Nuclear war and global warming. (weapons, Simpson, death, advocate)

[jman07]

[url=http://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war]Computer Models Show What Exactly Would Happen To Earth After A Nuclear War | Popular Science[/url]

So global warming is supposed to be horrible because it raises the temperature of earth a few degrees, yet a small scale nuclear war would decrease the earths temperature by that same few degrees, and the article says this decrease would be horrible because it would cause less rain for crops. But that's about the only negative for the earth (besides mass death and destruction) So a cooler earth equals less rain which would be bad.

Sooo. 1. Both of these things can't be bad. You cant say rising temps is bad and that falling temps would be bad If warming is a problem. If we are too warm now, then cooling down to where we were can't be bad.

2. A small nuclear war actually wouldn't be as devistating as people think. And nuclear weapons could actually be good if the earth is too warm.

[TrapperJohn]

A few years back I saw a technical paper which advocated the return of above ground testing as a method of combatting "global warming".

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by jman07

Computer Models Show What Exactly Would Happen To Earth After A Nuclear War | Popular Science

So global warming is supposed to be horrible because it raises the temperature of earth a few degrees, yet a small scale nuclear war would decrease the earths temperature by that same few degrees, and the article says this decrease would be horrible because it would cause less rain for crops. But that's about the only negative for the earth (besides mass death and destruction) So a cooler earth equals less rain which would be bad.

Sooo. 1. Both of these things can't be bad. You cant say rising temps is bad and that falling temps would be bad If warming is a problem. If we are too warm now, then cooling down to where we were can't be bad.

2. A small nuclear war actually wouldn't be as devistating as people think. And nuclear weapons could actually be good if the earth is too warm.

You do realize the study is heavily skewed, right?

"Five megatons of black carbon enter the atmosphere immediately. Black carbon comes from burned stuff and it absorbs heat from the sun before it can reach the Earth. Some black carbon does eventually falls back to Earth in rain."

That would not happen in a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US, since strategic weapons are air-burst miles above the target to maximize damage. Neither India nor Pakistan have strategic nuclear weapons. Their weapons are all low-yield battlefield tactical nuclear weapons ranging from 0.1 kt to ~20 kt. Those types of weapons are intended to be surface bursts.

[Old Town FFX]

Originally Posted by jman07

Computer Models Show What Exactly Would Happen To Earth After A Nuclear War | Popular Science

So global warming is supposed to be horrible because it raises the temperature of earth a few degrees, yet a small scale nuclear war would decrease the earths temperature by that same few degrees, and the article says this decrease would be horrible because it would cause less rain for crops. But that's about the only negative for the earth (besides mass death and destruction) So a cooler earth equals less rain which would be bad.

Sooo. 1. Both of these things can't be bad. You cant say rising temps is bad and that falling temps would be bad If warming is a problem. If we are too warm now, then cooling down to where we were can't be bad.

2. A small nuclear war actually wouldn't be as devistating as people think. And nuclear weapons could actually be good if the earth is too warm.