Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
7/8/2020 3:01:36 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/10/2005 4:23:13 AM EDT
How does that work?
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:24:57 AM EDT
go to school and learn it
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:25:08 AM EDT
I don't think it is really snow,
but it looks like snow.  

Isn't it just fallout.  radioactive ash from the explosion?

Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:25:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By diabolical_chicken:
go to school and learn it



I am at school.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:25:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By diabolical_chicken:
go to school and learn it



Not something I was ever taught in school.  You?
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:42:40 AM EDT
The winter you are refering to happens because of all the debri in the upper atmosphere(from all the blasts)
The debri filters out the warming sunlight and lowers tempature across the globe.

Hence the term Nuclear winter.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:46:27 AM EDT
Originally postulated by that flaming liberal homosexual Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan was the same environazi who claimed that the oil well fires in Kuwait would also trigger nuclear-winter-like conditons. Seeing how well THAT prediction turned out, you can take his other alarmist bullshit for what it's worth.

I'll never forget the look on his face when he gave a speech at USNA in 1987, and one of the Mids asked him a question about hyperspatial neutrothreading or some such thing, and he just stood there stumped. CLASSIC!

He tried to convince us that nuclear weapons were immoral. Yeah. Right crowd to preach to about nukes back when the Bear was still Public Enemy #1.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:47:35 AM EDT
theory of nuclear winter was that a massive exchange of groundburst atomic weapons would throw enough soil/dirt/ash into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's heat back into space before it reached the ground, thus chilling the atmosphere and creating unseasonably cold temperatures.

However, I tend to think that a nuclear exchange big enough to do that would have required targeting much of the continental US, so we would all be burnt up anyway and wouldn't be alive to give a shit.  Those who survive would probably be ARFCOMmers who would use their ammo/weapon stashes to steal all the coal and women
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:49:51 AM EDT
I cant imagine the exchange it would take to cause a nuclear winter.
Theres been over 2000 test detonations, and some of them really big. Granted, thats over some 20 or 30 years but still..... I think the most in any 1 year was a couple of hundred.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:50:49 AM EDT
Bring it on. I have jackets in my closet I haven't worn in years.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:54:00 AM EDT
...and the snowballs glow at night.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 4:57:37 AM EDT
same as giant meteor VS: the yucatan = dead dino's

Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:02:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By diabolical_chicken:
go to school and learn it



Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:06:58 AM EDT
... A scare tactic promoted by pacifists claiming that a full-scaled nuclear exchange would end life on earth through a series of geophysical changes
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:17:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... A scare tactic promoted by pacifists claiming that a full-scaled nuclear exchange would end life on earth through a series of geophysical changes




They were probably more upset that the Spotted Owl and Scandanavian Otter-Toed Newt would be made extinct than that billions and billions of humans would be killed.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:24:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ring:
same as giant meteor VS: the yucatan = dead dino's




+1.

It requires a fair amount of energy, so odds are we'd all be too dead to notice.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:26:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Ring:
same as giant meteor VS: the yucatan = dead dino's




+1.

It requires a fair amount of energy, so odds are we'd all be too dead to notice.



No it doesn't!

Just keep driving your SUV....

Oh, wait! That's global warming.

Always SOME calamity with the envirowhackjobs, isn't it?
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:42:07 AM EDT
I was never taught anything about "nuclear winter" in school.

But then again we didn't cover astrology, numerology, or reading the bumps on your head either...
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:47:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I was never taught anything about "nuclear winter" in school.

But then again we didn't cover astrology, numerology, or reading the bumps on your head either...




Oh, dude! You didn't NEED to go to school to learn this rubbish!

It was coming, and it was all going to be Reagan's fault, and despite the best efforts of that peace-loving uberleader Gorbechev!
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:50:23 AM EDT
You use Google, Wiki, and other easy-to-use references to find out for yourself.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:52:36 AM EDT
dust in the air blocks sunlight. temps drop and crops die
decade or so ago some big ass volcano blew up in the pacific. for a year or two after that there was less sunlight getting through but it wasn't enough to cause drastic problems
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:53:11 AM EDT
anyone remember the aftermath of the mount St. Helens volcano eruption in 1980/81? over in England we had the coldest winter since 1947, it was reckoned that was caused by the discharge from the volcano. now I don't know how many nukes it would take to equal the power of mother nature, but you see where there might be some basis for the theory.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:56:30 AM EDT
Some even said we didn't need a nuclear blast to create a nuclear winter. So GW (Global Warming) Bush pre-emtively melted it!
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 5:58:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:
anyone remember the aftermath of the mount St. Helens volcano eruption in 1980/81? over in England we had the coldest winter since 1947, it was reckoned that was caused by the discharge from the volcano. now I don't know how many nukes it would take to equal the power of mother nature, but you see where there might be some basis for the theory.



That'll do it too, but typically over a short term. Although in societies where you are totally dependent on that years crop that can be devestating.


Basically, if a bunch of nuclear detonations are throwing a lot of crap into the air, to block out the sun and such, it's all going to be screaming hot from the detonations. So odds are you'd a)die in the initial blasts, b)die from radiation poisoning or c)die from all of other possible effects of having a bunch of nukes going off, killing lots of people, and wiping out transportation, food distribution, medicine, etc.

In other words, nuclear winter is entirely plausable and possible. It just doesn't matter that much, 'cause you'd be dead anyway.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 6:40:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2005 6:42:08 AM EDT by gks452]
Like others have said, you burn every city in USA, USSR, and Europe, and Australia.  Then the smoke blocks all sunlight. The theory as to how long it would last and how bad it would be varied from 1-2 years to 100-200 years.  The average number I remember was 10-20 years. Temps might drop anywhere from 5 degrees to 50 degrees. The ideas that nuclear war would not only kill most people via blast and radiation. But that it would kill all plant life and thus all animal life and therefore there was no way humanity could survive.  They even went so far as to say if A nuked B and B never shot back, that the nuclear winter would still last long enough to kill everyone in A.  No nukes. Give peace a chance. Why can't we all get along? blah blah blah

I've no doubt that the ash in the sky would be a problem. But that volcano in the Philippines only dropped temps by a couple degrees for a few years. My guess is nuclear winter from a total nuclear war would drop the temperature by 10-20 degrees for 10-20 years.  It would be bad but the radiation would be worse.  If we nuked the countries we think need nuking I'd say it would be half as bad.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 1:46:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2005 1:48:13 PM EDT by FOX-]
And all this brings me to my idiotic conclusion of the day.


We need to lauch all our nukes to make a nuclear winter to combat the effects of so called "global warming".
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:03:07 PM EDT
Boom.
Big cloud.
No sun.
Very cold.
You die.

Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:03:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
I cant imagine the exchange it would take to cause a nuclear winter.
Theres been over 2000 test detonations, and some of them really big. Granted, thats over some 20 or 30 years but still..... I think the most in any 1 year was a couple of hundred.


Nuclear tests were generally conducted on the ocean surface or in deserts. Not a lot of buildings and trees around catch fire.

Nuclear exchange would result in huge firestorms as cities and forests burned. That's a lot of ash in the atmosphere.


Originally Posted by Zaphod:
Carl Sagan was the same environazi who claimed that the oil well fires in Kuwait would also trigger nuclear-winter-like conditons. Seeing how well THAT prediction turned out, you can take his other alarmist bullshit for what it's worth.


Just because he was wrong about the effect of a few hundred fires in Kuwait, doesn't necessarily disprove nuclear winter. The amount of material thrown up into the atmosphere by a full-scale nuclear exchange would be thousands of times greater. Its not particularly debated in the scientific community that a nuclear exchange would have climactic repurcussions. Even guys on opposite sides of global warming tend to agree on this one.

The big problem with nuclear winter is that, in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, we wouldn't particularly be in a position to recover from even a year or two of bad harvests. Hard to ship food around the world when many of the big ports are destroyed and fuel is hard to come by.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:03:36 PM EDT
more importantly: "nuclear indian summer"
I've always wanted an explanation of the term..
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:12:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gks452:
I've no doubt that the ash in the sky would be a problem. But that volcano in the Philippines only dropped temps by a couple degrees for a few years. My guess is nuclear winter from a total nuclear war would drop the temperature by 10-20 degrees for 10-20 years.  It would be bad but the radiation would be worse.  If we nuked the countries we think need nuking I'd say it would be half as bad.


You do realize that that's ice age level temperatures. Big ice sheets wouldn't be able to grow in only 10-20 years, but that's a huge swing in temperature. Most perennial crops (trees, vines, bushes) would die. Grain seed would have to be moved hundreds/thousands of miles to locations of suitable temperature, and that's if you could figure out where that would be. The corn currently grown in Iowa, for example, wouldn't survive ten degrees colder average temperature. You'd have to plant the type of wheat they use in the colder upper plains -- and you'd have to get lucky to guess which type, almanacs wouldn't help.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:15:49 PM EDT
The concept of nuclear winter is based off of volcanic eruptions.  When the Earth has a big volcanic eruption, it can change climates and ruin food crops by blocking out the Sun's energy and causing a mini ice age.  For instance, the Myceanean cilivization was thought to have ended because of a huge volcanic eruption that basically blew up a whole island.  

However, what they don't tell you is that a single volcanic eruption will put out way more dust, and ash than all of our nuclear weapons combined.  Look at Mt. St. Helens and how much of the mountain was blown into the atmosphere, a lot more stuff than we could ever do.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:28:34 PM EDT
Thats why I moved down south. I hate winter and I dont care about all you sentimental types who say "Ya, but nuclear spring is so pretty!"
Meh humbug!
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:42:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Basically, if a bunch of nuclear detonations are throwing a lot of crap into the air, to block out the sun and such, it's all going to be screaming hot from the detonations. So odds are you'd a)die in the initial blasts, b)die from radiation poisoning or c)die from all of other possible effects of having a bunch of nukes going off, killing lots of people, and wiping out transportation, food distribution, medicine, etc.

In other words, nuclear winter is entirely plausable and possible. It just doesn't matter that much, 'cause you'd be dead anyway.


That "heat" is short-lived, versus the stuff in the atmosphere that'll hang up there for years.And of course the radioactivity will outlast both.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:46:59 PM EDT
When Mt. St. Helens erupted, three quarters of a cubic MILE of the mountain was blown into the atmosphere.  This produced 540 million TONS of ash.



Non of these eruptions destroyed the earth.

Only environmentalists are arrogant enough to believe that humans can have any significant effect on the planet.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:53:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
When Mt. St. Helens erupted, three quarters of a cubic MILE of the mountain was blown into the atmosphere.  This produced 540 million TONS of ash.

cronopio.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/107-EQandVolcanoes/Lec10/volcfreq.gif

Non of these eruptions destroyed the earth.

Only environmentalists are arrogant enough to believe that humans can have any significant effect on the planet.



Yeah, but that Yellowstone one was pretty bad.  We would be fucked if it went off again, especially in the US.  And it's due.  
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 2:55:22 PM EDT
Has anyone actually looked at this empirically?  I mean, we can get a baseline as to the effect of a certain amount of dust/ash in the sky by looking at past volcanic eruptions/meteor hits.  Then we could compare it to the amount of ash that is kicked up per kiloton of TNT for each nuclear device and get a rough estimate of what kinds of nuclear exchanges would do what.  Has anybody done this or is this just hysteria from the goobers on the left?  
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:00:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:
The concept of nuclear winter is based off of volcanic eruptions.  When the Earth has a big volcanic eruption, it can change climates and ruin food crops by blocking out the Sun's energy and causing a mini ice age.  For instance, the Myceanean cilivization was thought to have ended because of a huge volcanic eruption that basically blew up a whole island.  

However, what they don't tell you is that a single volcanic eruption will put out way more dust, and ash than all of our nuclear weapons combined.  Look at Mt. St. Helens and how much of the mountain was blown into the atmosphere, a lot more stuff than we could ever do.


On the contrary, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that a major nuclear exchange would pour the same order of magnitude of material into the atmosphere as Mt. St. Helens. But in the nuclear exchange scenario, the material would be soot (dark, absorbs lots of sunlight) versus silicates (absorb less sunlight). Also, larger warheads, above a couple megatons, would loft particles significantly higher than volcanoes do.

Don't underestimate the power of E=mc^2!
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:01:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:05:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:09:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chuckstar:
Also, larger warheads, above a couple megatons, would loft particles significantly higher than volcanoes do.


The megatonnage of the weapon won't have any effect on how high the smoke from subsequent fires would rise.  In fact I would think that smoke would rise to a much lower height in the atmosphere than would volcanic ash from explosive eruptions (which is where the whole theory came from in the first place)
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:09:20 PM EDT
Trying to find some estimated fallout mass data but am coming up short.  Most info deals with radiation, but that has little to do with the nuclear winter effect.  More fallout is produced from a ground detonation than from an airburst.  Military weapons mostly use airburst for greater blast radius, a terrorist attack would likely be a ground burst.  Just a guess, but I think it would take all the nukes in the world going off at once to create the same amount of fallout as a single Mt. St. Helens size eruption.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:12:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
It wont hang up there for years and the radioactivity is only an issue near ground zero in the long term, it drops off rather quickly therafter.


I can't recall the source, but I have read that the finer material takes more than a year to settle out.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:18:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
It wont hang up there for years and the radioactivity is only an issue near ground zero in the long term, it drops off rather quickly therafter.


I can't recall the source, but I have read that the finer material takes more than a year to settle out.


Yet another thing to consider is that the nuclear winter theory relied in part on a large amount of material being blasted into the atmosphere by hundreds/thousands of ground burst weapon detonations... mostly ICBM strikes against silos, and some hardened facilities.  With the move away from silo launched ICBM's in large part, most detonations would be airbursts in any current large scale nuclear exchange scenario.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:18:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chuckstar:

Originally Posted By guardian855:
The concept of nuclear winter is based off of volcanic eruptions.  When the Earth has a big volcanic eruption, it can change climates and ruin food crops by blocking out the Sun's energy and causing a mini ice age.  For instance, the Myceanean cilivization was thought to have ended because of a huge volcanic eruption that basically blew up a whole island.  

However, what they don't tell you is that a single volcanic eruption will put out way more dust, and ash than all of our nuclear weapons combined.  Look at Mt. St. Helens and how much of the mountain was blown into the atmosphere, a lot more stuff than we could ever do.


On the contrary, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that a major nuclear exchange would pour the same order of magnitude of material into the atmosphere as Mt. St. Helens. But in the nuclear exchange scenario, the material would be soot (dark, absorbs lots of sunlight) versus silicates (absorb less sunlight). Also, larger warheads, above a couple megatons, would loft particles significantly higher than volcanoes do.

Don't underestimate the power of E=mc^2!



I think a lot of that is overestimating the power of a nuclear device, and grossly overestimates the yield of each warhead.  Most warheads are less than a couple of megatons, a lot are measured in kilotons.  

Also as stated above, Mt. St. Helens threw up over 540 million tons of ash into the air.  Nuclear weapons are just not that powerfull.  
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:23:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2005 3:24:57 PM EDT by METT-T]
Lucifer's Hammer features a nuclear winter.  Not from nukes, tho.  

I'm not scientifically literate enough to make an informed judgement, but if the scenario was being postulated by the left during the Cold War it's probably bullshit.

Oh, and

"Originally postulated by that flaming liberal homosexual Carl Sagan."

for some reason struck me as the funniest thing I've read all day.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:29:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By METT-T:

"Originally postulated by that flaming liberal homosexual Carl Sagan."

for some reason struck me as the funniest thing I've read all day.


Carl wasn't gay guys.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:33:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:34:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:42:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
You use Google, Wiki, and other easy-to-use references to find out for yourself.



Or the G.D. at AR15 if he wants.
Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:48:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FOX-:
And all this brings me to my idiotic conclusion of the day.


We need to lauch all our nukes to make a nuclear winter to combat the effects of so called "global warming".






you win, foxy

Link Posted: 10/10/2005 3:50:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
It wont hang up there for years and the radioactivity is only an issue near ground zero in the long term, it drops off rather quickly therafter.


I can't recall the source, but I have read that the finer material takes more than a year to settle out.



Yep and it is mostly inert by that time too.  It still decays even when suspended.


I didn't say it wasn't inert; being in the atmosphere though, it will still block out the sun.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top