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.
“REPLY: Folkerts complains about everything here, pay no attention to him – Anthony”
I quoted specific statements that I though were wrong (statements that were typically echoed thru many posts), cited relevant information, and offered my understanding of a more correct interpretation. I offer no apology if I “complain” about specific information that is wrong.
There is a lot I DON’T complain about here. I agree that scientists have been sloppy about records and computer code. I agree the locations of weather stations in parking lots is serious concern. I agree that the “doom and gloom” mentality should not infect the reporting of the basic science.
I may be a little brusque in my responses sometimes, but I try to base my responses on facts. If people don’t like the answer, then question my information or reasoning. Offer a better answer and add to the discussion. Like Andrew Parker did.
Andrew (Andrew Parker says: February 27, 2011 at 10:33 am )
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
I don’t read much into the heading “Reversing Global Warming?.” The article so far had discussed cooling from nuclear wars. It would seem only reasonable to related this “climate change” to other “climate change”. I simply read the heading as “how does the magnitude of these effects compare to the magnitude of (historic and/or projected) global warming?” I don’t see it as advocating nuclear war at all, but perhaps some would read it that way.
As for testing and the results, tests above- or below-water would generate almost no soot. Tests below-ground would generate almost no soot. Only above-ground testing has the potential for generating soot. From what I have found, most US above-ground testing was done in Nevada (almost no vegetation) or is similar arid areas in the USSR. Certainly more soot than underground or underwater testing, but still quite limitid.
While cities do contain a lot of non-flammable materials like concrete, they also contain a lot of wood, plastic, chemical plants, oil storage, and similar flammable materials. My suspicion is that pretty much any large city (including the ones you listed) would produce WAY more soot than a Nevada desert (but I would be happy to have more data and input from someone with more expertise on this topic).
I don’t know the answer to your comment about comparisons (either from actual data or from models) of conventional fires, nuclear-induced fires, and volcanoes. As I understand it, volcanoes and nuclear weapons both lift material higher than conventional fires. But the soot from nuclear-induced fires would come in large part after the initial mushroom cloud. I assume the authors considered such effects, but I would have to go back to the original work (not Anthony’s comments about NG’s summary of the original work) to get an understanding of details of the study.
As for the reasons for the articles, I won’t try to speculate. I try to stick with science as much as possible and leave the politics and motivations to others.
“To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war … ”
In my day NASA and National Geographic pushed the envelope… actually sent men to explore the farthest reaches of the natural world.
Now we are relegated to viewing cartoons of their sick fantasies without any commitment to prove up the hypotheses.
The expression “seing is believing” no longer holds true.
Doing is believing.
“Tim Folkerts says:
February 27, 2011 at 6:56 am”
The Russian test of the Tsar was done in a desert. No fires there other than the explosion itself.
J. Felton says:
I stopped reading NG years ago, due to their biased message, but 2 cover stories last year really drove the point home.
One read ” Global Warming causes massive drought in Australia.”
The next one, the very next week, read ” Global Warming causes excessive flooding in Australia.
Any chance you have the dates / issue numbers for those?
——————–
On the main topic – I’m beginning to think we’re about ripe for an ELE. Time to immanentize the escathon.
Mark Miller says:
February 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm
D. Patterson says:
February 27, 2011 at 1:52 pm
“…By 1992 the warheads were withdrawn from deployment by the Bush Administration following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union and the threat they represneted to Western Europe.”
I think our forces in the DMZ (and the S. Korean government and likely Japan) would feel a bit more secure if we had a few of W79 warheads available. North Korea is a bit unstable…………………………
There are a number of factors which make doing so impractical.
First, the tactical circumstances in Korea are reversed, because the civilian population is more exposed to the lethal effects of neutron bombs than the North Korean armed forces.
In 1950, the Truman Administration deliberately refused to equip the South Korean armed forces with heavy armaments. They were instead equipped for counter-insurgency operations as a constabulary military force with light weapons to avoid “provoking” Commuist North Korea. Stalin, meanwhile, equipped, trained, and prepared the North Korean armed forces to conduct a heavily armed and major tank army offensive in a campaingn to conquer South Korea. Stalin waited until Truman withdrew the post-war occupation force from South Korea before giving the order to begin the conventional combined arms offensive and the Korean Conflict.
The South Korean armed forces and the remanant U.S. Army Military Advisory Group (MAG) had no mediem or heavy tanks, little artillery, and few other forces to defend against the major North Korean-Soviet tank army offensive. Conseequently, the initial South Korean and U.S. forces were overrun and forced to fall abck into the final defensive battle in the Pusan perimeter until the U.N. counteroffensive mostly destroyed the North Korean Army prior to the massive entry of Communist Chinese forces.
The circumstances today are quite different. Today’s South Korea is heavily armed, well trained, experienced, and prepared to defend itself. There is no longr a Soviet Union leading and equipping the North Korean armed forces; and no Soviet air defense troops, air forces, or combat support troops supporting the North Korean armed forces. There is little chance of China using its army groups to participate in an offensive for conquest of South Korea. North Korea is nearly on its own in any military offensivees it may choose to undertake against South Korea. Its armed forces are heavily protected in underground bases, depots, and tunnels along, behind, and sometimes beneath the demilitarized zone. Seoul is heavily targeted for massive destruction by North Korean artillery from heavily protected caves, tunnels, revetments, and other heavily fortified positions. The South Korean defenses are hampered by the location of its major civilian assets within artillery range of North Korean forces behind the demilitarized zone.
South Korean structures don’t offer as many basements and other heavy structures capable of offering protection against neutron radiation as those found in NATO’S European battlefields. While the subways and large buildings do offer protection to some of the urban populations, most of the other South Korean and North Korean civilian populations are much more exposed to the lethal effects of the neutron bombs than the field troops of the North Korean armed forces. Consequently, the neutron bombs could be counter-productive to an effort to save innocent civilian lives.
Secondly, the Deemocrats in the U.S. Goveernment have been and are busy dismantling the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. They are in no mood whatsoever to permit the redeployment of any additional nuclear warheads, much less neutron bombs. They will oppose any such appropriations for neutron bombs by promoting the idea that they kill people without destroying property and have too short of a shelf life making them too costly to maintain their Tritium weapon cores.
The Tsar Bomba was tested on 30 October 1961 at the Soviet nuclear test range on the Novaya Zemlya islands in the Arctic Ocean.
It proved to be a real ice breaker.
We must kill humanity, to save humanity…
Population reduction (and subjugation) is the goal of the entire venture of the globalists behind the AGW scam. Nuking the planet would suit these Satanists just fine.
Let us not forget that these guys have been caught worshipping a giant owl and burning a mock human effigy in a sacrificial ritual, which they do every year at Bohemian Grove. Who paid for the Georgia Guidestones? Where the goal of killing billions of people is written for all to read?
The AGW scam is part of a larger plan. It sounds crazy at first, but if you learn about their shenanigans and then put yourself in the shoes of the most powerful elites on the planet – it makes perfect sense.
Hi, as a Brit I find this sort of thing bloody scary, it starts in the USA and the “crazies” in the UK latch onto it as trendy up to the moment thinking. National Geographic will not get another penny from me after this.
Thank you for the info.
Congrats on the award by the way, well deserve if I might say so.
IIRC, this is exactly why Atomic Annie was built, the ability to take out large amounts of invading infantry all relatively bunched together. This is pretty much the definition of tactical nukes. The idea is that a relatively small USA/etc force could be stationed there near the 38th DMZ and decimate the invading NKA efficiently (also see Romulans, Neutral Zone).
Unfortunately also to be considered is the fact that mere possession of such invasion stoppers isn’t enough. One must have the fortitude to pull the trigger on quite possibly one million invaders. I can assure everyone (pssst don’t tell Lil Kim) that the current occupant of the oval office has no such strength. The defense of Seoul will have to rest upon bloodshed on both sides, instead of bloodshed mostly on the enemy side. (sigh).
Of course one might ask just why South Korea didn’t just move Seoul further south in the decades that have since passed. Herculean feats such as massive evacuation and relocation can be accomplished in a very short time-frame when lives are at stake (see German invasion WWII Russia). I wonder if they couldn’t have created a new capitol sufficiently removed from the zone. I mean they are practically asking for Seoul to be destroyed. If it gets destroyed it will necessarily affect all world markets. We all will pay for it which likely would include re-building it yet again! Man, thinking about this really gets me angry. The Korean conflict IMHO is not the way to end a war (by setting the stage for the next one!).
@ur momisugly Rational Debate
Regarding the downward-pointing spikes in the first few milliseconds of the explosion, I read about this somewhere but can’t find the link.
The spikes correspond to the cables holding up the tower with the bomb-shack perched on top of it. Early researchers were puzzled as to why the cables became incandescent so quickly, since they are outside the advancing fireball, and they couldn’t conduct heat that quickly either. Investigations led to them to conclude that the sheer intensity of the light from the fireball was enough to vapourise the cables.
Some experiments were done which showed that black cables produced big thick spikes, while cables painted white or wrapped in foil produced shorter or negligible spikes.
So then everything is alright? That’s great news, for awhile I thought there was some great weather emergency. Glad it all boils down to some silly headlines and manufactured media footage. Thanks for not falling into the trap of political dogma and inconvenient truths. I feel a lot safer under your tutelage and the laser etched minds on display here.
Thanks, C.K.
This solves global warming, for small money.
And you dont need atomic bombs.
Here’s how the bombs would cool the earth: The bombs lift carbon black, from fires, into the troposphere. A few million tons is enough. 5 million tons would make it too cold. That would cause catastrophes “similar to the crop failures and famines experienced in 1815”
You dont need bombs to make carbon black. They use it for filler in tires.
And you dont need bombs to lift it into the troposphere. You can use airplanes. A dozen 747s would be plenty.
But here’s the problem. With global warming put to bed, we got to get a new catastrophe. These scientists, they’ll still need Uncle Sam’s gravy. And more, they’ll still need something to feel important