Comment on xkcd : Timeline of Temperature Changes on Earth

• bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  And do what?

  source

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Step one: invest in nuclear power and renewables

    Step two: stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle

    Step three: use the abundance of energy from self-heating rocks to take carbon out of the carbon cycle

    source

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Your "step three" is geoengineering.

      source

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I guess when I think of “geoengineering,” what comes to mind is cloud seeding and albedo modification

        Yeah, let’s do some light geoengineering after we’ve solved the energy issue

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • LtLiana@startrek.website ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      As long as they are operated by for-profit entities who are more than willing to ignore safety procedures and best practices, and lobby for lower safeties, nuclear energy cannot be safe, regardless of the underlying technology.

      source

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yep, this argument again. And like everyone who’s ever seen this argument has already said, renewables are not currently at a point where they can fully take the load off of fossil fuels. Every nuclear power plant accident put together doesn’t even come close to the damage that safe fossil fuels have done to the planet. We need to ditch fossils ASAFP, and nuclear, even if it’s funded and ran by capitalists, is better than fossils, which are already funded and ran by capitalists.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • troyunrau@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Let’s be honest, renewables are already geoengineering (changing water flow, air flow, albedo, etc.), just done in an uncontrolled fashion. Nuclear energy or renewables do not solve the long term problem unless coupled with large scale geoengineering. Granted all of the above are vast improvements over fossil fuels.

      Thermodynamics is a bitch. If you make a nuclear reactor, you make heat. You add additional heat to the system, either at the source (energy production isn’t 100% efficient), or at the point of consumption (the waste product of using energy is always heat). So, if you switch everything to nuclear, you’re still adding heat to the system that wasn’t there before (in addition to whatever the sun is blasting us with). If energy use goes up, and it always does, it just means we add more heat faster.

      Literally the only way we can have our cake and eat it too is geoengineering. Solar shields in the earth-sun Lagrange point are my preference and least disruptive to other natural processes.

      source

      • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        If we reach a point where such enormous space installations are possible with multi national budgets and technological progeess, we still have to live with the largest mass extinction, Destroyed soils, disequilibrated ecosystems.

        Then what? Life will be possible. But not as worthwhile as it was.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • LongbottomLeaf@lemmy.nz ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Use the renewable and nuclear energy to remove the IR shield in the atmosphere (store atmospheric carbon in the ground), rather than put a shield in space. A space shield doesn’t address CO2 levels in the atmosphere or oceans.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Reduce emissions. That’s cheaper, more effective and safer than any other method.

    Geo engineering commonly only tries to fix temperature. While that would be a big achievement, it does not change the CO~2~ ppm. And that translates to ocean acidification. Which translates to mass extinctions. Which is still an existential threat also for land living species, and us.

    There is only one solution to fix both (and many other, related / caused problems): Fix the source.

    We cannot engineer our way out of all the individual symptoms. Just leave fossil fuels in the ground.

    source

    • bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t think we can reduce emissions fast enough though. 2050 seems a long way away.

      There are ways to capture carbon in seawater, kelp is the fastest growing I know of.

      We need many solutions, not one.

      source

      • Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        There are ways to capture carbon in seawater, kelp is the fastest growing I know of.

        Okay, that type of geo engineering is a good counter argument against my previous comment. It comes with other issues and does not solve all issues, but still, good point.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Put paper bags over our heads and lie down.

    source
• benjhm@sopuli.xyz ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I wrote a similar conclusion back in 1996, not so much changed in that discussion, it’s a distraction.

  source