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.
“# 10 dusanmal said,
on February 26th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Here is last 10000 years of temperature data FROM A SINGLE source. No fudging and smoke-and-mirrors”
This site claims there IS smoke and mirrors in the graph you linked to:
http://skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core1.html
#32–Specifically Toady==have you ever notice who quite often doesn’t like to be called names?
Why yes–the very same people who so richly deserved to be called those very names.
Amusing how that works out so often–don’t you agree?
#30 Uncle Dave. we would have figured it out eventually. Meantime, that seems a bit uncouth of you to expose identities no matter how much it appears to have tickled Bobbo.
#23 bobbo, “still supporting dictatorial tyrants like Mubarak”
Bobby – I’m very happy to say that I have finally been in contact with several people in Cairo who are very important to me. I’m very relieved. Still missing: a friend in Luxor. After speaking with my friends, several of whom are very politically active, I still maintain that Mubarak was neither a dictator nor a tyrant. Though I have to admit he was about as close to a dictator as you can possibly get. My friends – coptics and muslims – are glad he’s gone and all are worried about the future. (One of my friends reported that Cairo appears to be in a post-revolution depression.) Mubarak dragged Egypt in the 20th century. Nasser and Sadat set things up, badly perhaps, but Mubarak forged alliances and got help for his country.
Remember how chaotic things were prior to his first election after the assassination of Sadat. He stood for election every six years and was reelected five times. Though the elections were tarnished, I know several of the observers for the 2005 election and they believed it was basically fair though there were problems. No worse than Chicago, though.
Was he corrupt? Sure he was corrupt. Was he a dictator? Not quite. Was he a tyrant? No way. When I think of tyrants, I prefer comparisons to Stalin, Pol Pot, Obama. Tony Blair called Mubarak “a force for good” and I have to agree. Did he step on people? Yes. Did he enrich himself? Yes. Is he worth $70B? I doubt it. But he is certainly extremely wealthy. How much dinero has Al Gore made? How many people has he stepped on? Is he a tyrant?
As you might suspect, my muslim friends in Egypt do ot tend to the extreme right wing of the faith. They and my coptic friends are worried about becoming another Iran or, with the military in charge now, they fear being a future Iraq. No matter what, they are now living in fear.
Do I still support Mubarak? Nope. I’m glad he’s gone. I would only have wished for a more orderly procedure. With elections seven months away, this could easily have been done democratically.
PS. Bob – my comment re: Iran, N Korea and Somalia was satire. Don’t take things so seriously.
Cool!
“I loved it when you nuked Las Vegas. Suitably biblical ending to the place, don’t you think?”
#35–Animby==WHAT???? How could blowing up 3 countries to reverse AGW be satire? Its so….. its so……..its so======pragmatic? Like eating our young. Satire? I don’t think so.
But speaking of being pragmatic, it should be more obvious than it is to you that FREEEEEDOM has more of an absolute value than the relativistic quagmire your analysis fails to pull itself free from. ((from which it fails to pull itself free?===thats bs!))
Egypt is the home of out and out TORTURE of political dissidents defined as simply not agreeing with Muba. Respected as the best rendition services in the world as far as those world leaders you reference. I suppose compared to a hot war with the USSR, any form of tyranny would be preferable to those not required to suffer it but that would STILL BE A TYRANNY. I think your geopolitical math is way out of kilter. And what (didn’t) happen with your analysis/appreciation when the threat of going toe to toe with the Ruskies detumesced to a flaccid memory? How come your “values” didn’t keep up with the times?
He stole elections every 6 years as no opposition party/candidate was allowed. Thats the very definition of a dictator. Did you lose or throw away your dictionary/common sense? What do you think a dictator and a tyrant is?
Your own personal friends had a certain comfort level within the tyranny imposed by Muba so it was “ok?” Yes, recognizing minority/religious diversity is difficult in any society, moreso in the Arab World, but again that relationship you have with a few does not balance what was being done for decades to the majority.
I’ll assume you never took care of those tortured in the dungeons, err–police stations, throughout the land? Midnight executions without ever a charge.
Its so clear to me. Could I possibly be wrong? Heh, heh. Personal experience. Mussolini was rumored to make the trains run on time, Hitler petted his dog, and Stalin liked hot chocolate. Not really bad people at all if you look at 2-3 facts in isolation to everything else that is good and holy.
Mubarak was/is a bastard dictatorial torturing hypcritical self serving tyrant. Our friend because he continued the peace with Israel, which was really in his own self interest as well.
Politics. Doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Here is a website with the top 150 odd skeptic arguments, along with current scientific arguments in easy, intermediate and advanced form. It also has the links to the papers that back up the claims.
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The Kubler Ross model states there are 5 stages of grief
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
Looks like we’re in stage 1, tipping into stage 2.
#38 Roberto – “Satire? I don’t think so.” Tch. Tch. Tch. You don’t have to think so. Only I am required to define my meaning. It was satire.
You accuse me of being loose with the facts (which I probably was) then you string together a couple of hundred words full of rumor and innuendo. Please be consistent.
I know Mubarek was occassionally ruthless. Rendition? Torture? Midnight executions? I won’t say no. This is the Middle East and North Africa we’re talking about. They’re like bread and butter: they just go together. But I don’t think it was anywhere near the volume the rumors suggest. Is one okay and two bad? I’m not a moralist. You decide.
I read recently that the trains did NOT run on time under Moustache Guy. History takes time. In five or six years, I’ll buy you a nice Arabico espresso (from northern Thailand beans, of course) and we’ll discuss how things have turned out for Egypt.
BTW – three of my friends are quite the political activists. Two are muslim, the third, a coptic woman, was briefly arrested. A quick story about the other lady from Luxor. She recently graduated from university with a finance degree. But she makes her living as a tour guide in the Valley of the Kings. I helped treat her for serious burns on her chest caused by being in the way of a large cauldron of boiling water. Now, this 20-something young lady has no chance of ever marrying in her faith because she is “disfigured.” Her own mother told me she’s not good for anything except to be a whore or a teacher. Her face is untouched and she’s lovely. But, below the neckline, think Freddy Krueger. The Egyptian medical system is revising the scars but even the best of western medicine would not make her perfect again. Just an anecdote. No satire.
Bobbo:
http://snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp
100 bombs a small, regional war? After WWII the AEC had worked out that 50 Hiroshima bombs would be enough to out the USSR out of business.
What if a couple hundred oil wells “caught fire”. Say those in Libya??
It is very easy to spot the idiots when it comes to something as complex as climate, they are the ones that are sure they are right. But then again these arguments are mostly coming from the minds of people who think progression is evil while basing their entire economic strategy on growth so it’s not like I count on them actually thinking about what they say.
Animby==your words of infamy: “Was he corrupt? Sure he was corrupt. Was he a dictator? Not quite. Was he a tyrant? No way. When I think of tyrants, I prefer comparisons to Stalin, Pol Pot, Obama. Tony Blair called Mubarak “a force for good” and I have to agree.”
With time to think on this directly on point you affirm the confusion that is clear to everyone else: “I know Mubarek was occassionally ruthless. Rendition? Torture? Midnight executions? I won’t say no.” Having set all the terms for the conclusion that unavoidably follows, you then attempt the flip: “I’m not a moralist. You decide.”
Poor Animby: When the facts are agreed on yet two people draw opposite MORAL conclusions: both parties are being moralist. I condemn, you accommodate. Its as clear and as definitional as the satire we both employ and you for some reason think there is confusion about as well. There isn’t.
I would and still think that stating the trains running on time was “a rumor” would have demonstrated the myth status of that old chestnut but why look up anything good that Mussolini may have done? Tyrants aren’t worth that coddling.
I post only for your continuing education and correction. Alfie and the TEA Dude get no such care being beyond the pale. YOU Animby disappoint me. I want hero’s in real life, not just in fiction. Placing these tyrants along the continuum does not remove them from the continuum.
compassion, care, not to be confused with friendship and replaced by moral relativism. Evil exists and thrives when good men wave it through the gates of approval into the walled fortress of condemnation. You are (usually) a better man.
Amusing you do quibble about AGW. On topic enough to cover other denials more demonstrably in error? Independent, or of a sort?
Now, where’s my cappuccino?
#45 Bobbo, ever in a hurry : I believe I said in five or six years. If you want it sooner, you’ll have to come to me.
Coincidentally–watching Biliary on This Week from last week on our “struggle” to support democracy in Egypt given our history with Mubarak. She hides the truth as every “diplomat” does. Unworthy pursuit all going back to Julian Assange: the truth. The simple TRUTH. Why is the truth abused so by all? How long can you abuse truth before the only correction is an uprising from the street? If 95% of the people are in the street protesting a tyrant who won’t “go,” is that manifest demonstration less conclusive than the posturing of our diplomats and the opposing declarations of our foreign apologists?
Can’t tell shit from shinola. Lack of values. Pretending words can shift the truth as easily as they can be uttered.
The truth. What a concept.
Animby–“how things turn out” is irrelevant to calling a spade a spade.
another example of conflation: don’t like the result, attack the basis of the issue:: just like AGW. Don’t like Cap and Trade, then deny the science of AGW. Don’t like the imposition of a caliphate by the majority of society, then deny Mubarak is a dictatorial tyrant.
Easy Peasy. Wrong, but peasy.
Sorry to hear the angry echoes of your bad childhood, or whatever it was. Maybe you could write a book about it someday–The cracked things you yourself have said might fill one.
Hey Goodmorning General, good morning to you! Got them mule skinner blues?
Like what fer instance?
YOU KNOW–as one can read Alfie right thru TEA Dude, there is a whole lot of Pedro in Tostoada, more than just the name. And like Pedro, I don’t expect anything except repetition without even the effort to provide a fact or even argument.
Unimaginative. Sad really.
Old joke from Futurama. “Global warming was canceled out by nuclear-winter.”
episode = 2ACV04 – Xmas Story
Bobbo, I have no evidence to counter this model, it’s plausible that nukes can have an effect similar to volcanoes. I only recognize it as a watered down version of previous scare stories of nuclear winter, which itself may be an extension of scientific concerns during the Manhattan Project. I am wrong about one thing. Steven Schneider was not a proponent of nuclear winter. He talked it down calling it nuclear autumn, and was coauthor of Nuclear Winter Reappraised. He also refused to outright reject the concept.
http://examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/global-warming-s-stephen-schneider-the-light-that-failed
Lyin’ Mike==why do you admit you are lying but nonetheless continue to lie some more? Nuclear Winter was not the concern during the Manhattan Project: catching the atmosphere on fire/runaway chain reaction was. A minute theoretical concern–the risk worth the present conflict at the time.
Not the same thing at all as particulates in the upper atmosphere. Oil fires in GW1 particulates were found to stop short of the straosphere hence not the cooling effect that higher reaching volcanoes and even higher reaching Nukes have.
Troubling how any noted similarity will stop people from recognizes the MASSIVE dissimilarities standing right behind.
Why do hoomans do that? Silly?
Mike–I do thank you for your links. Not enough of us do that here enough of the time. Science is all about disagreement and over time a consensus gets reached until it is overturned, just as it is now with AGW. Meanwhile, the public believing in the power of prayer, angels, and what they can perceive with their own eyes, is but political fodder.
re: #54, MikeN, that is another excellent link. However, there is no amount of proof that will convince the worshipers of Climate Scientist gods, that AGW is not a fact. They still use the same myths to define their religion, even though they have been proven wrong time and time again. To Illustrate this, is the perpetual claim that big oil is funding the climate skeptic movement. A quote from your article that can be verified through a little DD research:
“After the nuclear winter for global warming (Climategate, Copenhagen and a cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere), and as recession began to soften commitments for the expensive fight against CO2 emissions, Schneider realised that something drastic should be done. He has signed his own petitions, argued (quite wrongly) that climate change activists are in an unfair fight against big money interests (wrongly because climate activists receive hundreds of dollars in support for every one that their opponents get–Schneider’s own Stanford University received $100 million from Exxon to study the environment, something Schneider never discusses), and worrying about what might happen if the Republicans take over the House of Representatives this November.”
#57–skeptic==you don’t see the MASSIVE HOLE in the logic/proof/statement you use that actually supports just the opposite of what you have posted?
Ha, ha. Yea, just that silly.
Hole? Why don’t you point it out then.
Well, skeptic==I’m happy to after you admit you don’t see it at all.
Is your argument Iron Clad? Any weaknesses you half recognized but posted it anyway because you agreed so much with it? Happens to me all the time. Well, some of the time. Well, actually, just rarely==but I’m always open to the learning process of finding out I’m wrong and trying to incorporate that into my own thinking without the urging of other people.
How far along that path are you?
Can you recognize a GLARING ERROR when you are told it is there, or are you wedded to the first thing you think of?
Hmmmm?
Go ahead, look at your post again. And to be fair, since I only read it once before posting my own first thought: can you make the “best” argument against what you wrote even though that best argument is wrong?
Can you argue both sides of an issue before deciding which one is better founded or are you a one view kind of guy?–ie==not really a skeptic as that requires evaluation of at least two sides?
BTW–how many issues do you think only have 1 or 2 sides? What percentage would that be in your skeptical mind?
I’ve posted my answer many times. I’ll do it again as a bonus.
That percentage would be Zero. Everything is connected to everything else: ergo, every issue has many, many sides/arguments/consequences/pro’s/con’s to be evaluated. The skeptic is limited only by the facts and imagination.
Imagine the dearth of imagination and facts available to someone who can only see one side to an issue?
Yes, imagine the world of the PUKE voter. Makes the hair stand up on my neck. Ugggh!