/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11767263

3MiB, 448x320, beautiful.webm

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 08:57:21 2020 No.11767263 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11767269 >>11767278 >>11767291 >>11767417 >>11767481

Would nuclear winter cancel out global warming?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 09:02:53 No.11767269 Report

Quoted By:

>>11767263
for a while
it would also cancel out global eating

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 09:05:09 No.11767278 Report

Quoted By:

>>11767263
Well the explosive mass of all nuclear warheads would be in the tens of gigatons so the nuclear winter is only gonna come after pretty much everyone and everything is on fire worldwide. There will not be humans above ground who survive an all out nuclear war. The following damage to the biosphere would send earth back to the cambrian period.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 09:09:46 No.11767291 Report

Quoted By:

>>11767263
Nice webm, except the eyes turning into egg yolk was retarded.
Dumb nips shouldn't have backed the emperor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 10:15:20 No.11767417 Report

Quoted By:

>>11767263
yeah but only for about two years but it would also stop all GHG emissons forever after that so global warming would stop as well
two years is about how long it takes for the particulate matter to settle out of the atmosphere

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 9b076ca4325f2fe096e24f80847c1ba3.jpg, 345KiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 10:49:44 No.11767481 Report

Quoted By:

>>11767263
Nuclear winter is actually quite short, even in a worst case scenario where we use all our nukes it lasts just a few years.
Fires of a nuclear war will release even more CO2. So after a short winter we get a long super hot summer lasting for a million years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 13:41:15 No.11767775 Report

Quoted By: >>11767823

You know what was racist?
Not nuking nazi Germany.
Now neo nazis think they can be accepted by society because society was too lenient.
Had we nuked nazi germany it would have sent a message to all shitters that want to start wars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 13:44:28 No.11767785 Report

Quoted By:

Well, using stratospheric aerosols to mitigate global warming is the same concept. Could work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 14:05:44 No.11767823 Report

Quoted By: >>11767850

>>11767775
The bomb wouldn't have started development if not for WWII, but it wasn't finished until after Germany surrendered unconditionally. The Trinity test wasn't even done until nearly two months after the surrender. By the time little boy and fat man were ready, the only country still dead set on waging war was Japan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 14:18:24 No.11767850 Report

Quoted By:

>>11767823
Did not know that. Guess it's good to pay attention to history.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 15:33:40 No.11767995 Report

Quoted By:

German surrender May 8
Trinity test July 16

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 15:57:14 No.11768054 Report

Quoted By: >>11768085 >>11768098

ok i see many augments against an nuclear winter. but what if we drop 9000 metric tons ammonium nitrate into the pacific?
the resulting massive alga bloom could absorb vast quantities of CO2 and cool the planet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 16:08:24 No.11768074 Report

Quoted By: >>11768082 >>11768085

I thought that atmospheric co2 is removed mostly by organisms, like deciduous trees which absorb co2.

a nuclear winter would release particles which block sunlight and reduce global temperature, but after the sunlight comes back through all the co2 should still be in the air?

since trees need to absorb co2 a nuclear winter would only aggravate trees ability to absorb co2 making the problem worse.

it would be better to just plant massive forests by replacing unnecessary farmland with natural parks, to reduce farmland GMO crops and more efficient agriculture could be implemented to reduce the farmland area.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 16:12:58 No.11768082 Report

Quoted By:

>>11768074
You’d need to plant shit tons of trees it would be more economical to just reduce co2 outtake

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dumping-iron-1000.jpg, 86KiB, 800x1284

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 16:14:18 No.11768085 Report

Quoted By: >>11768099

I have an Earth science degree and all the answers in this thread are great. You guys know your shit.
>>11768074
Sounds accurate.
>>11768054
I haven't heard Ammonium Nitrate. The go to for ocean seeding is iron
http://news.mit.edu/2020/oceans-iron-not-impact-climate-change-0217

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 16:18:57 No.11768098 Report

Quoted By: >>11768106

>>11768054
if you do it all at once you poison the region and kill all life , if you do it over a longer time you got no effect because algae get eaten
Stop burning fossil fuels is the best we can do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 16:18:58 No.11768099 Report

Quoted By:

>>11768085
oh thank you i didnt know that i tough you can seed theme like any plants. how ever i think 9000 metric tons of alga fertilizer could be a lot of fun.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 06 Jun 2020 16:21:57 No.11768106 Report

Quoted By:

>>11768098
you are just a climate change denier. stfu.
some people will be always resistant to good ideas. i had ops idea bevor 15 years but thats the first time it even gets discussed. i dont know why you have to annoy me always with your stupid issues.(environment this, environment that people gonna die, stop being that boring.)

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches