Comments on: Nuclear war would cause more global warming

By: Anoymous

Anoymous — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:25:38 +0000

A research, based on findings from historic volcano eruptions, found that a nuclear war could produce millions of tons of “soot” particles that could block solar radiation, in effect, cooling the planet. They examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other’s most populated urban areas. A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. As in the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict.” They say the global impact of nuclear would be akin to climate disruptions caused by volcanic eruptions which cool the planet by releasing tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere. They cite the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia as an example. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia — the largest in the last 500 years — was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816, during what has become known as ‘the year without a summer. The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and people starved. This historical event perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict. With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in this scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in recorded history. And that’s just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal. The climate effects of particulate matter are of increasing interest to climate scientists. Some researchers have postulated that a similar release of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere could be used in a worst-case scenario to block global warming. However no one is advocating nuclear war as a practical solution to global warming. The study projects fatalities of 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country in a small-scale, regional nuclear war. Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large. The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term.

By: Is It Getting Warmer? » UN climate claims ‘based on student essay’

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:04:55 +0000

[...] move towards skepticism. It is interesting that this is almost precisely the problem that Michael Crichton described in his novel on global warming “A State of Fear” and why he spoke out about the issue of bad scientific discover. The United Nations climate change [...]

By: Tom Kiser

Tom Kiser — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:07:44 +0000

Sean,

Excuse me. But doesn’t the use of both ‘deeper’ and ‘political’ in the same sentence make the sentence an oxymoronic sentence?

In my “Reality in a stack” model, politics is layer one; the most shallow and most superficial layer.

In layer ten, the foundation layer of the stack, I have the fundamental natural forces that drive, shape and control the Universe that we live in. The “Rules of Reality” are established in layer ten then applied upward through a layered stack that consists of physics, chemistry, biology, the nation’s society (citizens), the nation’s economy, the nation’s financial system, governmental operations, governmental policy makers and then, whatever reality may be left not dissipated and/or undistorted by the upward journey gets applied to layer one: Politics, political news reporting, political discourse, political campaigns, political elections and politically motivated policy decisions that are made by overpoliticized governmental policy makers. And don’t forget, these are the rules that are also applied to anything such as AGW that gets drug into a political rat hole and made a political issue.

Have your ever thought about how much talk-the-talk (information and communication) technologies have advanced in the twentieth century while we are still using mostly nineteenth century walk-the-walk (propulsion) technologies as refined and improved in the twentieth century? Do you reckon expectations may have followed one on upward while it is the other that provides the capabilities to meet and satisfy expectations? Think about it.

With regards and have a good day,

Tom Kiser

Them ain’t chickens comin’ home t’ roost. Them’s the buzzards that was hatched in the twentieth century comin’ home t’ roost in the twenty-first century. We ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait ’til the twentieth century vintage vultures and condors show up.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:01:14 +0000

Tim – I think you are right. The logic of analyzing nuclear war is simply too far fetched to allow one to believe that this study didn’t have other motives.

I don’t think the late Carl Sagan knew what he was talking about. As with most people that try to predict climate, he didn’t understand all of the inter-dependencies. Remember, he predicted global cooling from the fires of the oil wells in Iraq and Kuwait during Gulf War 1. That didn’t happen either. This is a warning to all that think they can predict the climate with any confidence.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html

By: tim maguire

tim maguire — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:02:35 +0000

I thought nuclear war would trigger a nuclear winter? That’s what Carl Sagan said.

IMO, what you’ve found here is a species of what Crichton warned about. With the screwed up priorities of scientific research today, the easiest way to get more funding is to hype a global warming angle.