Posted on 02/27/2019 8:36:13 PM PST by BenLurkin
To be abundantly clear, what follows isn't meant as a how-to guide advocating nuclear war as some sort of out-of-the box alternative solution to climate change. It's meant as a description of the science surrounding how a theoretical regional nuclear war could affect the Earth's atmosphere, and thus the climate, even for people not directly in the blast radius.
Though they weren't looking specifically at the current India-Pakistan conflict, in 2011, NASA scientists released a report based on a model that predicted the climate effects of the use of 100 Hiroshima-size bombs in a regional conflict. Though this would not be as intense as full-scale nuclear war between superpowers, such as the threat that existed between the U.S. and USSR during the Cold War, it still would be expected to have a dramatic effect on the climate.
That's because the bombs would inject up to 5 megatons of black carbon into the upper troposphere, the highest point of the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere. As National Geographic wrote, "In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Nuclear winter was invented by Carl Sagan and a bunch of other frauds during the death throes of the Soviet Union to furnish propaganda to the anti-nuke agitators who were wittingly or not helping preserve the dying Soviet regime.
I see this as a desperation move by warmists, so that if a nuclear war does break out, they can use that as an excuse to explain the fact that more likely than not the earth will not experience any significant in the next decade.
It’s opportunistic move to prepare an excuse.
It goes without saying that people of good will around the world dread the prospect of nuclear war on the subcontinent, which would be an unmitigated humanitarian tragedy.
If puking pollutants into the atmosphere is the new solution to the global warming hoax, then instead of a small nuclear war couldn’t we jut remove the scrubbers from our factory smokestacks and let them run free like they do in China?
It would also partially satisfy the liberals’ desires to reduce the population. Think of the reduction on the demands on the Earth’s resources if a half billion people or so were subtracted from the count, with little loss of farmland.
I have my doubts, but suppose the global warming BS could be conclusively proven true. Then the question becomes: what do we do? We could do nothing and let the climate go wherever it is going to go and deal with that. We could completely change our economies and undergo a severe reduction in standards of living (what the Left wants). Or we could set off a couple of hundred nukes off and take care of the global warming problem without changes in our lifestyle. We could create the explosions somewhere in the middle of the Pacific (or on land in Antarctica), and be free to continue our current ways at a much, much, much lower cost than option 2, severely reducing our energy use and reducing the economic production that the energy use causes.
How about they try to figure out what’s absorbing the solar heat at my house right now in eastern Washington? We’re 20+ degrees cooler tham normal. This February is on record as the 3rd coldest, and long range forecasts show it that trend through at least the first 2 weeks of March.
btt
That is one scary video!
True (about the energy released.) Mt. St. Helens is estimated to have released about 24 megatons, total, IIRC. I would guess you have to get up into at least Pinatubo territory to discern a significant global effect — granted that nukes might have a bit of an advantage per kt when it comes to the follow-up fires. Plus it seems to me I read somewhere that smaller explosions have an “efficiency” advantage, at least in terms of destruction per kt. OTOH, really big volcanoes probably have an advantage over multiple “smallish” nukes, in injecting (projecting!!) material well into the stratosphere.
IMO, where the radioactive fallout of a 100 warhead nuclear war would go is a more valid concern.
It is rather scary. Especially if you think of it as a conversation.
OTOH, it renders the idea that nuclear explosions are going to affect the climate an absurd notion.
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.