Paper is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.06623

The only way that works is if all the oil execs are in ground zero.

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.

Seems half-baked. Well unbaked really. They make a shit ton of assumptions that I’m not sure are true.

For example, why do they assume 90% pulverization efficiency of the basalt? Or is that a number they just pulled out of their ass?

And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

Cool concept but, like, maybe we should check the assumptions a little harder?

I mean… if we’re being honest, the long-term effects of global thermonuclear war would be (very eventual) carbon sequestration in tens to hundreds of millions of years, and then we’ll renew our oil reserves! We of course won’t be around to use them, seeing as we’ll have been sequestered into the oil.

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

Just spitballing here. These grand ideas good/bad practical/or not are the beginning of mankind learning how to geo engineer planets or moons. I'll be long dead before I get proven right or wrong so it's easy to spitball

Gotta nuke somethin'.

This is “nuke the hurricane”-level science.

Uh oh. What an apropos American way to go.

That would just make the molepeople mad and double our problems

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=125770

I feel like the podcast Behind The Bastards talked about this in the episode released today.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit

It's the only way to be sure

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

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.

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.

This is by far the most practical "geoengineering" solution I've seen, far better than aerosols over the arctic, space shades or whatever. The ecological damage is comparatively miniscules.

And even then... quite a engineering feat. Nukes are actually "cheap" to scale up (a small bomb can catalyze big, cheap cores), but burying that much volume "3-5 km into the basalt-rich seafloor" is not something anyone is set-up to do.

But by far the hardest part is... information. Much of the world doesn't even believe in climate change anymore, and by the time they do, it will be too late.

Drivel...