And maybe record high atmospheric CO2 concentration every few years as well. We're still on an increasing trajectory.
The 2007 IPCC climate change synthesis report specified a deadline of 2015 for peak CO2 in order to meet the lowest mitigation scenario. Of course we've blown past that date and it's still full speed ahead with business as usual.
Alas, I try not to blather on about the severity of the climate situation in every thread.
I'm hopeful that superconductors leading to practical fusion reactors can provide the energy to start pulling some carbon out of the air and ocean. I'm thinking this is the only way to reverse the damage on the human timeframe.
I admit it's a longshot, but I think it's the only chance we have. The superconductor news is welcome, we just need to see it get truly confirmed without a doubt.
Not to be a bummer but by far the most likely outcome here is that we don’t currently have a room temperature super-conductor, we never pull a consequential amount of carbon out of the atmosphere, and we don’t get significantly workable sustainable fusion in a timeframe that makes a difference.
You’d need a bunch of jackpots to come up, in a row, immediately, at this point for technology to provide a way out of the current debacle.
To paraphrase Paul Lieberstein’s character on the Newsroom:
If we stop drilling globally right this second
AND
Everyone stops driving their car and starts biking everywhere
I was walking my dog there most days when that happened, and to my knowledge they never caught the spooky hackers did they?
For now, just call me spooky Patsy.
Anyway, whilst more and more cars and buildings with air conditioning expel heat without a considerable lag, thus amplifying the thermal heat island effect [2], and the reduction of aerosols that were contributing to global dimming [3] making it possible to warm up the sea and land to new record highs since records began [4], have the climate scientists adjusted their models yet, or are they still in full on fatalism and alarmism mode? I feel like Roy Castle [5] still lives on.
Are they all understood? Sure, it seems like a rational suggestion, and we know that if we add it to the atmosphere it should cool, but what other effects will it cause? How many times have we tried this trick where we introduce something new to an environment and it doesn't turn out like we'd like it to? Feels like we're hoping to apply a band-aid but not deal with the wound.
First of all, the SO2 goes into the stratosphere, not the atmosphere.
We know a lot about it because volcanoes do this occasionally. Temperatures cool down for about 2 years, which is how long it takes for the S02 to break down.
> First of all, the SO2 goes into the stratosphere, not the atmosphere.
Considering that the stratosphere is part of the atmosphere, that's both pedantic and incorrect.
> We know a lot about it because volcanoes do this occasionally. Temperatures cool down for about 2 years, which is how long it takes for the S02 to break down.
Volcano's don't pump pure SO2. Yes, the science may be entirely valid, and it's not for me decide, but I think it warrants heavy consideration before we try to solve problems we're creating due to adding excess by adding additional excess.
Clarifying what part of the atmosphere is important, sure, to say it's not in the atmosphere and instead in the stratosphere is absolutely wrong.
Doesn't SO2 sink in air? Because we'll need to be constantly adding it to the atmosphere aren't we going to end up with acid rain as it falls to the ground?
