120

Scientists say sprinkling diamond dust into the sky could offset almost all of climate change so far — but it'll cost $175 trillion [USD] (www.livescience.com)

submitted 2 days ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

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

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I don't get it, why wouldn't sapphire dust work? Isn't that dirt cheap to make? And it's carbon free!
Seems illogical to add carbon in the form of diamond, to a problem that is mostly caused by carbon?

[-] sem 4 points 2 days ago

The carbon isn't the problem, it's the CO2 molecule. I would be really curious if solid carbon in diamond form is able to react with ozone in the atmosphere to make CO2, or if it would be inert, or if it would do something else.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It's also Methane and CO, gasses that also contain carbon. I know diamond is pretty stable, but it does burn, and then it creates the gasses we try to avoid.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

CO is not a significant greenhouse gas. (And N20 is..)

Are diamond particulates likely to burn if they're dispersed in the atmosphere?

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Are diamond particulates likely to burn if they’re dispersed in the atmosphere?

Actually yes, if they enter the engine of a plane they will burn.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

True. That would be a minescule fraction of what's there though..

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Not quite minuscule, for every ton of jet fuel burned, 2 tons of oxygen is needed, to take that in, about 3-4 ton of atmospheric air goes through the combustion, the volume of that air is quite a lot, and is only sustained because oxygen is constantly renewed. The diamonds will not have self sustained renewal and will be burned up pretty quickly.
Also being an aerosol increases surface and potential chemical reactions by a magnitude of maybe a billion per unit, so although we consider diamonds to be very stable in their normal form, a diamond aerosol is obviously much less so, and UV light refracted could accelerate break down of the diamond aerosol, into free carbon, which will create carbon gasses. I bet researchers have considered this, but I see no numbers for it?

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I just wonder why not use sapphire dust instead. Doesn't it reflect sunlight almost identically?

[-] Infinite@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

No reactions, just reflections. The premise is "bounce the heat before it can be trapped."

The main reason they looked at diamond this time is because it's very clump resistant, which is a positive for heat deflection.

load more comments (5 replies)

this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024

120 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39356 readers

2136 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.