Posted on 02/27/2019 8:36:13 PM PST by BenLurkin
Hey, you know that Global Warming stuff? That stuff that isn’t happening? Well, I think we should start a nuclear war! Because then that thing that isn’t happening, wouldn’t happen. You know?
Cue “Christmas at Ground Zero”...
....Wish I had a First Recon guy looking after me.
Or if placed correctly, the bombs could tilt the Earth’s axis in just the right manner to bring on Global Cooling and save us all!
A pretty easy prediction since anything at all could end Glowbull Warming.
My vote is for unicorn farts which everyone knows are the opposite of cow farts.
I wouldn’t rule out #RealScience either in spite of its rarity.
Baloney. Half of Kuwait was on fire for months.
Pure unadulterated crap. We have to destroy parts of the earth in order to save it? Nonsense.
We’re all gonna die!
Based on questionable models, write up full of qualifiers such as if, could, likely, etc. In other words, no real idea what would actually happen.
We’re all gonna die!
The research posited 100 Hiroshima sized bombs with an effect on global temperatures. India and Pakistan aren’t likely to use anywhere near that many, if they even have that many, in a nuclear exchange. The effects on temperature would be very little as a result.
Anyone alive in the 1970s, though, has effects in their bones of the open air nuclear testing by China at the time. Radiation travels.
Got that right. Been going on for years. No ones walking out of here
“100 Hiroshima sized bombs.”
This article is total scientific crap. During the testing program of the USA and USSR we exploded many thermonuclear weapons often that were hundreds of times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. Albeit over uninhabited areas with little to burn.
For this article to make any sense is dependent on knowing what the targets are, burnable material of the targets etc. It should also be noted that in WWII our fire bombings of Japan and the Brits Fire bombings of Germany destroyed all the major cities of Germany and Japan and we did not have a nuclear winter. If Pakistan and India go to nuclear war it will be much the same in destroying cities and their burning. It will just be much quicker, a few days instead of months.
This article is pure bravo sierra. It has no scientific worth.
WTF?
Thes people are just bizarre.
But that did reduce Global Warming! By a whole 2 °C! It was namely 2 °C colder than it would have been (note clever use here of the subjunctive!) if the oil fields hadn't been set on fire!
Because we know how hot/cold it would have been without the oil fields in Kuwait burning, doncha know?
Regards,
Let me get this straight. Global warming is a threat, but a small-scale nuclear war might offset the current trend. The article mentions problems such as famines, but maybe that has a bright side too. All of those who die in the famines, not to mention lots and lots of vaporized and radiation-sickened and eventually dead Indians and Pakistanis, will reduce humanity’s carbon footprint. One fewer foot is one fewer footprint. Think of what a difference getting rid of millions of feet would make. I say India and Pakistan should go for it, for the sake of the Planet. /s
Ahh, but you see, the Allied fire bombings averted rising temperatures! If the fire bombings hadn't taken place, it would have been warmer (even warmer than it actually was) throughout the Northern Hemisphere.
That's the logic!
"This magic charm wards off Polar Bears."
"But we're in the middle of Kansas here! There aren't any Polar Bears within 5,000 miles of here!"
"Yes, see how good it works!"
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.