You're missing the point: Dork doesn't need a reason - good, bad, or otherwise - justs wants to sail against the consensus.
BBC News
- Thread starter chirpychippy
- Start date
You're missing the point: Dork doesn't need a reason - good, bad, or otherwise - justs wants to sail against the consensus.
Sponsored Links
Initially i wasn't even thinking about Global Warming, I was reading about the first Nuclear Test Bomb coupled with video of footage of the detonation and mused "this can't be good for atmosphere!!
Thereof I googled "Nuclear testing and climate change" and read this little snippet.
What can you tell us about the source of that opinion?
What evidence have they published?
Can you rely on them when they say "Please note: These are preprints and have not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary."
Haven't you got anything better?
What evidence have they published?
Can you rely on them when they say "Please note: These are preprints and have not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary."
Haven't you got anything better?
It would appear not, despite 30 minutes of googling to arm myself with a viable response all I have found is, could of, may of, and my evidence, all be it spurious, has only lead to make me look like a bit of t!t.
Still on the upside, it's got people nattering.
Sponsored Links
Exactly
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,345
- Reaction score
- 598
- Country
It hasn't changed as quickly as we're seeing now, though.
There's certainly enough grounds for suspicion around things like ice core sample records, which appear to show periods of higher CO2 coming after, not before, high temperature periods. I read an article in Scientific American some time ago, about how the bubbles had handily moved through the ice over time. I can't remember the details but I didn't find it very convincing.
On the other hand, I recently saw a "denier" website, which showed a pathetically blatant error on the frequency band of warming radiation - any claim to objectivity, out of the window.
I saw the 'Paper', when I was doing a bit of research after your first post.
Certain aspects of the 'Paper' didn't make sense - for example, legitimate research papers will often have multiple authors, references don't normally include "HowStuffWorks.com", would probably list more than one other scientific paper, and some of the 'science' didn't make sense.
The Author is Clay Hansen, and attended the University of Louisville from 1988 - 92 (not a current academic!).
Here he is, I will let you make your own mind up!
Whether he can be believed, or not, as the NOAA records show, Nuclear testing has released (pretty insignificant) amounts of CO2.
As said earlier, fires caused by the blast would release CO2, but so too would an underwater test - there would be enough energy involved to liberate CO2 from the carbonic acid in sea water, as would anything else containing carbon that would be vapourised by a blast.
However, an explosion of the equivalent amount of TNT would have the same effect.
Wars in general, will generate extra CO2 in a similar way to the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than the steady state of the carbon cycle, a lot of distruction happens over a short period of time, releasing CO2 far quicker than it would have been.
Anyone interested in the carbon footprint of a full-scale nuclear war?
Duncan Clark on the carbon footprint of nuclear war
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by even the smallest nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares the environmental costs of developing various power sources
www.google.com
People used to speak of the Nuclear Winter arising from particles in the atmosphere.
But longer term, reduction of industry, logging and mining would probably greatly reduce fossil fuel usage and the destruction of forests.
But longer term, reduction of industry, logging and mining would probably greatly reduce fossil fuel usage and the destruction of forests.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,345
- Reaction score
- 598
- Country
Errm, so? Compared withe odd snaggy side effects of a nuclear war, 700m tonnes is only a couple of years' UK prodn from fossil fuels, or of the order of 10% global. Wouldn't be my number one concern.I saw the 'Paper', when I was doing a bit of research after your first post.
Certain aspects of the 'Paper' didn't make sense - for example, legitimate research papers will often have multiple authors, references don't normally include "HowStuffWorks.com", would probably list more than one other scientific paper, and some of the 'science' didn't make sense.
The Author is Clay Hansen, and attended the University of Louisville from 1988 - 92 (not a current academic!).
Here he is, I will let you make your own mind up!
Whether he can be believed, or not, as the NOAA records show, Nuclear testing has released (pretty insignificant) amounts of CO2.
As said earlier, fires caused by the blast would release CO2, but so too would an underwater test - there would be enough energy involved to liberate CO2 from the carbonic acid in sea water, as would anything else containing carbon that would be vapourised by a blast.
However, an explosion of the equivalent amount of TNT would have the same effect.
Wars in general, will generate extra CO2 in a similar way to the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than the steady state of the carbon cycle, a lot of distruction happens over a short period of time, releasing CO2 far quicker than it would have been.
Anyone interested in the carbon footprint of a full-scale nuclear war?
Duncan Clark on the carbon footprint of nuclear war
Almost 700m tonnes of CO2 would be released into the Earth's atmosphere by even the smallest nuclear conflict, according to a US study that compares the environmental costs of developing various power sources
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,345
- Reaction score
- 598
- Country
There have been lots of local variations like that. Problem of course is that records aren't too good.
It's pretty easy for anyone to wave their arms about, quote Milankovitch cycles or a variation of the thermohaline global ocean conveyor, to account for them. You'd have to be just as ready to explain the Little Ice Age.
Yes, you're right, it's not a great deal more CO2 in the grand scheme.
I'm just suggesting that war is another (unnecessary) anthropogenic source of CO2 (including the build up of the war machine)... and along with the human suffering, maybe another reason why we don't really deserve this place?
A reasonable estimate indicates that the total energy released by nuclear explosions in the twentieth century amounts to six hundred megatons TNT equivalent of energy, or 2.5 billion, billion Joules (2.5 x 1018 J). That estimate is larger than the five hundred and thirty megatons TNT equivalent estimated by UNSCEAR (also), so it can be considered a conservative estimate. Divided over the five hundred and ten million, million square meters of the Earth's surface (510 x 1012 m^2), and over the two decades of peak testing, that represents eight millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power. For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year that the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world has generated.
skepticalscience.com
The impacts of nuclear war on the climate represent another major historical intersection between climate science and nuclear affairs. Without the work done by nuclear weapons designers and testers, scientists would know much less than they do now about the atmosphere. In particular, this research has contributed enormously to knowledge about both carbon dioxide, which raises Earth’s temperature, and aerosols, which lower it. Without climate models, scientists and political leaders would not have understood the full extent of nuclear weapons’ power to annihilate not only human beings, but other species as well.
sciencedaily.com
According to the data provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute platform, 2053 nuclear tests were conducted worldwide during 1945–2006 (Fedchenko and Hellgren 2007). The majority (85 %) were conducted by the USA and the USSR during 1945–1992, while 14.5 % (300 tests) were conducted by the United Kingdom, France, and China (Fig. 1a, b), and less than 1 % by India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
Therefore, the thermonuclear tests conducted during 1950–1960 almost doubled the concentration of isotope 14C in the atmosphere, as a result of excessive injection of radioactive material into the stratosphere (Goodsite et al. 2001). Thus, the premises were created for an accelerated transfer of that isotope to the geospheres (atmosphere–ocean–biosphere), which resulted in the drop of 14C concentrations in the atmosphere, starting from 1964 through to the present time (Krakauer et al. 2006).
Following detailed investigations, it was found that over the last five decades, there has been a continuous transfer of the radionuclide 14C from the atmosphere into the ocean (as far as the North Atlantic is concerned), but there are differences in terms of its assimilation by the marine environment. This means that an amplitude fluctuation of maximum–minimum values exists, which was significantly attenuated and also much delayed compared with the concentration values in the atmosphere (peaks during 1964–1965 followed by a constant decline up to the present time, compared with the values from the marine environment, peaking in 1974 followed by a steady decline up to the year of the latest available data, i.e., 1996) (Fig. 3b). This situation is primarily due to the much larger marine carbon-storage reservoirs, compared with the atmospheric-storage reservoirs, as well as with regional hydrographical and biogeochemical features (Scourse et al. 2012).
One of the biggest environmental disasters from the nuclear tests period was caused by the USA in the North Pacific, this being the case of radioactive contamination in the wake of the Castle Bravo nuclear test on the Bikini atoll, in 1954 (Fig. 6). Pollution of marine ecosystems in the region, and particularly the impact on the local population in terms of the drastic increase of thyroid cancer incidence as a result of the population’s exposure to extremely high doses of radiation, were the negative consequences of the most serious episode of radioactive contamination in the history of nuclear weapons testing (Takahashi et al. 2003; Simon et al. 2006). For a better perspective, the values of absorbed radiation dose recorded were as high as 6 Gy (in the case of Japanese fishing vessel. Lucky Dragon, close to the contaminated area, with 23 people on board), in comparison, for example, with the 1 mGy value of the average individual effective dose of radiation due to natural radioactive materials in the Earth’s crust and cosmic radiations during 1 year (Hundahl 1998; Simon et al. 2006). However, the dose rate of ionizing radiation due to natural sources varies considerably in the global context, one example being the Earth’s crust, which, in particular situations, may feature high levels of radioactive material, depending on the rock lithology (Ramasamy et al. 2012; Ion 2013).
ncbi...
Though results were classified in their earliest decades, extensive data from these tests revealed that the use of nuclear weapons could cause major disruptions to temperature patterns, sunlight, and precipitation. Into the 1970s and 80s, it became clearer that such nuclear weapons effects could cause more geographically dispersed and longer-enduring harm than previously realized.
As a side effect, the world began to learn more about climate change as well. These decades of work to understand nuclear weapons effects contributed to broader understanding of atmospheric physics and other areas of science and modeling. Such advances contributed to the early warnings by scientists that the world was warming in the alarming ways that we now see every day.
There is no agreement regarding the exact role of this work in driving more responsible pathways regarding nuclear weapons in those decades. Yet deepening classified knowledge of more extensive effects of nuclear weapons use from more-advanced models, and the public emergence of discourse on this topic, coincided with increasing movements toward arms control, mutual restraints, and the countries possessing most of the world’s nuclear weapons decreasing their arsenals substantially.
climateandsecurity.org
skepticalscience.com
The impacts of nuclear war on the climate represent another major historical intersection between climate science and nuclear affairs. Without the work done by nuclear weapons designers and testers, scientists would know much less than they do now about the atmosphere. In particular, this research has contributed enormously to knowledge about both carbon dioxide, which raises Earth’s temperature, and aerosols, which lower it. Without climate models, scientists and political leaders would not have understood the full extent of nuclear weapons’ power to annihilate not only human beings, but other species as well.
sciencedaily.com
According to the data provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute platform, 2053 nuclear tests were conducted worldwide during 1945–2006 (Fedchenko and Hellgren 2007). The majority (85 %) were conducted by the USA and the USSR during 1945–1992, while 14.5 % (300 tests) were conducted by the United Kingdom, France, and China (Fig. 1a, b), and less than 1 % by India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
Therefore, the thermonuclear tests conducted during 1950–1960 almost doubled the concentration of isotope 14C in the atmosphere, as a result of excessive injection of radioactive material into the stratosphere (Goodsite et al. 2001). Thus, the premises were created for an accelerated transfer of that isotope to the geospheres (atmosphere–ocean–biosphere), which resulted in the drop of 14C concentrations in the atmosphere, starting from 1964 through to the present time (Krakauer et al. 2006).
Following detailed investigations, it was found that over the last five decades, there has been a continuous transfer of the radionuclide 14C from the atmosphere into the ocean (as far as the North Atlantic is concerned), but there are differences in terms of its assimilation by the marine environment. This means that an amplitude fluctuation of maximum–minimum values exists, which was significantly attenuated and also much delayed compared with the concentration values in the atmosphere (peaks during 1964–1965 followed by a constant decline up to the present time, compared with the values from the marine environment, peaking in 1974 followed by a steady decline up to the year of the latest available data, i.e., 1996) (Fig. 3b). This situation is primarily due to the much larger marine carbon-storage reservoirs, compared with the atmospheric-storage reservoirs, as well as with regional hydrographical and biogeochemical features (Scourse et al. 2012).
One of the biggest environmental disasters from the nuclear tests period was caused by the USA in the North Pacific, this being the case of radioactive contamination in the wake of the Castle Bravo nuclear test on the Bikini atoll, in 1954 (Fig. 6). Pollution of marine ecosystems in the region, and particularly the impact on the local population in terms of the drastic increase of thyroid cancer incidence as a result of the population’s exposure to extremely high doses of radiation, were the negative consequences of the most serious episode of radioactive contamination in the history of nuclear weapons testing (Takahashi et al. 2003; Simon et al. 2006). For a better perspective, the values of absorbed radiation dose recorded were as high as 6 Gy (in the case of Japanese fishing vessel. Lucky Dragon, close to the contaminated area, with 23 people on board), in comparison, for example, with the 1 mGy value of the average individual effective dose of radiation due to natural radioactive materials in the Earth’s crust and cosmic radiations during 1 year (Hundahl 1998; Simon et al. 2006). However, the dose rate of ionizing radiation due to natural sources varies considerably in the global context, one example being the Earth’s crust, which, in particular situations, may feature high levels of radioactive material, depending on the rock lithology (Ramasamy et al. 2012; Ion 2013).
ncbi...
Though results were classified in their earliest decades, extensive data from these tests revealed that the use of nuclear weapons could cause major disruptions to temperature patterns, sunlight, and precipitation. Into the 1970s and 80s, it became clearer that such nuclear weapons effects could cause more geographically dispersed and longer-enduring harm than previously realized.
As a side effect, the world began to learn more about climate change as well. These decades of work to understand nuclear weapons effects contributed to broader understanding of atmospheric physics and other areas of science and modeling. Such advances contributed to the early warnings by scientists that the world was warming in the alarming ways that we now see every day.
There is no agreement regarding the exact role of this work in driving more responsible pathways regarding nuclear weapons in those decades. Yet deepening classified knowledge of more extensive effects of nuclear weapons use from more-advanced models, and the public emergence of discourse on this topic, coincided with increasing movements toward arms control, mutual restraints, and the countries possessing most of the world’s nuclear weapons decreasing their arsenals substantially.
climateandsecurity.org
I don't need to use google to find scientific papers, I do environmental impact assessments for work. I write the papers. I use UK government, international government, metrological, university, and other independent databases for my research. Most importantly, all data is independently peer reviewed unlike a lot of stuff from twitter, reddit, google, etc. Maybe you should read some of the sources provided in this thread since you asked for someone to explain why your grass isn't greener because there's unlimited "food".
So your issue is tax not climate change? Taxes and climate change are completely separate issues, personally I don't think taxes are high enough. How much profit should industry be allowed to make at the expense of the environment? Is Shell's one year profit of £32 billion after tax not enough for you? Poor BP only made £23 billion, damn that tax man! Good thing they've got climate change deniers fighting their corner, they obviously need the help! One day they'll catch up to Exxon's £46 billion after tax profit. It's a disgusting level of profit when average people are being hit by a cost of living crisis. Hell, it's a disgusting level of profit, full stop.
The UK's carbon tax is based on per tonne of CO2 released. Not you, any member of the public, or the average small business will be affected by that. So you tell me, apart from road tax which we've always paid (£30 to £230 for the average car), what tax are you talking about? How much "CO2 tax" are you paying or are you just repeating the lines from some corporate shill who these taxes are really aimed at?
Here's an example since you like to keep repeating that we don't have a stable climate like it's some excuse to continue on blindly. Metrological records in the UK go back a long way and are surprisingly detailed. The first recorded drought was 1850. Then 1880, 1933, 1976, 1984, 1995, 2006, 2012, 2016, 2018, 2022. Not to mention major flood events in 2007, 2009, 2013/2014, 2015, and 2019/2020. Ignoring the cause, it's not hard to draw your own conclusions that extreme weather is becoming more frequent.
The prediction is that England's demand for water will exceed supply by 2045. Likely a worst case scenario but even if it's 2060, lets see if deniers are still whining about the big bad tax man and imaginary taxes when you're paying £50 for a bottle of water.
It's like they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You've asked someone to explain it to you clearly and people have, but you were all talk and don't have an open mind. There's no discussing/arguing/educating with people who can't possibly conceive they might be wrong or missed the point.
Like I said before, I don't think we know all the factors affecting climate change (natural or man-made) but reducing the toxins we pump into the air when there are now viable alternatives cannot be a bad thing. One thing we do know is that it's about time corporations started paying to clean up after themselves, they can more than afford it.
And climate deniers are the new cult, it's all about money and tax, not the actual issues or facts. Does it makes you feel special that you and some rando’s on twitter have “figured out a conspiracy” from your couch when researchers with significantly more experience, equipment, and resources from all around the world, including countries that hate each other, all agree on it?
Do you think China is switching to low carbon energy and banning combustion cars because the USA asked nicely?
Ever consider that these "taxes" you keep going on about are mainly aimed at large corporations and has minimal effect on the average person? Exxon have been lobbying against climate change since the 70s to protect their profit and have been sued and fined repeatedly for spreading misinformation but that doesn't stop the denier cult from lapping it up. Deniers are lobbying for corporations free of charge and they think the rest of the world are the ones "falling for it". That's misdirection Harry Houdini would be proud of.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 341
- Country
Sponsored Links
