort in the fact that these exists.. it actually makes me nervous because once they reach their maximum, co2 will start growing even more rapidly.. and then it'll be so much worse.

Based on geological history, the negative feedbacks seem predominant for small perturbations, but if you push things a little too hard the positive feedbacks take over. It's happened before several times; a little initial heating from orbital variations, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the global average temperature going up several degrees. A good explanation of the evidence for this is in James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren.

People have long thought the threshold to be around 2 degrees C, but now some are thinking it's more like 1.5. The CO2 level everybody agreed was safe was 350 ppm.

The primary negative feedback loop is increased photosynthesis. As CO2 concentrations rise, there's more carbon in the air that can support plant life. There also tends to be both more sunlight (warmer air can support more water vapor before it precipitates into clouds) and more water (in absolute terms, from increased evaporation).

Note that in the near term, the negative feedback of photosynthesis may be overwhelmed by changes in ecosystems: if the climate changes rapidly, whole forests may find themselves in a different biome, ocean circulation patterns may change, more freshwater may enter estuaries, etc. Plants evolve quickly, though, and most of their carbon sequestration is through algae and seaweed with short lifespans.

Global Dimming is caused by pollution emitted into the air. This has caused a decline in the Pan Evaporation rate. Meaning, less water is evaporating now than decades prior.

My concern is, if we stop polluting the environment and the global dimming is stopped, then climate change will get much worse.

Global Dimming might explain why the climate hasn't changed as much as some would expect.

Yet the rich keep buying waterfront properties.

Bad systems occasionally produce acceptable outcomes. They are still bad systems. This is common sense.

I agree that the Conservatives suffered a colossal loss because Andrew Scheer is not leadership material.

Also, there will never be another typical Conservative majority due to mass migration. The Liberals bring 1 million Liberal-voting migrants per year into Canada. The population of which is 35 million. Simple math.

But none of this invalidates my argument that the Canadian media system is broken.

The climate changes with or without human behaviour. Only 8000 years ago, you could walk from England to Europe! So we need solutions for managing climate stability, not just cleaning up after humans.

Hydrocarbons, not carbon. Basically plants when they rot emit methane AKA natural gas.

Do you have a source to share on this?