It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global nuclear winter can counteract global warming

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I think I have found a viable way to counteract the affects of global warming. Several strategically placed nuclear warheads simultanisly fired at key locations around the globe should be enough to start a minor nuclear winter thereby countering the affects of global warming.

I've calculated that we can lower worldwide tempertures by .01 degree F per 10 Megatons of nuclear yield. It might be possible to reduce the megatonage of yield by placing warheads in sedimentary formations instead of in bedrock formations, thereby increasing the amount of dust which is thrown up into the atmosphere.

4.18 x 10(15th power) joules of energy x 10 megatons = .01 F degrees of change

[edit on 6-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


It's that kind of thinking that rubber darts are made from.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Why not let mother nature takes it's course and heal itself.

If you used nuclear weapons to combat gobal warming to create a nuclear winter you would have every greenie in the world protesting that you would be harming the world, not to mention you would be sanctioned by the UN.

Where would you drop these nukes as you would to think about where people live and wildlife so you wouldn't kill anything.

Also you would have nuclear fallout that would cause ill effects for years to come.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


"4.18 x 10(15th power) joules of energy x 10 megatons"

I think we all know where you can put that...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cnm1976
Where would you drop these nukes ... so you wouldn't kill anything.


I propose detonations in the Gobi desert, the Sahara desert, the Peruvian lowlands, the Australian outback, the California baja penesula, and the Arabian penesula.



To date there have been over 2,000 nuclear detonations worldwide with a yield of 520 megatons. (Ref: www.iss.niiit.ru... )
These detonations have taken place over time and most have been underground.

I am proposing a 1,500 megaton blast above ground, over a very short time span, in very arid climates. A 1,500 megaton simultanious blast should throw enough dust into the atmosphere to result in a 1.5 degree F decrease in worldwide tempertures.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


Thats ridiculous, people, plants and animals exist in all those places! You would be killing people, not to mention that fallout would be spread by upper level winds. I cant believe anyone would come up with such an idea.

Global warming hasnt even been confirmed. There is not enough historical climate data to suggest the Earth is warming up as it only goes back 150 years or so. In my opinion the earth goes through long periods of heating and cooling to balance itself out. Detonating nuclear bombs is just stupid and irresponsible, especially when its not guaranteed to work



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I bet that this has been thought of to combat the effects that increased solar radiation would have if the sun went anomalously nova. We could all just go live under ground until it became safe to go outside again. If the charges were specifically designed to saturate the atmosphere rather then blow stuff up and be radioactive then I think the potential destruction wouldn't be nearly as bad.

This is probably filed under Plan: UberOmega in an NSA database somewhere just in case.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scalamander
If the charges were specifically designed to saturate the atmosphere rather then blow stuff up and be radioactive then I think the potential destruction wouldn't be nearly as bad.

This is probably filed under Plan: UberOmega in an NSA database somewhere just in case.


Airbursts?

I'm not sure that I see how nuclear airburts would result in a decrease in global tempertures. I'm pretty sure that only an increase of airbourne sediment thrown into the jetstream, from surface detonations, would reduce heat gain from the sun.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
NO ONE is going to nuke my home you can stick that nuke where the sun don't shine You have to be out of your mind to think about setting off a nuke I really think we the population of this earth can sure find a better way of fixing many of the problems that we have made And i can tell you that many people live in the great sandy in Australia



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
You really think the Australian goverment and it's people wuld alow this to happen on there soil again, not to mention droppping a nuke in the middle east would cause WW3. ( You wouldn't need to worry about global warming then).



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I am proposing a 1,500 megaton blast above ground, over a very short time span, in very arid climates. A 1,500 megaton simultanious blast should throw enough dust into the atmosphere to result in a 1.5 degree F decrease in worldwide tempertures.


Yes, maybe. However, not for very long. The atmosphere would soon warm up again. For example on a scale much larger, the eruption of Tambora in 1815 caused the "Year without a Summer", but only for one year. After that, it went back to normal. And At least volcanic ash is useful in the long run, the same cannot be said of nuclear fallout.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   


Global warming hasnt even been confirmed. There is not enough historical climate data to suggest the Earth is warming up as it only goes back 150 years or so.


I have to agree with OzWeatherman on this one. Its my personal belief that the whole global warming issue is a joke. Sure we have sped up the warming quite a bit but the science doesn't go back far enough to actually get a realistic picture of how the earth works. For that we would have to look at data from the last several thousands of years. The Earth has gone through warming and cooling stages over time and right now I believe we are in an interglacial period (between ice ages). It gets a lot warmer before it gets a lot colder. So NO, nukes are not required, sorry but thats the dumbest idea I have ever heard. The spread of the radiation alone is enough to know NOT to do something like that. I think I will wait until mother nature does it on her own....and she will.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Cool. Let's drop the big ones now. Lord knows we have not the technical capabililty to set up geosynchronous sun shades.
Satire. Gotta be a better way.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Antimatter bombs would suffice allot better than radioactive waste bombs.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Not picking on anyone here, but this is the sort of thing I mean when I refer to anti GW schemes being pedantic, and in this case, working against the purpose. I fear that these sorts of extreme measures will be used to combat a problem that may not exist. It's like using a flame thrower in an old house to try to burn a ghost. The ghost may or may not be killed because he may or may not exist, but either way, you've burnt the house down...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
According to GW theory the main reason for temperature rise are humans (well cows too, but it is also due to those awful humans...). So ,using the same weapon, we can remove the reason for this problem. Imagine how temperature will drop. And surviving roaches will be able to freely enjoy icy surface of the planet. Or ,in the worse scenario, asteroids that were held together against their will by the discriminating force of gravity will be able to tour freely in Solar system and beyond. Not to mention,warming no longer an issue. Except when too close to Sun.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
In a lighter sense, you could use the nukes to make a new Panama canal at sea level. Kinda of like killing at least 2 birds with a couple of stones.

Definitely ground burst, with much particulate matter thrown into atmosphere. It may take several. Fallout wouldn't really matter in part of the world as the population has already moved North for the most part.

Just a thought...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
Fallout wouldn't really matter in part of the world as the population has already moved North for the most part.

Just a thought...


Good point.

The risk of radiation exposure is really not all that bad as the detonations would take place in only the most remote, inhospitable and unpopulated places anyways. I'm sure most of the harmful radiation fallout will occur within a short downwind radius of the blast site.

It is only the lighter weight radioactive material and dust that will be blown into a thin protective cloud layer in the upper atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
All the people taking this seriously need to stay the f#ck away from all conspiracy related matter.

Or, you know, kill themselves.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
You're advocating the acceptance of nuclear arms, and saying that we can use them for our own benefit by shaping the environment.

the environment doesn't work like that.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join