this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
346 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

12097 readers
1695 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Gotta nuke somethin'.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That would just make the molepeople mad and double our problems

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

They already hate us surface dwellers!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is “nuke the hurricane”-level science.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, absolutely not. This is increasing the surface area and availability of rocks that take up CO2.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

By “level”, I’m talking about the practicality and wisdom of the idea.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

It is not comparable.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day 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!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Drop a plate, floor breaks.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did they talk about nuking the great lakes again?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

Re-naming all the Great Lakes to Lake America (with the easy to remember acronym "AAAAA!") was one of the late night shows.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

It's the only way to be sure

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

No more climate change if no more climate!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I love fusion explosions, I love fission explosions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 "cheap" to scale up (a small bomb can catalyze big, cheap cores), 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›