How about a "nuclear cool down"?

kyzr

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2009
35,227
26,497
2,905
The AL part of PA
Just tossing out an idea to potentially cool down "global warming" and hopefully get weather patterns back to normal.

There are vast deserts with very fine sand, very much like talcum powder.

Imagine a "clean" nuclear bomb or two launching tons of dust into the atmosphere similar to the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa. A "mini-Krakatoa".

Global climate​

The eruption caused a volcanic winter. In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by 0.4 °C (0.72 °F). The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 970 millimeters (38.18 in) and San Diego 660 millimeters (25.97 in) – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption

Are we desperate yet? What options do we have? Eliminate fossil fuels? Not happening. China is building coal powerplants. There is no free energy solution.

These nuclear dust explosions could happen as often as needed. Just sayin'.
 
Just tossing out an idea to potentially cool down "global warming" and hopefully get weather patterns back to normal.

There are vast deserts with very fine sand, very much like talcum powder.

Imagine a "clean" nuclear bomb or two launching tons of dust into the atmosphere similar to the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa. A "mini-Krakatoa".

Global climate​

The eruption caused a volcanic winter. In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by 0.4 °C (0.72 °F). The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 970 millimeters (38.18 in) and San Diego 660 millimeters (25.97 in) – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption

Are we desperate yet? What options do we have? Eliminate fossil fuels? Not happening. China is building coal powerplants. There is no free energy solution.

These nuclear dust explosions could happen as often as needed. Just sayin'.
climate change is a hoax,, get over it,,
 
Fuck it.

6rgniu.jpg


R.0f516b394c415f310b6f63ebb1aa56cf
 
'Cause radiation maybe?
Pick your poison. There are nukes with minimal radioactivity. IMHO there are no other viable solutions. We are NOT going to reduce CO2 emissions. As the other OP said, we're past the "point of no return".

Look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima, Chernobyl, and TMI. There are only very local hot spots that can be walled off.
I'm thinking that in a few big deserts low level radiation won't matter, at least as much as global cooling would.
 
Last edited:
climate change is a hoax,, get over it,,
Some say its a hoax. Some say its science.
When you look at the water levels in reservoirs, and the extent of polar ice, it looks serious.

NOAA says it look bad.

Alabama profs say its slowing down.
 
Just tossing out an idea to potentially cool down "global warming" and hopefully get weather patterns back to normal.

There are vast deserts with very fine sand, very much like talcum powder.

Imagine a "clean" nuclear bomb or two launching tons of dust into the atmosphere similar to the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa. A "mini-Krakatoa".

Global climate​

The eruption caused a volcanic winter. In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by 0.4 °C (0.72 °F). The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 970 millimeters (38.18 in) and San Diego 660 millimeters (25.97 in) – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption

Are we desperate yet? What options do we have? Eliminate fossil fuels? Not happening. China is building coal powerplants. There is no free energy solution.

These nuclear dust explosions could happen as often as needed. Just sayin'.

Sulfates.........
 
There are nukes with minimal radioactivity.
Define "minimal"? All nukes create radioactive fallout and the ones with the least fallout are the airburst variety. Those tend to limit the amount of material being thrown into the air so they won't accomplish your goal as easily. Maybe try a very low-yield next to an active volcano? Gopher it buds....
 
Silica...

Nope. Too heavy.

One geoengineering technique, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), would pump millions of tiny sulfate particles into the stratosphere, where they would reflect a fraction of sunlight back into space before it reaches the Earth. That essentially would simulate the sunlight-blocking effect of large volcanic eruptions such as the 2001 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which pumped 15 million tons (13.6 million metric tons) of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere — resulting in a global temperature drop of 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius) that lasted for 15 months.

 
When did you stop using all hydrocarbon based goods and services?
Did you actually read the OP? Do you think it's reasonable to blow up deserts with Bombs just to avoid dealing with our climate mess and the politically powerful industry that caused it?
 
Some say its a hoax. Some say its science.
When you look at the water levels in reservoirs, and the extent of polar ice, it looks serious.

NOAA says it look bad.

Alabama profs say its slowing down.
youre proof theres a sucker born everyday,,
 
NOAA says it look bad.

It's NOAA's job to say it looks bad.

If you worked for an ad-agency that was hired to orchestrate a come-back of Beanie Babies ... you wouldn't be doing your job if you weren't trying to convince everyone in America that Beanie Babies are the best thing since spice racks.

Selling your product is what agencies do ...

Ewo8Sf2W8AUGKJy.jpg
 
Define "minimal"? All nukes create radioactive fallout and the ones with the least fallout are the airburst variety. Those tend to limit the amount of material being thrown into the air so they won't accomplish your goal as easily. Maybe try a very low-yield next to an active volcano? Gopher it buds....
OK, let the global warming continue...
 

Forum List

Back
Top