We all read the scary scenrio about nuclear winter. Well can we use it to stop golbal warming by reduce the energy intake from the sun?
2007-10-21 10:23:51 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Another good question.
A 'nuclear winter' is ther result of huge amounts of particulate matter entering the atmosphere, this material blocks out sunlight and consequently the planet cools down. A similar thing happens in the aftermath of major volcanoes, although it's more the reflective properties of sulphur dioxide that cause most of the cooling rather than the comparatively weak contribution from other particulate matter.
Unfortunately, a nuclear winter is relatively short lived. The matter begins to dissipate out of the atmopshere immediately and the cooling, following a full scale nuclear exchange, would last for 2 to 4 years.
A scheme, along the lines of your suggestion, has been suggested. This would involve launching sulphur laden rockets into the upper atmosphere. Once there, the sulphur would be burned and the resulting gas (sulphur dioxide) would act as a barrier to the sunlight by reflecting some solar radiation (sunlight) back out into space.
2007-10-21 10:36:48 · answer #1 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Trying to fix global warming by offsetting one man made gigantic disruption with another in the opposite direction, is a very risky idea.
The difficulties in getting it "right" are enormous.
It would be far better to simply stop messing with the climate and let nature handle it. We can do that.
2007-10-21 12:17:37 · answer #2 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
suitable thought, permit get Bush to drop 20 or so nuks on the middle east, that aprt of the international is to warm besides, mabey all that warmth from the middle east is cuasing international warming. nuking iran and different hassle spots in that area does not onlt take out the terrorists, yet quit international warming awaken, good GOD
2016-10-04 07:35:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will stop a lot of things
mainly life (photosynthesis inhibition)
but it will allow massive uptake of CO2 by the cooling oceans
2007-10-21 10:40:00 · answer #4 · answered by PD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it would, at short term. The price may be too high.
Torrey Says: Accomplishment is easiest when we work the hardest, and it is hardest when we work the easiest.
Torrey Hills Technologies, LLC
http://www.threerollmill.com
http://www.torreyhillstech.com
http://www.anodizingracksonline.com
http://www.beltfurnaces.com
2007-10-24 13:58:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well global warming wouldn't be a problem any more, we would all be dead!
2007-10-21 10:26:31 · answer #6 · answered by Big Russ 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋