I just KNEW there had to be an easy solution to this!

To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world’s current nuclear arsenal.

The researchers predicted the resulting fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. [...] The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn’t be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but “the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change,” research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest. At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said. After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.




  1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver–why is Tyson such an amiable personality?

    but I found the Isaac Newton lead in to be very informative: These early scientist found/understood/translated the limits of their knowledge as “religion” or the God Head. What they “knew” they describe without god, what they were ignorant of was god’s domain.

    Your process is very similar: what you don’t understand, what is beyond the limits of your knowledge, you call “skepticism.”

    Amusing. but now back to “Beyond Belief”–and I will find the address by Michael Schermer as well. Good Stuff.

  2. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    “15% of the nations most brilliant minds believe in god.” /// Its a fact standing alone that Tyson doesn’t do anything with.

    I think it means nothing to this thread as EVERY opinion has detractors and a minority view. Science is not a club/political party/religion that kicks people out for having minority views. Not often, but enough to matter, minority views become accepted as the majority view (ie-consensus) that has its own detractors.

    What do you want? A simple on/off, black/white, right/wrong, proven/not proven universe?

    Yea, well bunky, thats not the universe you live in. If you want certainty–go for religion. If you want proof–go with the scientific method. When neither provides an answer: go with the best science has to offer.

    Simply really. Mindless skepticism is for dolts.

  3. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    at 19:50===”Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance.” /// Heh, heh. as is mindless skepticism. the kind of analysis that rejects well founded scientific consensus with “that seems minuscule to me?”

    Ha. ha.

    so silly.

  4. Guyver says:

    80, Bobbo,

    the more you post, the more your reveal your abysmal ignorance on this subject as well as science in general.

    For someone who claims you can’t use the scientific method that’s rather funny.

    Every “model” has such a time frame depending on it complexity. But the whole point is that the shorter the time frame, the more you are talking about weather rather than climate.

    Given what we know now, what would the predictions have been 30 to 50 years ago using today’s “causal” formulas? Would those predictions fit what has actually happened?

    If the system is so complex, why do the liberals obsess over the trends? Clearly there’s a disconnect between the “trends” and your “complexity” theory of being able to make accurate predictions of global warming. :)

    No, dumb-dumb, thats why it is “complex.” Water vapor, particulates, methane, ozone, orbital cycles, tilt, 50 other variables are also casual. You reveal you have no grasp at all on “the basics.”

    No dumb dumb. We’re talking about man-made CO2 that you can quantify annually. That’s what this whole theory is about, no? Stop obfuscating things and stick to your theory of global warming is man-made instead of a natural occurrence. It’s been about human CO2 output.

    If you don’t have all the data you need, all you needed to say is you guys are screaming the sky is falling before you have all the facts in. :)

    I make no claim with or without a “consensus” that the sky is falling.

    /// Its not.

    Oh yeah! That’s right. It’s ocean levels rising! :) Same hysterical paranoia.

    The mere fact that you exhale makes you a polluter.

    /// No.

    Wow! So you’re going to split hairs over good vs. bad CO2? Should have known you liberals rationalize even the most basic of things. :)

    CO2 is CO2. If you liberals get any more control of government, we’ll be seeing a one-child policy in every country.

    If you want to say the sky is falling, then prove it.

    /// I don’t.

    So when you say: “And 50 years from now when the Arctic Ocean is free of summer ice every year, and 100 years from now when all the glaciers are gone, and 300 years from now when the coastlines are 50 miles uphill and billions of people have been displaced/starved to death, there still will be no proof that AGW is occurring.

    that this isn’t demonstrative of “sky is falling” hysteria? LOL. Yeah right.

    I agree. That is all you do. Very telling the shallowness of your skepticism.

    Shallow skeptic, eh? :) Nice try in trying to fault me for scrutinizing the “consensus” BS. You may want to consider your powers of persuasion instead. Give me facts and not your interpretation / hasty conclusions por favor.

    The amount of certain poisons that can kill you is also minuscule. Things in perfect balance are off balance when a minuscule amount is added to one side of the equation. Silly ignorant comment/attitude/lack of recognition to have and yet still feel competent to even think about the issue.

    Which I already accounted for and you still beat your drum that the sky is falling in the absence of empirical evidence.

    Yep. THATS the issue. Got ADD?

    “The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker”: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    What do you want? Scientific consensus to be formed by minority views? Flat earth views? 6000 year old intelligent design? You just get dumber and dumber. While there is one consensus, which of the dozens of minority views should society act on?

    If you look back at some of the great scientists, they broke from the mainstream and were the minority point of view. Surely a man of “science” such as yourself can appreciate that.

    Dissenting opinions should get similar air time so that people get a full exposure of the points and counter points. The mainstream media should just report instead of editorializing everything to a particular viewpoint that they happen to support.

    Regardless, it’s pretty funny to see you resort to name calling when you’ve got no point to make. :)

    Its the IPCC panel of relevant experts that has made this conclusion. I just follow the best science until better science comes along==not the ravings of objectively ignorant people who ignore basic scientific principle with their individualistic “common sense.”

    Basic “scientific principle”?!?!?!? Many of the people who editorialize the IPCC reports don’t even have a scientific background. The IPCC has also been criticized for being politically biased (not to mention motivated in exaggerating things to the sky is falling proportions). Even past contributing authors of the IPCC reports have pointed this out. What a dope.

    Yes, the constant increase in ocean volume indicates our ice coverage is melting …

    CAUSED by what exactly? Are you too dense to see that you’re simply making an assumption based on your dogmatic faith?

    Context is everything–something you have lost.

    In conclusion the mass hysteria the liberals are pushing is that MAN-MADE global warming is responsible for just about every problem on the planet. What’s next? Diabetes? :)

  5. Guyver says:

    81, Bobbo,

    Your process is very similar: what you don’t understand, what is beyond the limits of your knowledge, you call “skepticism.”

    Just because you interpret something is happening doesn’t make it so.

    My skepticism kicks in when you fail to be persuasive.

    82,

    Its a fact standing alone that Tyson doesn’t do anything with.

    Not his job. He makes the point and hopefully someone will pick up on that and go further with that survey.

    I think it means nothing to this thread as EVERY opinion has detractors and a minority view.

    The point you ignore is that the trend for being atheistic among the brightest people hits an asymptote as he states.

    Science is not a club/political party/religion that kicks people out for having minority views.

    Science doesn’t but there are those in that community who do if you don’t conform to the mainstream view (i.e. IPCC). Regardless, I find it very intriguing why spirituality / religion hasn’t been completely flushed out even among the smartest of our species.

    What do you want? A simple on/off, black/white, right/wrong, proven/not proven universe?

    If you want to change behavior because you claim to know something, then you will need proof.

    Yea, well bunky, thats not the universe you live in. If you want certainty–go for religion. If you want proof–go with the scientific method. When neither provides an answer: go with the best science has to offer.

    All you had to say is you have no proof of causality. And the best “science” has to offer is a consensus based off of no proof. It’s a theory at best. Should this theory be used to force people to change behavior? Nope. Should we encourage people to not pee in their backyards? Yup. Do we need to use the force of government? Nope.

    Mindless skepticism is for dolts.

    Awww… first I was shallow… now I’m mindless. :) Look, if you claim to know something, then show me what you know. From what you’ve just explained you don’t know much but you’ll blindly follow a theory because it’s better than science because real science isn’t about right/wrong. It’s about unprovable theories…. hey isn’t that what religion is? :)

    the kind of analysis that rejects well founded scientific consensus with “that seems minuscule to me?”

    Just like correlation isn’t causation, a consensus does not make for a scientific discovery / fact / conclusion. Consensus is what is popular… in this case what is politically popular.

    Are you that much of a lemming? :)

  6. Guyver says:

    81, Bobbo,

    Your process is very similar: what you don’t understand, what is beyond the limits of your knowledge, you call “skepticism.”

    Just because you interpret something is happening doesn’t make it so.

    My skepticism kicks in when you fail to be persuasive.

    82,

    Its a fact standing alone that Tyson doesn’t do anything with.

    Not his job. He makes the point and hopefully someone will pick up on that and go further with that survey.

    I think it means nothing to this thread as EVERY opinion has detractors and a minority view.

    The point you ignore is that the trend for being atheistic among the brightest people hits an asymptote as he states.

    Science is not a club/political party/religion that kicks people out for having minority views.

    Science doesn’t but there are those in that community who do if you don’t conform to the mainstream view (i.e. IPCC). Regardless, I find it very intriguing why spirituality / religion hasn’t been completely flushed out even among the smartest of our species.

    What do you want? A simple on/off, black/white, right/wrong, proven/not proven universe?

    If you want to change behavior because you claim to know something, then you will need proof.

    Yea, well bunky, thats not the universe you live in. If you want certainty–go for religion. If you want proof–go with the scientific method. When neither provides an answer: go with the best science has to offer.

    All you had to say is you have no proof of causality. And the best “science” has to offer is a consensus based off of no proof. It’s a theory at best. Should this theory be used to force people to change behavior? Nope. Should we encourage people to not pee in their backyards? Yup. Do we need to use the force of government? Nope.

    Mindless skepticism is for dolts.

    Awww… first I was shallow… now I’m mindless. :) Look, if you claim to know something, then show me what you know. From what you’ve just explained you don’t know much but you’ll blindly follow a theory because it’s better than science because real science isn’t about right/wrong. It’s about unprovable theories…. hey isn’t that what religion is? :)

    the kind of analysis that rejects well founded scientific consensus with “that seems minuscule to me?”

    Just like correlation isn’t causation, a consensus does not make for a scientific discovery / fact / conclusion. Consensus is what is popular… in this case what is politically popular.

    Are you that much of a lemming? :)

  7. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    I’ll put you down for Devo.

    Still watching the vids but I’ve lost interest in your continuing nonsense. Too much repeating the swirl around the drain.

    Lack of formal proof in the scientific sense should not be and never will be an excuse not to take action in our best interests.

    So, yes, I will go with the consensus of scientist who reject a personal god leave you to the remaining groups.

  8. Guyver says:

    87, Bobo,

    Still watching the vids but I’ve lost interest in your continuing nonsense. Too much repeating the swirl around the drain.

    It’s amazing how you seem to bring up the same non-sensical rants. :)

    Lack of formal proof in the scientific sense should not be and never will be an excuse not to take action in our best interests.

    There’s no need to take action for something that isn’t proven, is there? Heck if I used your flawed logic in other scenarios, I suppose you make a good case for WMDs in Iraq. :)

  9. Guyver says:

    87, Bobo,

    Still watching the vids but I’ve lost interest in your continuing nonsense. Too much repeating the swirl around the drain.

    It’s amazing how you seem to bring up the same non-sensical rants. :)

    Lack of formal proof in the scientific sense should not be and never will be an excuse not to take action in our best interests.

    There’s no need to take action for something that isn’t proven, is there? Heck if I used your flawed logic in other scenarios, I suppose you make a good case for WMDs in Iraq. :)

  10. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Guyver–hypothetically, what would constitute “proof” to you that should be acted on? Or even “non proof” that should be acted on?