It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: beezzer
Actually, nuclear winter is based on the idea that nuclear bombs would start 100's of firestorms, and it's the firestorms that would create the soot and smoke which gets lifted to the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and blocks the Sun.
So, we could also just manually start a bunch of firestorms. Just start a bunch of brush and forest fires and burn all our CO2 scrubbing bushes and trees in the process...
Why does it have to be passive?
originally posted by: Kali74
You're essentially saying that 26 Gigatonnes of CO2 emitted by human activity, which is outside of the natural carbon cycle (meaning there's no 100% offset for the CO2 we are emitting) is passive?
CO2 molecules are not passive they don't just float around doing nothing, they perform functions that cannot be turned off. We know that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 ppm today (we just recently crossed into 400 ppm).
What would we have to do to permanently alter the climate on the planet?
originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You can say that twice....
Dissent is dangerous and disagreement is just about seditious to hear some talk about it.
So it is yours (and others) contention that CO2 is being deliberately pumped into the environment in order to affect climate change?