Eric Nielsen writes to me via Facebook:
I find it disturbing the National Geographic would suggest something like this
Well, um, yeah. This sort of thing is why I don’t subscribe to National Geographic anymore. Could there ever be a dumber headline related to global warming?
Click for article
Here’s an excerpt, your tax dollars at work:
To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world’s current nuclear arsenal.
…
After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.
Years Without Summer
For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet.
“Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts,” said Oman, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The full article is here.
While basic research might be useful, the whole nuclear winter scenario proposed by Carl Sagan has long been accepted, so I really don’t see the point of doing another study on the effects of nuclear war, especially in the context of global warming. It’s rather obvious science.
I wonder how much taxpayer money was wasted on this?
For those of you unfamiliar with my headline spoof:
One of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett. Writing about the provincial capital, Bến Tre, on February 7, 1968, Arnett said: “‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,’ a United States major said today.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the Nat Geo thinks setting off 100 Little Boys could solve AGW. It takes talent to be so daft. Perhaps they should conduct an experiment with just one Little Boy.
I would suggest Durban, South Africa, sometime between November 28 to December 9, 2011. The 17th Conference of the Pillocks would have a fireworks display second to none and they would solve the AGW debate once and for all.
I find it irritating that they’re basing this on computer simulations when we have so many nuclear weapons sitting idle.
For some reason I am reminded of the comment attributed by the Roman historian Tacitus to the Caledonian chieftain Calgacus at the time of Agricola’s campaign in AD 83 that led to the Battle of Mons Graupius.
“they make a desert and call it peace”.
There are two planets in the solar system, Venus and Mars, which could conceivably be suitable for terra-forming experiments. Venus is too hot and Mars is too cold. I suggest that all global cooling technologies be first tested on Venus and similarly that Mars be used to demonstrate that global warming is the outcome of adding novel green house gases to a planetary atmosphere.
At the very least adopting these proposals would produce a worthwhile scientific and technological challenge for the space industry with the prize of demonstrating that humanity really can adjust the environmental conditions of a whole planet at will.
There were roughly 1000 above ground nuclear tests, 10 times the number of explosions mentioned in this “study”.
The other main factor is the amount of smoke that can be created after a atomic blast. However empiric data does not support the high estimates, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did notcreate significantly more smoke than conventionally bombed cities, and bombed cities do not smoke as much as these models assume. The whole nuclear winter scenario is a publicity stunt about making a terrible thing sound even worse.
Even if it were a realistic mechanism, putting it into context with global warming is simply disgusting!
@ur momisugly Squidly says:
February 26, 2011 at 12:45 pm
And just think, the nuclear weapons of today are MUCH more powerful.
Actually no, they are not. Smaller in size and weight, but more efficient. Yield is much lower for the majority of special weapons due to more precise targeting capability, etc. City busters (5mt and up ) are obsolete and no longer in inventory. You won’t find anything in any countries inventory greater than about 1.5mt. Ref. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuclear.htm
I have always advocated that each household should have at least one tactical thermonuclear device at their disposal. Something along the lines of a 15 to 20 kilo-banana yield ground burst weapon for home defence would suffice. Maybe just one bomb per neighbourhood would be enough, but then the deterrent would likely need to be in the mega-banana range to be effective.
Seriously though, if the Notional Geopornographic is advocating thermonuclear climate change, does that mean they now support nuclear power generation? Where else would they get the fissile material for the bombs? Oh, I forgot. They could buy it from the Iranians. Silly me.
@ur momisugly Rational Debate says:
February 26, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Does anyone happen to know what causes the difference between the nuclear test photos where the ‘stem’ of the mushroom cloud has those fabulous smooth geometric cones and so on, versus the far more commonly seen rough stems? Shutter speed?? Or ??
Among other things (altitude of detonation, ground reflection, etc. ), it has to do with the design of the weapon. Thermonuclear ( so-called “H” bomb )will generally have a thick stem, Hiroshima type atomic will have a thin stem.
Btw, you might be surprised at how close you can be to a nuke blast and survive.
Here is some scenes from the next greenpeace commercial.
It only needs a voice over from James Cameron.
Nuke says:
February 26, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Yes, and the Civil Defense shelters of the 60’s.
We were so relieved to see the Berlin Wall come down and the Soviet Empire collapse.
That didn’t last long, as along comes a hypothestical offshoot that now seeks to save the Planet by fire-roasting in the madness.
Worrying but at the same time it shows how desperate the AGW’s are….the climate has not developed how they predicted and they are running out of ideas.
Whatever next?
Just a little bitty Nukular war is ok.
By that thinking (modeled by computer, of course) an excuse to use WMD’s is gilded by those seized with a madness.
They never thought one second about the unintended consequences…. uninhabitable land, escalation, etc.
James Mayeau says:
February 26, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I could cure global warming and it would only take two bombs. One for GISS and the other for Berkeley.
Four bombs actually you forgot the UK met office and UEA
No pressure 😮
A rise in eschatological tendencies is usually followed by a split of the church, like “the end is nigh” of 1000 – x was followed by the schism of 1054. What should we expect from the CAGW church?
George Turner says: February 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I find it irritating that they’re basing this on computer simulations when we have so many nuclear weapons sitting idle.
Patience, but keep your thermometer calibrated and ready.
The way the Administration’s foreign policy initiatives are going in the Middle East, we may have a small scale experiment running before we know it.
Ah I just happened to be reading this earlier, 3.2.2:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42064820/Global-Electrical-Atmospheric
Nothing new with editorial policy there.
Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
April 26, 2006
“One of the great ironies of this particular tragedy is that many animals are doing considerably better than when the humans were there” [Tim Mousseau from the University of South Carolina (USC) in Columbia says]
We need lots of badly designed nuclear plants with no built in safety whatsoever. This is a cost effective way to get rid of nasty humans.
From the article:
“Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan.”
OK, then, that takes care of the India-as-a-major-GHG-emitter problem!!
Well done, NASA!! Who needs Kyoto?
Congress, you may cut the NASA budget anytime you wish.
Too many people, too many nuclear bombs, too much CO2 —
Its a good thing we have Nat. Geo. to suggest a solution!!
@george Turner Do you really want these wackos to go on a fission expedition?
I’m getting so tired of this stuff. We get bogged down with arguing about temps and stuff, where is the proof that warming is bad?
The “duck and cover” safety precaution is another casualty of the Leftist black propaganda campaign. Today, most people have been indoctrinated by Leftist propaganda in the media to associate “duck and cover” solely with a futile attempt to avoid injury in the event of a nuclear attack. As consequence of this Leftist propaganda, we have recent generations of people who think it is just fine to stand around and crane their necks around to see what is going on around them like a herd of deer caught in the headlights while a catastrophe is taking place. As a consequence of such bravado and ignorance, there are many people who are and will be totally unnecessary casualties in catastrophes which have nothing whatsoever to do with a nuclear attack.
The “duck and cover”safety precaution was being taught in industry safety training and military training long before nuclear weapons were invented. The purpose of the “duck and cover” safety precaution was to protect people from flash burns, shrapnel, blast debris, and other high velocity debris during natural gas explosions, other detonations of explosives during structural fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Standing in front of a glass window when it is shattered by a pressure wave or standing above a barrier where an explosion can inflict a deadly flash burn is a great way of being killed or very painfully injured, and it can be easily prevented by a reflexive “duck and cover” precaution.
In their zeal to maneuver public opinion against the budgets of the Western military establishments and their nuclear weapons armaments, the Soviet and Leftist political propaganda targeted the Western civil defense programs to create a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness. The “duck and cover” safety precaution extended to the civil defense training for preparedness in the event of a nuclear attack became a focus point for the propaganda. The effectiveness of the propaganda can be seen in these comments where people uncritically accept the false notion that “duck and cover” is a “useless” safety precaution.
Atomic explosions from the first through to 1998, by country and by magnitude:-
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/6/japanese-artist-nuclear-weapons
Turn on the sound, view in full-screen mode. Keep an eye on the numbers!
Does anyone have any sort of idea what this has done to us and this planet?
And we are worried about the contained waste from nuclear plants?
Beam me up, Scotty this planet is dangerous.
Nuclear winter was discredited, then it was disproven by the Kuwaiti oil fires after the first Bush’s war. People who won’t let go say you need bigger fires to get smoke and soot into the stratosphere.
It would seem to me unlikely as bad as an explosive volcanic eruption that injects sulfuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere – they settle out in only a year or so. Dust, smoke, and ash would likely wash out of the troposphere before reaching the stratosphere, and I doubt much would make it into the stratosphere, and what did would settle out quickly.
Various references found instead of starting dinner:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/climate_of_fear_from_nuclear_w.html
Climate of Fear: From Nuclear Winter to Global Warming
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8882.0 says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter says: