Could nuclear weapons reverse global warming?

Question

Could we use nuclear weapons to create a strategic "nuclear winter" that could offset the warming trend until we have the technology to significantly reduce our carbon emissions? Obviously radioactive fallout would pose a problem but what I am most interested in is the theory, which as far as I know I came up with in the car this morning, but I could be wrong.

Nuclear winter is called "Nuclear Winter" bc of the imposition of severely cold temperatures due to significant ammounts of soot and ash in the atmosphere blocking out the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Winter

Please try to honestly consider the concept. Because here is an eye-opener; when we start massively cutting back our carbon emissions the atmosphere will clear up and global warming will speed up! The damage has already been done and at this point a clean atmosphere will allow more of the suns energy in and speed up the whole mess. We are past the point of cutting emissions and all will be OK. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, but damned a lot faster if you do. This is a proactive approach I am posing after reading about the theories about the last 2 major iceages.

Answer 1

I don't see why it wouldn't work. After all, radioactive fallout is a liberal myth fabricated by Al Gore.

The only real hope we have is the decriminalization of marijuana. It would release adequate particles into the atmosphere, while at the same time making the world a better place to live. Even if it didn't work - we wouldn't care!

Answer 2

The nuclear winter is caused by "ash" and other debris in the atmosphere caused by atomic explosions reflecting light back out into space.

Sure it would "cool" the planet, but the "ash" would soon fall back down to the surface and then we would still have the high CO2 levels.

The Cooling from a "partial" nuclear winter (assuming we dont shoot all the bombs) would be minor and tempoarary. To use this approach we would have to continually set off atomic bombs to replace the ash that settles as fallout back to the surface.

Establishing a world with a continual high level of radioactive fallout would probably be far worse than global warming. Eventually the public would get tired of cancer etc and we would go back to having global warming as before.

The nuclear winter doomsday would only result in at worst a decade or so of significant cooling. That would be bad enough to wipe out most of the agriculture for a decade, but after that the climate would return to near normal. Much of the nuclear winter is caused by soot from things burned by the A-Bombs. That burning will all be additional CO2 in the atmosphere that will still be there after the ash settles.

Answer 3

No, because of the radiation that would kill many people. Global warming is a natural trend that has been happening for thousands of years. The world warms, the ice caps melt a little cooling the oceans, then the world cools again. In reality we just exited a small ice age and it is perfectly normal for it to get warmer. But now there is evidence we are going into another ice age. The reason we are panicked now is the fact that we have the technology to see it happen as it happens, plus our obsession with controlling everything. If we interrupt this natural cycle we could do more harm than good to the planet. Also scientist make it sound more critical than it is. Why, because if it isn't an urgent we'll all gonna die scenario nobody will fund their research. It all boils down to money.

Answer 4

I don't think "nuclear winter" is called winter due to an actual lowering of temperatures. There has been talk of increasing the use of nuclear energy to replace the burning of fossil fuels. However, the theory that "there can't be another Chernobyl" isn't something I would believe on faith, given that the Titanic was "unsinkable," and many similar phrases have been made in error before. I would like to see safer options put into play.

Answer 5

The radioactivity and energy released from a worldwide massive nuclear detonation would eat holes in the ozone so fast that it would be more than global warming, there would be nasty solar activity never seen on the planet.

What "nuclear winter" that would be a result of massive nuclear detonation, would disappear quickly.

Answer 6

Global warming could be reversed by nuclear weapons. It would put us all in the ice age. The only way to reverse the bad effect is to determine what is causing the problem and figure out how to stop doing these things.

Answer 7

Though scary, your idea has a certain merit. It's known that massive volcanic eruptions can also cause a "nuclear winter"-type condition. Maybe, instead of using nukes, due to the radioactivity hazard, we might do controlled burns to introduce more smoke or particulate matter into the atmosphere. Of course, that has its own set of side effects, most of them negative.

Answer 8

No, Russia has continuously had a huge naval presence contained in the Arctic Ocean, and the claims on the north pole will be resolved by skill of diplomatic skill. Canada has also stacked a declare, so it really is extremely better the Canadians that are dealing with Russia than us.

Answer 9

Well a nuclear winter fits in the same boat as a man made global warming its not proven so I would say no...

Answer 10

Nasa is working on methods to push meteorites out of earths orbit. There's a big one one to miss earth just about 30.000 miles or so in about 30 years. Maybe they can better push it in earth path. That would not give any nuclear fall-out.