Global nuclear winter can counteract global warming

reply to post by SlyCM

"Only the Sith deals in absolutes" ~ Obi-Won

I think it's silly being a fundamentalist at all

You should always be open to new evidence and viewpoints.

Personally I still see much evidence to support mans contributions to CC.

Originally posted by apex
How much? I did a few quick calculations, thats like 77000 cubic kilometers of material up there, how do intend on getting it all up there?

You only get dust from the affected area on the ground with a nuke, and even so, there isn't that much.

We might have to work on the calculations a little in order to get it right.

I would expect that if you bury the weapons just under the surface you will get better dispertion rates than if they were stickly surface blasts.

Originally posted by Throbber
It's that kind of thinking that rubber darts are made from.

I don't think the pentagon plays with rubber darts.

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
www.guardian.co.uk...

If the planet warms up 1.5 degrees, we can cool it back down by 1.5 degrees.

A controlled tactical use of nuclear weapons might just prevent an uncontrolled nuclear war.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

INWT,

Let's assume this works. It's not a definite solution to WMDs nor GW/CC.

Even if it worked, and it lowered temps like you're saying. It's only temporary.

Nuclear Winter loweres temps because all the crap in the atmosphere reflects light / solar radiation. But for how long? 5 years? 10 years? 2 years? And then it's back to normal...and normal btw is what?

The modern industrial world with a modern Sun and modern solar radiation. Back to the start.

As for the Nukes. If we destroyed or used all of them today. Does that necessarily mean the entire world would stop making new ones? In fact, they would probably make a bunch of new ones.

So then in order for this to work, assuming it's effective to begin with, we would have to continue to make Nukes so we could continue to induce Nuclear Winter when it was needed. It would have to be a cycle as it's doing nothing but masking the root of the cause.

As for the legitimacy of the effectiveness in lowering temps, I don't know. But I do know this, and I mentioned it in my last post, it's not Nuclear Winter it is Nuclear Fallout. And the fallout is radioactive and devistating. I will expand on this in another post.

[edit on 123030p://11u38 by Lucid Lunacy]

I think it's silly being a fundamentalist at all

You should always be open to new evidence and viewpoints.

Personally I still see much evidence to support mans contributions to CC.

True, true. Notice that I never said that we are making no contribution to it; just implying that it will not be catastrophic. I am open to new evidence and viewpoints, but I just don't see much evidence and no proof. All the political propaganda doesn't help either. Still, who to believe...?


But... that's the info age for ya.

Back to the topic... anyone here read "The Chrysalids"?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Let's assume this works... and it lowered temps like you're saying. It's only temporary.

It would have to be a cycle as it's doing nothing but masking the root of the cause.

I would say that this would be an emergency plan only, as I agree with you, that it is likely to be just temporarly effective.

How long could we sustain a voluntarly induced, mild nuclear winter? I don't know.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I like the idea; we can help heal the world faster by killing dying countries/continent (Africa) with people who pollute far too much. Civilizations that have been around for thousands of years and are still using a ditch/river as a duel purpose irrigation system/toilet, now that’s a contribution to the world community. Countries where women have no natural rights and are treated as pets/property.

There is only one problem. Nuclear detonations run the risk of throwing the earth off its axis, shifting the magnetic poles and hurtling us closer or farther away from the sun, either would make life near unsustainable by only a small shift. So hypothetically you could cool the world, but only a few survivors if any would enjoy it and probably not for very long if the axis is shifted.

String theory, String theory, String theory. Oh and my favorite Quantum Mechanics/super magnets/magnetic field.

Originally posted by N_15L_S01
I like the idea.

Nuclear detonations run the risk of throwing the earth off its axis

I like the idea too.

However, I really don't think that there is a risk of imbalancing the earth with the hypothosized 1,500 megaton load. I think we're fairly safe by keeping it small. Now if we were to up that, to say 15,000 megatons, then we might need to consider whatever gratiational imbalances might result.

I don't think life could be sustained after a 15,000 megaton assult upon the earth. But a 1,500 megaton tactical barrage might prove to be not only survivable, but a worthwhile endevor.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by In nothing we trust


You'd be suprised what a small nuclear detonation could do, especially when near a fault or techtonic plate junction. If you do recall in 2005 I believe, when the Tsunamis hit Thailand/Mylasia, the Pakistanis had been doing some underground nuclear testing and the Indians as well. Several months later wham, a shift in a continental shelf/oceanic floor and giant Tsunami from hell. That's where the killers come from, shifts under the ocean. Granted it would probably take out a lot of costal cities that I could give a # about being demolished, ethics do come into play.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Great Idea! once we've destroyed half the world with that, we can pour millions of gallons of bleach into the rivers and oceans to make the water nice and clean!

I believe people are forgetting that the fallout from said nukes will spread worldwide and will undoubtedly be worse than even the most apocalyptic AGW views. Further, the implying of African or other primitive tribes being the waste of the Earth is simply appalling and frankly disgusting (and admittedly rather rich coming from a person in a developed country sitting behind a computer screen), but perhaps unsurprising seeing that those same people like the idea of using tactical nuclear strikes on sand.

The reason I brought up "The Chrysalids" is that it deals with nuclear exchange. In it, vast tracts of land are completely fried - in fact, it implies that most of the world is - so much as to being completely inhospitable to all life forms. The world is much warmer and more humid, and living beings are grotesquely mutated. Man, except in a few remote areas, is reduced to barbarism and mutations have caused several distinct forms to emerge.

Granted this is only a work of fiction... but is ending up in a world even slightly reminiscent of that in "The Chrysalids" worth lowering the world's temperature for a few years at most? Somehow I think not...



[edit on 12-4-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

Nuke the world to save the planet?

Sounds like a good plan.


Sign me up.

Originally posted by ianr5741


Nuke the world to save the planet?

Sounds like a good plan.


Sign me up.

I

it is the nwo trying to control our populice. a global nuclear winter can not be a good thing. there will be to many side affects and will risk us and cause health backlash problems. how will the be??? global warming into global winter by nuclear.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by LurkerRoo]

Originally posted by LurkerRoo
it is the nwo trying to control our populice

It is not NWO. "It" is an ATS member putting forth a theory about using nukes to combat/reverse/retard the affects of GW/CC. Unless you're saying In Nothing We Trust is a leader of the NWO

[edit on 053030p://12u09 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
I believe people are forgetting that the fallout from said nukes will spread worldwide and will undoubtedly be worse than even the most apocalyptic AGW views.

For the most part I believe that my plan leaves much of the upper northern hemisphere untouched. Undoubtly there will be radioactive hotspots, but most of those will be in wastelands in the southern hemispehere and lower northern hemisphere (Below the tropic of cancer). Except for the site in mongolia.

If all goes acording to plan most of the dust dispertion should take place far above the surface of the earth near the Statosphere, just outside of the troposphere. I really don't think fallout will be as bad as you all fear for the people in the far northern hemisphere.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Great Idea! once we've destroyed half the world with that, we can pour millions of gallons of bleach into the rivers and oceans to make the water nice and clean!

We can explore that option in cases like the Citarum river in Indonesia. Pouring bleach into the worlds most disgusting rivers could be an important step towards winning the war on the environment. Star for you.



I think this river could use a little bleach, don't you?




[edit on 12-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
For the most part I believe that my plan leaves much of the upper northern hemisphere untouched. Undoubtly there will be radioactive hotspots, but most of those will be in wastelands in the southern hemispehere and lower northern hemisphere (Below the tropic of cancer). Except for the site in mongolia.

If all goes acording to plan most of the dust dispertion should take place far above the surface of the earth near the Statosphere, just outside of the troposphere. I really don't think fallout will be as bad as you all fear for the people in the far northern hemisphere.

I do not care just for myself, or even just for my hemisphere.

What about the life in the blast zones? What about that which will receive deadly fallout? What about the dimming and cold that will disrupt ecosystems and plant growth?

The fact remains: GW, whether real or not, or anthropogenic or not, cannot possibly be as damaging as detonating atomic bombs in the biosphere.

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
What about the life in the blast zones? What about that which will receive deadly fallout? What about the dimming and cold that will disrupt ecosystems and plant growth?

Here is an excerpt of what is happening to nature around Chernobyl, years after the accident. Now that humans are gone, nature is making a full recovery, slowly, but surely.

Many species appear to be doing well in this undisturbed but deadly forest. Wild boar, elk, deer, bison, lynx, and wolves have all established populations in the Chernobyl accident exclusion zone, where there are virtually no people. Birds have migrated back into the zone and are breeding there. Many onlookers feel that nature is recovering, cleaning up the mess.

birds.suite101.com...

... the radioactive cloud may have a silver lining. Recent studies suggest that the 19-mile (30-kilometer) "exclusion zone" set up around the reactor has turned into a wildlife haven.

Plants and trees have sprung back to life, and rare species, such as lynx, Przewalski's horses, and eagle owls, are thriving where most humans fear to tread.

Even the site of the explosion seems to be bursting with life.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

In the long run I believe that any radioactive fallout may prove to be benificial by allowing species to mutate and adapt faster than normal.

However, the affect of rising sea levels and changing weather patterns will cause havoc due to global warming.

Countering global warming, by using nuclear induced winter will prove to be more benifical in the long run by maintaining current global tempertures.


[edit on 12-4-2008 by In nothing we trust]

In the long run I believe that any radioactive fallout may prove to be benificial by allowing species to mutate and adapt faster than normal.

I will admit that this is an interesting point of view. But, who is to say that those mutations will not simply be cancer?

It is also, I believe, important to remember that atomic bombs are designed for offense. Just because evolution and nature are powerful forces capable of repair doesn't mean we should ruthlessly blow them up in the name of preventing something we think may be occurring. Frankly, the idea of it is disgraceful and selfish.

However, the affect of rising sea levels and changing weather patterns will cause havoc due to global warming.

No they won't. The IPCC estimate of the absolute maximum sea level rise in the next few centuries is almost two feet. Furthermore, humanity and all other known life forms flourished through the recent Medieval Warm Period and Holocene Climatic Optimum. I could go on.

Countering global warming, by using nuclear induced winter will prove to be more benifical in the long run by maintaining current global tempertures.

No, only sustained bombings will produce cooling beyond a few years. So, single bombing = acute short cooler period, waste of time and a general defeat of the purpose; sustained bombings = buildup of fallout + immense ecological damage, plus every bad point of the single bombing.

Either way... not a good idea.