this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
194 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

243 readers
40 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
 
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Obelix@feddit.org 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 39 points 1 week ago

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

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago

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

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn't be small.

Let's fire up the antimatter then!

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You mean the smash hit 2003 documentary The Core?

[–] smeg@feddit.uk 8 points 1 week ago

Yes, by plot I of course mean those things that happened

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago

This is “nuke the hurricane”-level science.

[–] SpaceRanger13@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

Uh oh. What an apropos American way to go.

[–] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That would just make the molepeople mad and double our problems

[–] Ack@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

They already hate us surface dwellers!

[–] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week 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!

[–] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

Dare to dream.

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 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.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 week 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.

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

[–] SabinStargem@lemmings.world 1 points 1 week 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.

[–] nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I love fusion explosions, I love fission explosions.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week 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.