Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean

Feeling the seeming recklessness, but in the grand scheme of things, it may be worthwhile to throw AI at the problem to validate existence, solutions etc. So “spending” this now vs later is at least unclear wrt to long term outcomes.

replies(2): >>44462539 #>>44462563 #

throwaway73848 ◴[04 Jul 25 08:49 UTC] No.44462563[source]▶

>>44462452 #

There seem to be only two things that we need answers to with regards to dealing with increasing CO2:

1. Can we capture CO2 and prevent it from affecting the climate in a safe way?

2. Could we create a large “blind” between the earth and sun to safely control how much sunlight hits the earth if the temperature gets too hot?

There have been advances in #1 and propositions for #2, but I think most either want to cast blame, bury our heads in the sand, or wallow in self-pity because they think we’re not capable of figuring out a safe solution and/or don’t believe that we could work together to accomplish it.

replies(1): >>44462604 #

1. nisa ◴[04 Jul 25 08:56 UTC] No.44462604[source]▶

>>44462563 #

1. No we can't - at least not enough that it matters and it's energy intensive. There is no technical solution here but the powers that be want you to believe that to continue generating profits.

2. That's not how it works. It's more like a greenhouse and climate gases absorb more energy. Also look up after how many meters a steel cable ruptures under it's own weight. It's not exactly easy. Thermonuclear war might help.

replies(2): >>44462703 #>>44462762 #

2. fliederman ◴[04 Jul 25 09:08 UTC] No.44462703[source]▶

>>44462604 (TP) #

1. To state there is no technical solution is assuming you have all of the knowledge there ever will be in the world to make that assessment. A more proper way to state that is that you don’t know a technical solution, and there may or may not be one. There’s no reason not to do everything we can and research all options.

2. Having the ability to control the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth would help prevent overwarming, which is one possible outcome, and neither thermonuclear war nor any culling of humanity would be a solution, as in fact we’re responsible for this, so we must fix it. You’re basically suggesting killing all the life that could help.

replies(2): >>44462733 #>>44462745 #

3. nisa ◴[04 Jul 25 09:13 UTC] No.44462733[source]▶

>>44462703 #

1. You can't bend physics and the known solutions don't work out in scale. It's magical thinking to continue doing what we are doing.

2. We can already fix this but for this we need to radically change the power structures that are in place and figure out a way to peacefully solve the problem. Reducing emissions should be the biggest priority everywhere.

4. saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 09:15 UTC] No.44462745[source]▶

>>44462703 #

There might theoretically be a technological solution, but the search for it is a distraction to prevent working structural societal changes from being made.

5. m5 ◴[04 Jul 25 09:17 UTC] No.44462762[source]▶

>>44462604 (TP) #

> Also look up after how many meters a steel cable ruptures under it's own weight.

This assumes that the solution would involve a single structure. It could instead be composed of many parts.

↑