A nuclear conflict puts alot of crud into the upper atmosphere and causes a cooling of the planet....so the scientists say. The level of emissions of certain gases into the atmosphere is causing global warming....so the scientists say.

A properly managed series of small nuclear conflicts might be able to put the planet back into balance....so chownah says.

Chownah

Chownah has been reading one of the latest best sellers !

No ?

A nuclear conflict puts alot of crud into the upper atmosphere and causes a cooling of the planet....so the scientists say. The level of emissions of certain gases into the atmosphere is causing global warming....so the scientists say.

A properly managed series of small nuclear conflicts might be able to put the planet back into balance....so chownah says.

Chownah

Yes.

Duh.

No, I'm illiterate. I just saw a reference to nuclear winter in the Yahoo news section and came up with the idea.

Chownah

No, I'm illiterate. I just saw a reference to nuclear winter in the Yahoo news section and came up with the idea.

Chownah

Yahoo has all the answers.

Isn't there a school of thought that global warming is a natural phenonemon and that it is proceeded by an ice age?

There's all kinds of theories out there.....but don't you find it comforting that a solution has been found in case the warming gets our of hand?

Chownah

But would that not mean a 'few' people dying?

In essence what you ask, is what happens naturally, however the time scale is a little different. As humans we think that years and decades are significant periods of time, in geological terms they are very brief.

The scientists are getting a bit hot under the collar about the rate of change in the atmosphere and the rate of change of weather events. In the past there has been far more radical changes in the atmosphere and the weather, however as best they can determine these changes took thousands of years rather than decades. Heck the magnetic pole has swapped ends a couple of times, that must mess with the navigating systems of any sentient creatures at the time.

At the moment the white coat brigade are relying to the best data they have, which dates back to the mid 1800's with some data available back to the 1700's. Before that good records and recording instruments were not considered necessary, especially for weather it was wet or dry, hot or cold and so on. This is a relatively short time for predicting trends on a geological scale. To go further back they rely on increasingly less accurate systems of looking at written history which is subjective, or using dating systems that place object such as trees into a given period in time. It is harder to year on year data using these methods.

One of the better sources of ideas as to what may happen is the changes that occurred when the Indonesian island of Krakatoa erupted on August 26-27, 1883. This caused changes on the atmosphere across the globe for months. This alone was not enough to trigger a 'nuclear winter" so the amount of stuff put into the atmosphere to cause a sudden winter effect would be huge, probably in itself making breathing difficult at best.

A nuclear conflict puts alot of crud into the upper atmosphere and causes a cooling of the planet....so the scientists say. The level of emissions of certain gases into the atmosphere is causing global warming....so the scientists say.

A properly managed series of small nuclear conflicts might be able to put the planet back into balance....so chownah says.

Chownah

can we start by bombing Washinton, Israel and california?

We might even get world peace out of the bargain.

But would that not mean a 'few' people dying?

Yes, I do believe that in a nuclear conflict a 'few' people would die....but then that's the nature of nuclear conflicts isn't it?.......I simply don't see how it could be avoided....but you know what they say...."To make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".

Chownahaha

But would that not mean a 'few' people dying?

Yes, I do believe that in a nuclear conflict a 'few' people would die....but then that's the nature of nuclear conflicts isn't it?.......I simply don't see how it could be avoided....but you know what they say...."To make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".

Chownahaha

Well lets just hope that the powers that be dont listen to your solution eh!

But would that not mean a 'few' people dying?

Yes, I do believe that in a nuclear conflict a 'few' people would die....but then that's the nature of nuclear conflicts isn't it?.......I simply don't see how it could be avoided....but you know what they say...."To make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".

Chownahaha

Well lets just hope that the powers that be dont listen to your solution eh!

I don't think they have heard about Chownah's solution yet. Bush and Blair got banned from TV before reaching 500 posts. But i think Kim Jong-il is still a member

A nuclear conflict puts alot of crud into the upper atmosphere and causes a cooling of the planet....so the scientists say. The level of emissions of certain gases into the atmosphere is causing global warming....so the scientists say.

A properly managed series of small nuclear conflicts might be able to put the planet back into balance....so chownah says.

Chownah

Well, maybe. But what if you go ahead and have the nuclear blasts fr the desired climatological change, and then a bunch of big volcanoes go off and you get hit by a big astroid. Then you're back to The Mother Of All Ice Ages. Kinda hard to fine tune.

In essence what you ask, is what happens naturally, however the time scale is a little different. As humans we think that years and decades are significant periods of time, in geological terms they are very brief.

Indeed.

For anyone who is interested, this is a good article.

In a geological sense, the global average temperature of the planet is well known, you don't have to stand outside with a thermometer!

As far as Krakatoa is concerned, that was just a fire-cracker compared with this baby. That little bang around 75,000 years ago did cause a climate shift, not large enough to get the glaciers rolling again but nearly brought extinction to the human race (and it's the sole reason why we all came from Africa originally)

As for the next Ice Age, we need to get out of the current one for a few thousand years first

(guess what my first career path was...... yip... Geology Teacher.. how I ended up in IT is a long story )

But would that not mean a 'few' people dying?

Yes, I do believe that in a nuclear conflict a 'few' people would die....but then that's the nature of nuclear conflicts isn't it?.......I simply don't see how it could be avoided....but you know what they say...."To make an omlette you have to break a few eggs".

Chownahaha

Well lets just hope that the powers that be dont listen to your solution eh!

I don't think they have heard about Chownah's solution yet. Bush and Blair got banned from TV before reaching 500 posts. But i think Kim Jong-il is still a member

Nah, they just haven't had the balls to post... How can they invade a software forum with their kinda hardware?

Just don't believe anything anyone tells you! And deny everything! Adopt a pseudonym and go and live on an island somewhere! Keep your head down, don't nail your colours to the mast, do not greet anyboby on the journey! So go now and be careful.

Great idea with the nuclear winter...can Boonie come up with some primary targets to nuke first?

A nuclear conflict puts alot of crud into the upper atmosphere and causes a cooling of the planet....so the scientists say. The level of emissions of certain gases into the atmosphere is causing global warming....so the scientists say.

A properly managed series of small nuclear conflicts might be able to put the planet back into balance....so chownah says.

Chownah

Have you suggested this idea to Al Gore?

Great idea with the nuclear winter...can Boonie come up with some primary targets to nuke first?

Well, the Haj for starters...