654
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
654 points (96.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5237 readers
369 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think that's ever been in serious doubt; the same simulation mechanisms used to produce climate modeling were used to figure out that nuclear winter is an issue in the first place. It's just that most people would prefer to address global warming without mass murder.
So just nuke Antarctica. No one dies except some penguins, global warming ended. And they said it was hard /s
That doesn't actually work. Nuclear winter is caused by the stuff which gets mixed up with the blast. Hit Antarctica and all you get is water.
On top of that, it's where air descends from the stratosphere, so whatever particulates you do generate probably won't achive worldwide distribution at significant concentrations
All you get is water but it's not just water.
Water in the admosphere is an extremely strong (but short lived) greenhouse gas.
And while it was hit, it could also be irradiated. While a nuclear blast has less radiation impact than a nuclear plant burning, throwing many nuclear bombs in one place may have other impacts. Contaminated water can be assimilated by living things. And while in the body, it can do damage.
There's also more freshwater in Antarctica than in the rest of the world. Quite a waste, and enough of it to contaminate every source across the planet.
Reminds me of this ๐
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-donald-trump-suggest-nuking-hurricanes-1535171
There is, of course, the possibility of geoengineering with sulfur dioxide. Sort of a nuclear winter without the nuclear. It's the same mechanism by which nuclear would and volcanoes do cause climate cooling. Not very safe but it may be in our emergency bag of tricks.
Wasn't there a proposal to do something similar by using ships to blast saltwater into the air? All the cloud coverage and reflected sunlight, none of the acid rain.
I think that's actually relatively low-risk to do as well (as far as experimental geoengineering goes). A significant portion of the warming in the North Atlantic has been attributed to lack of sulfur emissions due to changes in requirements for container ship fuels. Should be able to get a similar effect with just water with the effects being understood well in advance.
@spaduf @I_Has_A_Hat I'd be much more confident in this if ANY government decided to spend money on it. Most of them won't spend money on bike lanes!
What is safe? Seems like everything we do is toxic and dangerous
Nuclear winter is about as likely as a solution to global warming though.