First I don't have a favorite study. As you said there is no consensus on a solution, so the solution might be found in a combination of methods. I also note that quite a number of the links and comments to this post do not actually attempt to answer your questions.

I don't believe there's a "what if" when we speak of global climate change. Yes there are new studies all the time giving us additional data, but for the most part scientists have been saying that this phenomena exists. The only thing that has changed are the theoretical models for when where and how much.

Not that I have any credentials to be an expert, but I did major in international environmental policy at school and attended a work study in Bonn Germany, an global climate study agency which is now part of a scientific research and policy study center for the United Nations. I know a bit about the history of climate change policy.

Before I point out a few studies, I'd like to drop this link.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
NASA guys. the people who put man on the moon. chock full of scientists who study things on the behalf of US taxpayers. So unless you are flat earthers, these guys have creds. who supports Nasa? The US Government. Who has been suppressing climate change statistics for years? The US Government. Why? because it would hurt business and the economy. The Center in Bonn knew this over thirty years ago, when the US refused to sign the first UN Treaty for Climate Change

https://time.com/5677474/americans-disapprove-trump-climate-change-views/
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/climate-change.html

Sure, those are shitty news references. But they do give credence to the fact that there is a schism in the government between scientists and politicians.

down the bottom of that first link are 15 citations/references for where Nasa derives their facts. One of those is from the NOAA, another federally funded govt agency that Trump did not want to fund, yet was forced to in order to get what he wanted.

Now here is where we stop and query.. if the US scientists and the scientists in the UN both believe that climate change is a thing, why would government leaders want you to believe that its not? money. what kind of legislation are they proposing to combat climate change? Things that make the government money. Self interest.

Here are two other studies that talk about possible solutions to climate change. The first is a European study from Crowther Labs, funded by a grant from the Dutch foundation DOB Ecology, (which funds long-term research projects into climate change and forest restoration). If you look at their partners, its basically scientists supporting other scientists. You cant read the actual study unless you are a member - some scientists are snooty AF. But you can read the abstract and get a synopsis here. If you read this link you can see a short comment from people who probably peer reviewed it. Just a point: it's difficult (for me at least) to find out who peer reviewed something unless you can go to the library and spend time looking at scientific journals

The studies lead person is a Belgian ecologist who has done years of work in the field. Here is a list of some of his scientific studies.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/climate-change-solutions/
https://riskcenter.wharton.upenn.edu/climate-risk-solutions/

This is getting really long so Im just gonna link the second study, which talks about various proposals to help deal with climate change. IMho some are interesting, others ridiculous. But the idea is to get the ball rolling about talking about solutions, and circumventing the current government, who doesn't want to deal with the issue at all.

I know I'll probably get some trolls on this who are anti climate change. thats fine. I'm entitled to my opinion. And I did actually link scientific data from known scientists.