356

At this rate, why not. (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 week ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 days ago

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=125770

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 5 days ago

Dare to dream.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days 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.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 6 days ago

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

[-] SabinStargem@lemmings.world 1 points 6 days 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.

[-] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days 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.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

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

[-] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

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

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago

The biggest threat of co2 emmisions is ocean acidifcation. A collapse of the ocean ecosystem would be devastating to the rest of the planet. A warmer planet sucks, but dead phytoplankton would result in a global plumment in O2 production.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

The concentration isn't as important as the difficulty to remove it. It's still a hard problem, but rock weathering is one way to accomplish it, but it would need a lot of exposed rock surface.

[-] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Not just a lot of exposed rock surface. But also, there are energy costs for pumping water to the exposed surface. Factoring in the efficiency of the carbon removal from the water, I find it hard to believe it is a good solution.

Wouldn't it be better if we focus on better sources of energy? I am no expert, but I know about it more than a common man due to my academic background in civil engineering.

[-] Obelix@feddit.org 59 points 1 week ago

Paper is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.06623

[-] juliebean@lemm.ee 66 points 1 week ago

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

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago

"Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe"

Well, he warns about it.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 6 days ago

And states the main problem, with a deep ocean detonation, would be fallout.

I'm not sure that's right. The shockwave of a bomb that insane could easily have seismic and tsunami effects. Probably be the biggest mass of dead fish floating at the surface, too.

Should probably talk to some geologists first.

[-] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

Give some ear plugs to the whales

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe…

…but fuck them fish!

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] sober_monk@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week 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...

[-] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 3 points 6 days ago

Study conclusion: YOLO

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 30 points 1 week 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.

[-] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 19 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 6 days ago

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

[-] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago

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

https://arxiv.org/html/2501.06623v1#%3A%7E%3Atext=Confronting+the+escalating+threat+of%2CEnhanced+Rock+Weathering+%28ERW%29.

[-] Adalast@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week 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?

[-] kozy138@lemm.ee 23 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 22 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Hikermick@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week 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