Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

At this rate, why not.

⁨357⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨fossilesque@mander.xyz⁩ to ⁨science_memes@mander.xyz⁩

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/aa894930-7b3a-47a6-a582-8a6367f992c0.jpeg

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Obelix@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Paper is here: arxiv.org/pdf/2501.06623

    source
    • juliebean@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.

      source
      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        “Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe”

        Well, he warns about it.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Would 1,620 of those bombs work instead?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • sober_monk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Thanks for the link, interesting read! I know that a good paper is succint, but honestly, I thought that making the case for a gigaton-yield nuclear explosion to combat climate change would take more than four pages…

      source
      • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Study conclusion: YOLO

        source
    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s quite light on details.

      source
  • homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The only way that works is if all the oil execs are in ground zero.

    source
    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I have a similar modest proposal to solving the wealth inequality hoarding problem of billionaires

      source
      • TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Someone needs to work out the inheritance fallout. With our luck it will still fall within the same families.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think y’all are missing the point here.

    It’s really to justify the production and testing of an insanely large planet altering weapon that would create a really cool firework.

    source
    • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The only way to convince conservatives to fight climate change is if we do it with guns and bombs

      source
      • Liz@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        If it gets the job done, I’m willing to make that compromise.

        source
    • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Actually, one of their feasibility assumptions is that the device is too large to be used militarily.

      arxiv.org/html/2501.06623v1#%3A~%3Atext=Confronti….

      source
      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Ah. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small.

        Let’s fire up the antimatter then!

        source
      • Adalast@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think they underestimate a military’s desire to use all of the things that go boom.

        source
  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I mean… if we’re being honest, the long-term effects of global thermonuclear war would be (very eventual) carbon sequestration in tens to hundreds of millions of years, and then we’ll renew our oil reserves! We of course won’t be around to use them, seeing as we’ll have been sequestered into the oil.

    source
    • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Can we get new oil actually? I thought we now have organisms that can break down every organic matter and thus it can not really accumulate anymore?

      source
      • Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Oil actually comes from aquatic life (mostly plankton) that sinks to the sea floor and gets buried, squeezed and heated. Oil still forms today, but it’s a process of millions of years.

        Coal is formed from plants, and that does indeed require something doesn’t eat it first. Swamps, for example, help a lot, letting the fallen trees sink down where most stuff can’t eat it. Peat can also form into coal. Coal forms even slower than oil though, and it’s much rarer, but it also doesn’t require an ocean, so it’s often more accessible for us land-living humans

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • frezik@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        There’s an abiotic pathway that creates new oil geologically. It’s a very small amount.

        The theory is popular in Russia, where it’s claimed to be the main way oil is produced. That’s complete bullshit. It turned out there is some, but not enough to matter.

        source
      • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        If you squeeze a baby hard enough

        source
    • mlfh@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Being sequestered into the oil sounds pretty nice at this point.

      source
    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Another cycle, another life. Same shithole planet.

      source
  • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Seems half-baked. Well unbaked really. They make a shit ton of assumptions that I’m not sure are true.

    For example, why do they assume 90% pulverization efficiency of the basalt? Or is that a number they just pulled out of their ass?

    And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

    And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

    Cool concept but, like, maybe we should check the assumptions a little harder?

    source
    • kozy138@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Some people would literally rather nuke the planet than take a train to work…

      source
    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

      Yeah… Doesn’t the carbon sequestering happen from rain absorbing carbon in the atmosphere and then attaching to the rock to mineralize it? Something tells me 6-7 km of ocean might impede that process.

      And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

      Dilution is the solution…ocean big?

      source
      • riodoro1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Dilution was supposed to be the solution to the whole greenhouse gasses emissions, turns out atmosphere not … that big.

        source
      • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The ocean dissolves a large amount of CO2, which then, just like in the rain example, can react with minerals. It can react faster if there is more surface area of said minerals.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Also would it kill all the sea life leading to a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions from all the decomposing fish corpses? Does undersea decomposition release greenhouse gases?

      source
      • Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And doesn’t plankton already sequester CO2 on the ocean floor when it dies?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • smeg@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Every proposal to save the world ultimately comes back to the plot of The Core

    source
    • shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You mean the smash hit 2003 documentary The Core?

      source
      • smeg@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes, by plot I of course mean those things that happened

        source
  • Hikermick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Just spitballing here. These grand ideas good/bad practical/or not are the beginning of mankind learning how to geo engineer planets or moons. I’ll be long dead before I get proven right or wrong so it’s easy to spitball

    source
  • SpaceRanger13@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Uh oh. What an apropos American way to go.

    source
  • hypeerror@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Gotta nuke somethin’.

    source
  • SparrowHawk@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That would just make the molepeople mad and double our problems

    source
    • Ack@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      They already hate us surface dwellers!

      source
  • shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The last time I checked, we don’t have a whole lot of climate solutions that feature the bomb. And I’d be doing myself a disservice… and every member of this species, if I didn’t nuke the HELL out of this!

    source
  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m pulling for artificial diamonds. It’s the funniest solution: dumping truckloads of precious gemstones back down empty wells. Or burying them in the desert. Or I guess just handing them out for industrial uses, since even grinding them to dust isn’t the same problem as CO2. Have a free bucket of aquarium gravel, made out of worthless tacky gold.

    source
    • Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Hey, if you can make diamond that easily, we can exchange a LOT of substances for it. Not just windows and glasses, but pretty much every ceramic object, insulators, but also just toilets (slap some paint on it and done).

      source
      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Drop a plate, floor breaks.

        source
  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This is by far the most practical “geoengineering” solution I’ve seen, far better than aerosols over the arctic, space shades or whatever. The ecological damage is comparatively miniscules.

    And even then… quite a engineering feat. Nukes are actually quite “cheap” to scale up, but burying that much volume “3-5 km into the basalt-rich seafloor” is not something anyone is set-up to do.

    But by far the hardest part is… information. Much of the world doesn’t even believe in climate change anymore, and by the time they do, it will be too late.

    source
  • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=12…

    source
    • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Dare to dream.

      source
  • FoolishObserver@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I feel like the podcast Behind The Bastards talked about this in the episode released today.

    source
    • jonne@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Did they talk about nuking the great lakes again?

      source
      • FoolishObserver@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No: this was about how the US Government considered underground nuking Alaska for the coal, killing cattle to check for cancer, and having people believe it was aliens. I was at work, so I may have missed a few points, but there was a discussion on power via turbine powered by nuclear weapon melted salt.

        source
  • nesc@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I love fusion explosions, I love fission explosions.

    source
    • stelelor@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I love the blogosphere

      source
  • rbos@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The point is that it’s a passive process, not an active one. No need for pumping.

    Water is so much denser than air that you do get more exposure time per unit time.

    source
  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’ve got my fingers crossed for a Snowpiercer set up.

    source
  • fckreddit@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Carbon sequestration is not going to solve global warming. CO2 is less than 2% of atmosphere. Even if you pass a shitton of air through the strata the difference will be negligible.

    source
    • rbos@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Water absorbs a lot of co2 and removing it from the water via weathering is a valid idea.

      source
      • fckreddit@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I don’t know. What do you think is the concentration of CO2 in the sea water? I am just not convinced.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit

    It’s the only way to be sure

    source
    • stelelor@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No more climate change if no more climate!

      source
  • SabinStargem@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I guess Trump could add a new canal to the Red Sea, as per an old proposal involving nukes to dig it. Considering this administration, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

    source
  • MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Drivel…

    source
  • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Well, I’m sure controlled slow-paced mining is more energy efficient and will emit less carbon to create…

    But I’m not stopping that guy. Go on. I’ll just watch from a safe distance.

    source
    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Going of same value in the paper and wikipedia it would take the energy used by all of humanity in two months.

      source
      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You either spend a truckload of resources during decades to make a bomb that explodes releasing the same energy humanity spends in two months, or you spend a truckload of resources doing the end task at a slower pace for decades.

        The later is guaranteed to require a smaller truckload.

        source
        • -> View More Comments