By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer
Mon Dec 11, 6:55 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - Some of the scientists who first advanced the controversial "nuclear winter" theory more than two decades ago have come up with another bleak forecast: Even a regional nuclear war would devastate the environment.
Using modern climate and population models, researchers estimated that a small-scale nuclear conflict between two warring nations would cause 3 million to 17 million immediate casualties and lead to a marked cooldown of the planet that could lead to crop failures and further misery.
As dire as the predictions seem, they fall short of nuclear winter. That theory says that smoke and dust from an atomic war between the superpowers would blot out the sun, plunge the Earth into the deep freeze and cause mass starvation, wiping out 90 percent of the Earth's population, or billions of people.
This remains contentious in the scientific literature despite what Bono, Greenpeace and others might have you believe- In fact the rate of warming has decreased since the 70's. I hate George Bush as much as the next bloke (who aint an evangelist) but the evidence for anthropogenic warming is inconclusive at best.
This has not much to do with Bush, rather it has to do with everyone on the planet. I'm guessing very few people here actually try and save energy (I know I don't always do that).
It must be the third time I ask this question, still no answer :
If we can bomb a country, turn it's situation to chaos and kill more than half a milion people on terms of pre-emptive actions (as, in order to <b>maybe</b> save lives later)... why can't we take important decisions on a worldwide scale as a sort of pre-emptive strike on future environmental dangers (though people seem to think it's too late)?
This has not much to do with Bush, rather it has to do with everyone on the planet. I'm guessing very few people here actually try and save energy (I know I don't always do that).
It must be the third time I ask this question, still no answer :
If we can bomb a country, turn it's situation to chaos and kill more than half a milion people on terms of pre-emptive actions (as, in order to <b>maybe</b> save lives later)... why can't we take important decisions on a worldwide scale as a sort of pre-emptive strike on future environmental dangers (though people seem to think it's too late)?
I don't think it's too late, I think we never had a choice. If you look at the data, it implies that global warming has and will happen, regardless of what we do. It has more to do with the dynamics of our solar system, then it does with greenhouse gases. The ice-age/global warming cycle is 100,000 years. We may be heating up the planet more than what it would normally be at this point in the cycle. But it won't change the natural course of events. We will still burn and freeze, either way. With the absence of greenhouse gases the earth would be uninhabitable and we would not exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't think it's too late, I think we never had a choice. If you look at the data, it implies that global warming has and will happen, regardless of what we do. It has more to do with the dynamics of our solar system, then it does with greenhouse gases. The ice-age/global warming cycle is 100,000 years. We may be heating up the planet more than what it would normally be at this point in the cycle. But it won't change the natural course of events. We will still burn and freeze, either way. With the absence of greenhouse gases the earth would be uninhabitable and we would not exist.
Once again that doesn't answer my question. I know we don't know for sure if this warming can be acted on. We lack something like 10 000 years worth of data to prove the human made warming theory right or wrong, but my question still stands :
We are quick to take pre-emptive action on many fields, sometimes regardless of the cost, and not here? I don't get it. All our pre-emptive policies tend to stop things that may not happen, how is global warming a different issue?
As for Purple Hawk's question :
3 thing make up for the rise of the sea volume :
* The water making up the ice has less salt than sea water : it's density is higher than sea water. (You can try and use 2 glasses : one with pure water and pure water ice cubes, the other with salted water and pure water ice cubes)
* If temperature rises, water expands (physical law).
But both of these reasons count only for a small part of the rise that will happen. The third reason is what will affect the most the sea level, continental ice wich will melt and reach the sea.
(Sorry if this wasn't really clear, I have trouble with correct english terms for this)
its fear mongering by the left. You have a better chance being blown up by a terrorist than some polar ice caps melting 45 years from now.
fear mongering by the left? dude, im neither left nor right. i don't think very highly of labels, so if you could just avoid them if you remember when referring to the sonicreducer. i ain't no loser.
that way gay, but anyhow. can you back up those stats? can you really say that people don't have to learn the hard way, generally speaking?
and by the way, i thought fox was the channel that has the terror alerts running on the bottom of the screen all hours of the day and the war on christmas and all that other mumbojumbo 'fearmongering' bullshit.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Don't go long term in Polar Bear stocks.............it ain't soundin' good for them.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
Mon Dec 11, 6:55 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - Some of the scientists who first advanced the controversial "nuclear winter" theory more than two decades ago have come up with another bleak forecast: Even a regional nuclear war would devastate the environment.
Using modern climate and population models, researchers estimated that a small-scale nuclear conflict between two warring nations would cause 3 million to 17 million immediate casualties and lead to a marked cooldown of the planet that could lead to crop failures and further misery.
As dire as the predictions seem, they fall short of nuclear winter. That theory says that smoke and dust from an atomic war between the superpowers would blot out the sun, plunge the Earth into the deep freeze and cause mass starvation, wiping out 90 percent of the Earth's population, or billions of people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061211/ap_on_sc/nuclear_winter
This has not much to do with Bush, rather it has to do with everyone on the planet. I'm guessing very few people here actually try and save energy (I know I don't always do that).
It must be the third time I ask this question, still no answer :
If we can bomb a country, turn it's situation to chaos and kill more than half a milion people on terms of pre-emptive actions (as, in order to <b>maybe</b> save lives later)... why can't we take important decisions on a worldwide scale as a sort of pre-emptive strike on future environmental dangers (though people seem to think it's too late)?
I don't think it's too late, I think we never had a choice. If you look at the data, it implies that global warming has and will happen, regardless of what we do. It has more to do with the dynamics of our solar system, then it does with greenhouse gases. The ice-age/global warming cycle is 100,000 years. We may be heating up the planet more than what it would normally be at this point in the cycle. But it won't change the natural course of events. We will still burn and freeze, either way. With the absence of greenhouse gases the earth would be uninhabitable and we would not exist.
Once again that doesn't answer my question. I know we don't know for sure if this warming can be acted on. We lack something like 10 000 years worth of data to prove the human made warming theory right or wrong, but my question still stands :
We are quick to take pre-emptive action on many fields, sometimes regardless of the cost, and not here? I don't get it. All our pre-emptive policies tend to stop things that may not happen, how is global warming a different issue?
As for Purple Hawk's question :
3 thing make up for the rise of the sea volume :
* The water making up the ice has less salt than sea water : it's density is higher than sea water. (You can try and use 2 glasses : one with pure water and pure water ice cubes, the other with salted water and pure water ice cubes)
* If temperature rises, water expands (physical law).
But both of these reasons count only for a small part of the rise that will happen. The third reason is what will affect the most the sea level, continental ice wich will melt and reach the sea.
(Sorry if this wasn't really clear, I have trouble with correct english terms for this)
fear mongering by the left? dude, im neither left nor right. i don't think very highly of labels, so if you could just avoid them if you remember when referring to the sonicreducer. i ain't no loser.
that way gay, but anyhow. can you back up those stats? can you really say that people don't have to learn the hard way, generally speaking?
and by the way, i thought fox was the channel that has the terror alerts running on the bottom of the screen all hours of the day and the war on christmas and all that other mumbojumbo 'fearmongering' bullshit.
~Ron Burgundy