An Explosive End To Global Warming

Every morning getting ready for work I listen to NOAA weather radio and it seems most record lows are in the late 40's to the mid 50's. Is it possible all the nuke testing cooled the planet and it took a few years for people to figure it out and could a few big explosions do the same now when people think we need it??

mikell

And meanwhile in Toronto, CANADA in the middle of December the temperature is 10 Degrees Celsius which is extremely warm and to the far north of us places like Whitehorse are getting record highs of -11 degrees Celsius.

This hypothesis sounds as dubious as this one.

Why would nuke testing cool the planet?

Because of a nuclear winter like effect?

That'd require visible and observable blocking of sunlight reaching earth.

But would it work?? Is that why they were going to blow up that big bomb near Vegas?? I think a few big explosions every month for a year or two is worth a try?? Waste money on a lot of dumber things.

mikell

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why would nuke testing cool the planet?

Because of a nuclear winter like effect?

That'd require visible and observable blocking of sunlight reaching earth.

Perhaps nukes detonated on those islands in the pacific kicked up dust into the stratosphere. I'm not dismissing the idea just yet.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why would nuke testing cool the planet?

Because of a nuclear winter like effect?

That'd require visible and observable blocking of sunlight reaching earth.

...Filed this last week:

Small Nukes Could Cause Global Cooling

Some of the scientists who first advanced the controversial "nuclear winter" theory more than two decades ago have come up with another bleak forecast: Even a regional nuclear war would devastate the environment. ...As dire as the predictions seem, they fall short of nuclear winter.

....the researchers say black soot from the fires would linger in the atmosphere, blocking the sun's rays and causing average global surface temperatures to drop about 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the first three years. Although the planet would see a gradual warming within a decade, it would still be colder than it was before the war, the scientists said.

The cooldown would shorten the growing season by about a month in parts of North America, Europe and Asia. Normal rainfall patterns such as summer monsoons in Africa and Southeast Asia would be disrupted, possibly causing huge crop failures. ...In addition, the ozone layer, which keeps out harmful ultraviolet radiation, would shrink more than 20 percent, with the poles seeing a 70 percent reduction.

Maybe if they nuked a few volcanoes and got them to erupt, then perhaps you would have enough particulates and sulfuric gases to offset global warming.

As for the radiation, no sane person would condone dusting the planet with fallout.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Maybe if they nuked a few volcanoes and got them to erupt, then perhaps you would have enough particulates and sulfuric gases to offset global warming.

PLEASE! Don't give them any ideas!

IMO - there's a good possibility that the Asian tsunami resulted from some ill-conceived attempt to speed the earth's rotation or "correct" something or another.

Point being - we should not give these fools any excuse to run around making any more great big bangs.


.

I would think this would be why hippies and protesters already set up anti nuclear protests. I had this discussion with a friend the other day about nuclear weapons damaging the ozone layer and stuff like that.

We came to the conclusion that with all the dirty particles someone cut put into the air with nukes to cool the planet, it wouldn't be worth the risk of permanently screwing up some sort of natural cycle in the planets ecosystems, water temperature, etc, etc.

The end result is though that they are probably testing things out that are worse than nukes anyway that we don't know about.

So the global cooling screams of 60's could have been caused by nuke testing. The bomb they were going to let off in Vegas wasn't a nuke so perhaps we should do it??

mikell

A "Nuclear winter" was a thrase first used by to describe the after effects of a world wide exchange of Nukes between the old USSR and the USA. This would have involved thousands of war heads and hundreds of burning citys.

I dont think your theory would work because the amount of Nukes required to create even a small difference in global temperatures would cause to many negative side effects. The fall out alone would create massive problems.

Just letting off "a few big explosions" would not have any impact.

Volcanos have been know to create small short term changes and i believe mount st helens let off the equivalent of a 350 Megaton nuclear bomb when it erupted in 1980's. Even this had no real long term effect on global temps. Most Nukes are under 20 mega tons (i think the biggest ever made was 60 mega tons)

considering the Nuke the destroyed Hiroshima was 16 kilotons it would take 21,875 hiroshima size bombs to have the same impact as mount st helens!

The enviroment is a very delicate ballance and to think you could control it by letting off nuclear bombs would be disasterous to say the least.

Of course i am no scientist so anyone who knows better please feel free to pick my argument apart