Technology

58994 readers

7856 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

468

Trying to reverse climate change won’t save us, scientists warn (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/technology

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jackthelad 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My point is that slowing down the heating of the planet is doable (though you'd need the majority of the world contributing, which is highly unlikely to happen), but we can't reverse the damage that has already been done, which some people seem to think is possible.

We're not as powerful as we think we are.

[–] Buffalox 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

We’re not as powerful as we think we are.

We could cause a new ice age easily. Just fire off a few percent of the nukes, and we will revert to an ice age almost immediately.
Of course a side effect would be massive starvation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

there is debate on that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate

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

There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

As far as I remember, that was tried with ships and it has some collateral effects that cause different damages to the oceans.

[–] jj4211 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think I recall the opposite. After having somewhat cleaner fuel, the ships cleaner exhaust caused more warming as the sulfur in the fuel was having a side effect of mitigating warming somewhat. It was raised as a point of maybe we should consider the approach of we are in dire straights.

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

I remember to have read that change caused some other problems, and these collateral problems were unexpected.

But I don't remember if the problem were about the ocean currents or that the ocean was warmer or a mix of the two plus something else.

[–] Buffalox 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How is that relevant to ships? It's released to high in the atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

My point was that this already tested on a smaller scale with ships: the fuel changed and that changed the exhaust fumes ability to reflect sunlight which cause some problems the proponents of the solution have not foresee.