Would a nuclear winter cancel out global warming?

Answer 1

this is a ridiculous question. nuclear winter would kill everything. of course it would destroy global warming it would probably destroy every building on earth but since that isnt a realistic way of dealing with the problem, i would say that we start asking realistic questions and trying to find solutions to a real problem occuring now.

Answer 2

It could...but since we do not have anything to go on but smoothed out computerized speculative curves to tell us how much dust we have to blow up now, and renew again and again, it might be difficult to prevent tipping us back into another 90,000 years of deeply cold ice.

And there would be some radioactive pollution involved, which might irritate some conservative peoples.

All Global Warming periods shown in history last a while, and then are followed by rapid temperature decline to really cold glacial conditions for a very very long time. And I have not seen the computer program yet that can take the global conditions in say 500AD or 1000BC and come up with the MEP and the LIA!! If they cannot match known historical data, how can we trust them to correctly predict the unknown future?

Needs a bit more work, methinks. And far better data inputs, not mostly from hotspots.

A BETTER idea I think is to load a bunch of old surplus ICBMs and put on extra boosters like the Shuttle, and then launch a carefully calculated amount of factory dust, bad pollutants, radioactive dusts and debris, etc., and launch it all into a dust band around the Earth's equator, maybe 10,000 miles up so it stays up a long time. Calculate it to just cut the sun's radiation by the amount of the Global Warming calculations...and if they are wrong we can launch more clouds of dust if needed, or launch a big piece of sticky paper to sweep up the too-much dust, or a genuine nuclear bomb to fuse and blast a hole in the dust and let the heat through, and that way keep the climate optimum for every single person (and most married ones) on the globe all at once.

And usefully get rid of a lot of weapons to make the world far safer for Consensusy!

Answer 3

Yes it would for a short period of time but the particulate matter resulting from a nuclear exchange isn't long lived in the atmosphere. The effect would be similar to that which we experience after a major volcanic eruption - all the gases and pollution in the atmosphere cool the planet for a while but they're disipatted out of the atmosphere within a few years and global warming returns to normal.

Even if a nuclear exchange wiped out life on the planet, global warming would continue because the greenhouse gases would still be in the atmoshere.

Answer 4

Of course not. Yes, global warming is against nuclear winter - the temperature - but then if America and Someone else starts a nuclear war and makes a nuclear winter, then the temperature will drop to about -45 degrees celsius (not sure about the spelling, nah) and even it's not that serious, it can suck out a little oxygen and conjure cycloneS, kill all trees out of their poisonous air. Therefore, it'll be much worse.

Answer 5

Yes it would. I prefer the warming though, if those are the only 2 choices. However, I have actually heard one person say that we could keep global warming in check by intentionally setting off just the right number of nuclear bombs in the air. If done correctly, with the explosions taking place thousands of feet above the ground as was done with the 2 bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, there would not even be any significant fallout.

Answer 6

No because those are scare stories from different decade.Atomic war was supposed to kill us in the 50's, DDT in the 60's,acid rain and global cooling in the 70's, atomic war in the 80's AIDS in the 90's and global warming in 00's. What is going to be the scare story in the next decade is the next question. I forgot we were going to run out of oil in the 70's and everything had been invented in the 1890's and Al Gore still is a hypocrite.

Answer 7

No, not only would the ozone be annahilated, but nuclear winter is not only inhabitable but nuclear radiation can sink into the ground and can stay for hundreads of thousands of years before it presumes a habitable condition. The explosion in the russian city still hazes over us and won't go away for hundreds of years.

Answer 8

I love your question. My answer is YES and NO. YES because the temperatures might balance each other. NO because the purpose of the global warming scare is to scare people into no longer acting like modern humans. This means no modern food production (to starve us to death), no indoor plumbing or transportation (to make us sick and miserable), etc. They want us to die. And what better way to speed things up than to create a nuclear holocaust.

Answer 9

No, Global Warming is a concept that lives in the imagination of man. It would only cause those who generated these scare tactics to move on to some other means to terrorize and control the population.

Remember when FDR said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." The "fear" of which he speaks is the very thing generated by GW alarmists.

Answer 10

Eventually global warming is supposeedly going to cause the next ice age anyway so theoretically there's nothing we can do.