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

AND

We invest immediately in clean renewable energy

THEN

I still don’t see a way out of this.

(Shrug) Change is part of life. We'll live.

Lots of us won’t.

Darwin will have his due, all right. Sad but true.

What’s your thoughts on nuclear power?

What ever came about from the CRU hack [1]?

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Relationship_to...

[4] https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2023/06/16/sea-surface-tempera...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle

At least room temperature superconductors will be easier to achieve if room temperature keeps rising :’)

I think you have it backward.

Nuclear winter may help

No group of people are literally more miserable than the conspiracy theory climate doomsday cult.

If only we could live in a fantasy world where such a problem is just a "liberal conspiracy" to be mocked.

"Conspiracy"? Who is theorized to be conspiring to create climate change?

Big oil, which surely must have paid off everyone who entertains the thought that perhaps we can not Just Stop Oil.

Temperatures can be lowered by pumping SO2 into the stratosphere. The effects are well understood.

The practical details should be figured out in a decade or so. The political side may be harder.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/07/su...

> The effects are well understood.

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.

The distinction is important because at lower altitudes SO2 produces acid rain. But the stratosphere is far above the rain clouds.

NASA report on the Mount Pinatubo caused global cooling: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects...

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?

My impression is that there is some leakage, but very small compared to the acid rain problems of the past.

Either way, if acid rain is the price for controlling global warming, I think that is a very desirable trade-off!

Cool, then what practical solution do you propose? Wait around while things get worse?

Well, that's not much of a rebuttal of concerns, and as I'm not in the field I don't have suggestions.