NationStates Jolt Archive

Why dont you ever consider 30 years of Russian nuclear testing on Novaya Zemlya island in the arctic, or the graveyard of nuclear reactors in the barents sea, or the decaying hulls and subs at anchor in northern ports?

The energy embodied in a nuke is going to have warming effects, be disruptive to weather patterns(the shockwave from the last russian nuke test circled the globe more than 11 times), and latent radioactivity would have a warming effect for decades.

Add to this all the american testing too! Seems to me that it would take thousands of years for conventional pollution to match the effects of ONE nuke.

Why dont you ever consider 30 years of Russian nuclear testing on Novaya Zemlya island in the arctic, or the graveyard of nuclear reactors in the barents sea, or the decaying hulls and subs at anchor in northern ports?

The energy embodied in a nuke is going to have warming effects, be disruptive to weather patterns(the shockwave from the last russian nuke test circled the globe more than 11 times), and latent radioactivity would have a warming effect for decades.

Add to this all the american testing too! Seems to me that it would take thousands of years for conventional pollution to match the effects of ONE nuke.
You think THAT'S bad? How about the top secret Russian doomsday device in the perpetually fog-shrouded wasteland below the Arctic peaks of the Zhokhov Islands?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

You think THAT'S bad? How about the top secret Russian doomsday device in the perpetually fog-shrouded wasteland below the Arctic peaks of the Zhokhov Islands?! :eek: :eek: :eek:
There are lots of doomsday devices. Elaborate.

Nuclear testing hasn't been exactly embraced by environmental groups, do you really have a point here?

But for the record, you seriously underestimate the the daily damage that a couple of hundred million cars can do.

Why dont you ever consider 30 years of Russian nuclear testing on Novaya Zemlya island in the arctic, or the graveyard of nuclear reactors in the barents sea, or the decaying hulls and subs at anchor in northern ports?

The energy embodied in a nuke is going to have warming effects, be disruptive to weather patterns(the shockwave from the last russian nuke test circled the globe more than 11 times), and latent radioactivity would have a warming effect for decades.

Add to this all the american testing too! Seems to me that it would take thousands of years for conventional pollution to match the effects of ONE nuke.Because only France is actively testing nuclear weapons currently (iirc)?

Nuclear testing hasn't been exactly embraced by environmental groups, do you really have a point here?

But for the record, you seriously underestimate the the daily damage that a couple of hundred million cars can do.
Oh no, I love nukes! Yay! Nukes!

There are lots of doomsday devices. Elaborate.
Alas, the Russians could not keep up with the expense of the arms race, the space race, and the peace race, not while their people demanded more nylons and washing machines. They had to build it, for fear of a doomsday gap.

This (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) will explain all. Nukes really won't warm the planet. If you wanted to do it with nukes, you'd need lots of the SLAMs from Project Pluto flying all over the place and you'd still do very little.

And I meant "what doomsday device are you refering to?"

This (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) will explain all. Nukes really won't warm the planet. If you wanted to do it with nukes, you'd need lots of the SLAMs from Project Pluto flying all over the place and you'd still do very little.

And I meant "what doomsday device are you refering to?"
That guy who does that website also said that smoking and second hand smoke isn't harmful.

Well second hand smoke itsn't as bad as you think. It's unpleasent but when somebody says 'any amount is deadly' I just take a deep breath and ask if I've got cancer. All he said was that it's overstated. Yes smoking ain't good for you but thousands won't die just because they stand next to you. Sometimes people just get lung cancer even though they never smoked. It happens. It's not because some guy on the corner was smoking.

Well second hand smoke itsn't as bad as you think. It's unpleasent but when somebody says 'any amount is deadly' I just take a deep breath and ask if I've got cancer.
Well, yeah. That's of course false. He might also be right about Nukes. But frankly, I wouldn't trust a word out of that guys mouth.

You think THAT'S bad? How about the top secret Russian doomsday device in the perpetually fog-shrouded wasteland below the Arctic peaks of the Zhokhov Islands?! :eek: :eek: :eek:
We had heard that America was already developing such a device! Our source was the New York Times!

Well, yeah. That's of course false. He might also be right about Nukes. But frankly, I wouldn't trust a word out of that guys mouth.
I said that about nukes. ME. Me, me, me. Me too. All me about the nukes. Nukes don't do jack s*** to the atmosphere besides shove it to one side.

I said that about nukes. ME. Me, me, me. Me too. All me about the nukes. Nukes don't do jack s*** to the atmosphere besides shove it to one side.
Alrighty...

Well second hand smoke itsn't as bad as you think. It's unpleasent but when somebody says 'any amount is deadly' I just take a deep breath and ask if I've got cancer. All he said was that it's overstated. Yes smoking ain't good for you but thousands won't die just because they stand next to you. Sometimes people just get lung cancer even though they never smoked. It happens. It's not because some guy on the corner was smoking.


Quit trying to make it sound as if anyone's claiming that second hand smoke is instantly deadly. You know very well that it increases the risk of cancer, and no one's ever claimed any more than that. I do admire your flair for strawmen, though.

Seems to me that it would take thousands of years for conventional pollution to match the effects of ONE nuke.

I've been to a picnic, a world fair and a rodeo, and thats the supidest thing I ever heard

I've been to a picnic, a world fair and a rodeo, and thats the supidest thing I ever heardSo you've never been to a political convention, have you?

Do we get bonus points for stupidity on this board nowadays?

I'm too gobsmacked to even come up with a stupid reply to the start of this thread, so I'll try maths instead.

Humans burn about 80 million barrels of oil a day. The density of oil is about 0.9 so there are about 7 barrels to a ton. Oil is about 85% carbon. That mean that oil alone is adding about 3.5 billion tons of carbon to the air a year. When you add carbon from coal and gas the total comes to about 7 billion tons a year. This combines with oxygen to form about 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Since the atmosphere weighs about 510,000,000,000,000,000 tons, and the current concentration is about 0.0381%, this means humans are raising CO2 concentrations by about 1.34%. Some of this is absorbed by plants and rocks and the ocean, but a lot of it isn't.

Currently human beings detonate 0 atomic bombs per year in the atmosphere. Atom bombs do not create greenhouses gases as far as I know, but do tend to suck a lot of dust and smoke high into the atmosphere which tends to have a cooling effect, not a warming effect. A typical volcanic erruption releases far more energy than an atomic bomb. Although volcanoes realease some carbon dioxide (volcanic activity releases less than a fifth the amount that burning fossil fuels does) their effect is to lower temperatures, at least in the short term.

So, Notaxia, you gonna come back and tell us how you managed to be so horribly wrong? or are you just a rather lazy troll?

So you've never been to a political convention, have you?

Unfortunalty no. Just alot of Peter Sellers movies ;)

There are lots of doomsday devices. Elaborate.

Well there's the Republican Stupification ray which may increase the mean density (to say nothing of the dense meanness) of the human race to the point where individual human beings are capable of collapsing into black holes. Already Corneliu, Eutrusca, and Barrygoldwater allow no enlightenment to escape their presence. Soon, no matter how quick a thinker you are, you will not be able to reach the escape velocity of Conservatism.

I said that about nukes. ME. Me, me, me. Me too. All me about the nukes. Nukes don't do jack s*** to the atmosphere besides shove it to one side.
Hehehe. Take it easy. :p

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/atomrofl.gif

I'm too gobsmacked to even come up with a stupid reply to the start of this thread, so I'll try maths instead.

Humans burn about 80 million barrels of oil a day. The density of oil is about 0.9 so there are about 7 barrels to a ton. Oil is about 85% carbon. That mean that oil alone is adding about 3.5 billion tons of carbon to the air a year. When you add carbon from coal and gas the total comes to about 7 billion tons a year. This combines with oxygen to form about 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Since the atmosphere weighs about 510,000,000,000,000,000 tons, and the current concentration is about 0.0381%, this means humans are raising CO2 concentrations by about 1.34%. Some of this is absorbed by plants and rocks and the ocean, but a lot of it isn't.

Currently human beings detonate 0 atomic bombs per year in the atmosphere. Atom bombs do not create greenhouses gases as far as I know, but do tend to suck a lot of dust and smoke high into the atmosphere which tends to have a cooling effect, not a warming effect. A typical volcanic erruption releases far more energy than an atomic bomb. Although volcanoes realease some carbon dioxide (volcanic activity releases less than a fifth the amount that burning fossil fuels does) their effect is to lower temperatures, at least in the short term.


At last, someone with a bit of sense. While all explosives will release some gases, the amount released in a nuclear weapon detonation are equivalent to running a Ford Mondeo down the motorway at 70 mph for about three minutes. As you have said, they do much more to throw dust and debris into the atmosphere, lowering the average heat energy received from the sun... and creating some rather astounding sunsets.
With your volcanic point, you forgot to mention the release of sulphur dioxide, which volcanoes release in abundance, and as a greenhouse gas is 5 times more effective than CO2, in effect it would take 1kg of sulphur dioxide to do the warming of 5kg of CO2. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't cut down on emissions, far from it. I own and live on my farm, where I have several large solar cells dotted about the estate, a few wind turbines and a small hydro-electric generator on the weir of the river running through my land. I actually sell 1000kW per year back to the power board. Admittly it cost me around £50,000 to get all these devices, but I am not using any fossil fuels to heat and light my home, and these will out last me by a fair few decades. My grandchildren will still be using them. Unfortunately very few other people are able to take such action, so CO2 emissions are still set to rise over the next 10 years... So much for the Kyoto agreement...

Well there's the Republican Stupification ray which may increase the mean density (to say nothing of the dense meanness) of the human race to the point where individual human beings are capable of collapsing into black holes. Already Corneliu, Eutrusca, and Barrygoldwater allow no enlightenment to escape their presence. Soon, no matter how quick a thinker you are, you will not be able to reach the escape velocity of Conservatism.

I am so glad I don't have any reason to go back to the US these days. This RSR... does it come in the form of an evil witch called Ann Coulter? Or do they just aim it at babies and hey-presto! a new generation of very stupid, very trigger-happy, very paranoid people?

Okay eco freaks?

I asked this before but unsupprisingly got no answer, so I'll try again.

I can understand why some Christians try to poo poo evolution, because(to their minds) if evolution is right then the bible is wrong and bang goes their faith, please remeber I said some Christians, some of them(the sensible ones) see no problems with God creating the world via evolution.

I cannot though understand the naysaying on global warming, or anti eco sentiments. The only thing that sounds remotly plasuible to me is just some anti left feeling, what ever he left says we have to say the opposite. If this is true, then you really don't know how to think for yourselves. I even saw that David Cameron on TV the other day saying that of course our parties disagree with a lot of things but where we do agree then we must work together.

So tell me, you people that bandy around phrases like eco freaks(coz it's freaky to be worried about the planet you live on?) whats it all about umm?

Alas, the Russians could not keep up with the expense of the arms race, the space race, and the peace race, not while their people demanded more nylons and washing machines. They had to build it, for fear of a doomsday gap.

I'll be down in the mine, with ten women, waiting for the rest of you.

I'll be down in the mine, with ten women, waiting for the rest of you.

The mine is radioactive of its own accord.

Just to elaborate on why nuclear weapons emit very little CO2: The only chemical reactions going on in a nuclear weapon are in the explosion which is used to increase the temperature and pressure enough to start the nuclear reaction. This comprises very, very little of the overall explosion, and is equivalent to nothing more than a few pounds of TNT. The TNT sets of a nuclear fission reaction, which is simply Uranium and/or Plutonium splitting to form smaller elements (not including carbon), and in H-bombs, this reaction is used to increase the temperature and pressure enough to set off the nuclear fusion reaction, which is usually deuterium and tritium combining to form helium (plus a neutron.) So the only carbon released by a nuclear weapon is the equivalent of a few pounds of TNT, or as an earlier poster noted, driving your ford pickup for about 3 minutes.

So the only carbon released by a nuclear weapon is the equivalent of a few pounds of TNT, or as an earlier poster noted, driving your ford pickup for about 3 minutes.

You know, this kind of statement brings to mind a very wierd concept. That of a TNT powered Ford pickup.

So tell me, you people that bandy around phrases like eco freaks(coz it's freaky to be worried about the planet you live on?) whats it all about umm?

You have to understand something about conservative thinkers. They don't believe that knowledge is based on, well, knowledge. If you have $200 in one bank account and $200 in another bank account then a conservative would say that you have two $200 dollars not $400. If you put it together it could equal as much as $1,000, and they will argue such if they're trying to get a loan based on the strength of their liquid assets. It could add up to as little as $100 and they will argue that if they're trying to explain how much taxes they owe.

To a Conservative predictions are not based on facts, they're based on hope. If you argue that 200 plus 200 equals 400 to the Republican trying to take out a loan, he will assume that it's because you're an economic pessimist. If you present your mathematics to the Republican getting audited, well he'll assume it's because you're a tax-happy liberal. In no case will a Republican attribute your belief in 2+2=4 to a knowledge of basic arithmatic.

You know, this kind of statement brings to mind a very wierd concept. That of a TNT powered Ford pickup.

Well, they tried that with the Ford Pinto on NBC news. It got ratings and a lawsuit, but not much else.

Oh, no. I might have been doing a little trolling with the title. As you all know, you have to be a little over the top to get a thead noticed at times. I fully intented to come back though.

Next.. I dont recall even insinuating CO2 production in nuclear explosions, but I like how you glom onto CO2 as the be-all end-all of global weather change. My poorly worded little rant didnt convey my ultimate point: Shoving around(and up) large parts of the atmosphere isnt very good, but nobody seems to even consider it.

Secondly, I am conservative, yes. I've never voted otherwise; it doesnt make strategic sense where I live, even though it goes against the bulk of the population most of the time.

Third. You cannot connect fundamentalist thought to conservative values, as you seem to be doing, New Domici. If I'm dumb, its because I am dumb, not because I thump bibles. I wouldnt want to live in any part of the world that they control. Gays, lesbians and priests aught to be able to marry without discrimination.

I live in the north. Certainly not in the arctic circle, but where I live we get 3 hours of true night in the summer. From about 11pm to 2am, the sun is down.
At 3am the sunrise is still a thin slit, but its there.

I experience what some call global warming. I hate the term of course, because it doesnt quite convey whats really happening, does it? Rather than simple warming, its like an unsettling, a perturbing of the atmosphere.

Its warmer here; we routinely dont get snow until right before xmas.

Anyway, onto the rant proper, hopefully a little more rational.

A typical nuke raises its stem and mushroom cloud several miles into the atmosphere.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mushroomcloud_Size.png

Shows a good chart of yield verses size. ...the mushroom cloud of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rose up to approx. 12 kilometres.

Here is a breakdown of the layers of the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

You can see that the higher yield nukes made explosions that pushed through the troposphere where all conventional weather, animal activity, and non-military flight takes place. They push into the stratosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere


The stratosphere is a region of intense interactions among radiative, dynamical, and chemical processes, in which horizontal mixing of gaseous components proceeds much more rapidly than vertical mixing. An interesting feature of stratospheric circulation is the quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) in the tropical latitudes, which is driven by gravity waves that are convectively generated in the troposphere. The QBO induces a secondary circulation that is important for the global stratospheric transport of tracers such as ozone or water vapor.


and it bursts into the meso sphere. Note that in northern climes, the tropo, strato and mesospheres are much lower.

So whats the effects? Well, first, you get a whole lot of dust being pumped into the atmosphere in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s. As others stated, that cools the planet. I remember how bitterly cold the 70s were: we wore snow suits under our halloween costumes. It was 40 below at the end of october. I also remember "omg! global cooling!"

Secondly, you have disruptive effects from large yield nukes. Not only do they have 'pretty' mushroom clouds, but awesome hurricane-like winds. They blow outward at hundreds of miles an hour, and then the resultant vacuum pulls a second wind inward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Novaya_Zemlya_position.png

...is where the russians did their testing. You can see its at the tail end of the trade winds that deliver warm air and water to europe.

Now I havent been there, but to my understanding, europe is losing its mild winters, and having heat waves in summer. This is consistant with global warming, of course.

So what the hell is my point? Not that global warming isnt occuring, nor that CO2 has no effect. What I am getting at is that nuclear explosions have effects that are not limited to local scale weather disruption, further, that the effects of stabilization may kick start other weather phenomenon(that is the stupidest word ever.)

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

Thats the biggest bomb ever.


The area of effectively complete destruction extended to 25 km, and ordinary houses would be subjected to severe damage out to 35 km. The destruction and damage of buildings at much greater ranges than this which occurred was due to the effects of atmospheric focusing, an unpredictable but unavoidable phenomenon with very large atmospheric explosions that is capable of generating localized regions of destructive blast pressure at great distances (even exceeding 1000 km).


So 1000 km in all directions can have have hurricane destructive winds. That is the distance between Los angeles and Denver, or the distance between Chicago and New York.

And dont forget that the winds blow upwards too.

Thats a huge mass of air that is getting displaced, and a good portion of it is in the ozone important upper atmosphere. Tsar Bomba was ...mushroom cloud rose as high as 64 kilometers (210,000 ft).

which in the arctic is in the mesosphere, where the ozone lays. Thats jsut the damned cloud too. They busted a big hole in the atmosphere.

Anyway, The nuke testing world wide probably had more effect than we think, but nobody really discusses that.

As can be seen, Tsar bomba punched a hole in the atmosphere, created disruptive winds, and changed the surface albedo of an island.

I own and live on my farm, where I have several large solar cells dotted about the estate, a few wind turbines and a small hydro-electric generator on the weir of the river running through my land. I actually sell 1000kW per year back to the power board. Admittly it cost me around £50,000 to get all these devices, but I am not using any fossil fuels to heat and light my home, and these will out last me by a fair few decades. My grandchildren will still be using them...

It's good to hear that you're not only not contributing to CO2 emissions but helping to reduce them. I've got my fingers crossed that solar power will actually drop below the retail cost of power and take off as companies and privately owned houses use their roof space to save money. I don't know how lucky we'll be in that regard, but I'm optimistic.

Well second hand smoke itsn't as bad as you think. It's unpleasent but when somebody says 'any amount is deadly' I just take a deep breath and ask if I've got cancer. All he said was that it's overstated. Yes smoking ain't good for you but thousands won't die just because they stand next to you. Sometimes people just get lung cancer even though they never smoked. It happens. It's not because some guy on the corner was smoking.


Although your not not acualy smoking, second hand smoke is actualy worse because it's un filtered lung cancer isn't the only problem, asma (for those who have), asma for those who my start developing it, bronchitous, ear infections the list goes on, i don't care how you kill your self just don't kill me.

Although your not not acualy smoking, second hand smoke is actualy worse because it's un filtered lung cancer isn't the only problem, asma (for those who have), asma for those who my start developing it, bronchitous, ear infections the list goes on, i don't care how you kill your self just don't kill me.
Actually it's already passed through two filters: the filter on the fag and the lungs of the smoker. Asma, bronchitous, ear infections, cancer, and just about everything else you can think of still happened before anyone had antyhing to smoke. Disease and defects happen. Sometimes there's an external cause and sometimes people are just defective. The only thing certain in life is death. We don't know when or how it'll happen with absolute certainty.

Third. You cannot connect fundamentalist thought to conservative values, as you seem to be doing, New Domici. If I'm dumb, its because I am dumb, not because I thump bibles. I wouldnt want to live in any part of the world that they control. Gays, lesbians and priests aught to be able to marry without discrimination.

You may feel that you, yourself, are a secular conservative who believes in liberty and personal choice and so on, with nothing in common with the religious nutbags that make the press these days.

Sadly, you can't vote for one set of values and not the other if you vote Republican. If you want a conservative then your only real choice is to register as a democrat and vote in the primaries for the more conservative democrat.

Whatever you may tell yourself about the pessimism of the Cassandras, the sad fact is that the Republican party is a corrupt monolith in the hands of Fundamentalist Theocrats. Remember, Cassandra wasn't tragic because she was wrong, she was tragic because no one else listened.

And my mini treatise on conservative epystimology had nothing to do with religion. It was about the Iraq debate.