That atomic bombs and the like can trigger climate change? or chahges in climate ..such as rain? and if so why wouldnt this technology be used to help bring drought relief?

Never heard that one before. They would not have any significant impact.

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2007 at 4:03pm:

That atomic bombs and the like can trigger climate change? or chahges in climate ..such as rain? and if so why wouldnt this technology be used to help bring drought relief?

Never heard of that before, but why do u assume that it would bring rain? what if the climate change went the other way and made the drought ecen worse?

but when it comes to atomic bombs, i'm pretty sure i've heard that it would pretty much kill everything in it's path, except for cockroaches. for some strange reason they can survive atomic blasts unharmed.

Never heard of that before, but why do u assume that it would bring rain?"
--------------------------------------------------------------

because it would stir up rain clouds etc..and that would have to be stimulating for all of us..you know what I mean?

Ill post an article there has to be one some ;)where..

Of course nuclear bombs cause environmental and atmospheric change.  Not only is the depleted radiation spread for hundreds of kms on the ground - it also remains in the atmosphere.


Climate threat from nuclear bombs

Alok Jha in San Francisco
Tuesday December 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Nuclear weapons pose the single biggest threat to the Earth's environment, scientists have warned.

In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco yesterday, Richard Turco of UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal - would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human history.

He said the effects would be "much greater than what we're talking about with global warming and anything that's happened in history with regards volcanic eruptions".
According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict.

In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited areas and up to 70% at the poles.

Alan Robock, the co-author of the study, told Guardian Unlimited: "Nuclear weapons are the greatest environmental danger to the planet from humans, not global warming or ozone depletion."

There are around 30,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, 95% of which are held by the US and Russia.

In addition, there is enough unrefined nuclear material to make a further 100,000 weapons.

Black smoke
In the 100 warhead scenario, more than 5m tonnes of sooty black smoke would spew from the resulting firestorms. This smoke would float to the upper atmosphere, get heated by the sun and end up being carried around the world.

The particles would absorb sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface, which would result in a rapid cooling of the Earth by an average of 1.25C.

"This would be colder than the little ice age, the largest climate change in human history," said Prof Robock.

The model also showed that the smoke would stay in the upper atmosphere far longer than anyone had previously thought.

Older models had assumed that the smoke would linger for around a year, as has been observed with the dust from volcanic eruptions. However, using improved atmospheric data the new study showed that the climate would still be suffering a decade on from the initial conflict.

"Far removed from the conflict, there would be large impacts on agriculture - there would be less precipitation and less sunlight; it would be a huge shock to agriculture everywhere," said Prof Robock.

There is a precedent for this sort of climactic change: major volcanic eruptions in the past have thrown global ecosystems into temporary turmoil.

The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 was the biggest such event on record. The resulting cloud of ash spread around the world and caused crops to fail the following year in North America and Europe, resulting in the worst famine of the century.

Shock to the system
The scientists said a sudden change to the Earth's ecosystem because of nuclear blasts would be worse than any of the effects predicted by global warming due to greenhouse gases.

"Global warming is a problem and we certainly should address it but in 20 years, the temperature might go up by a few tenths of a degree and it will be gradual," said Prof Robock.

"We'll be able to adapt from some of it. But the climate change from even the small nuclear war we postulated would be instantaneous and such a shock to the system"

He said that the results should act as a warning to the international community.

"Proliferation is very dangerous - even using a couple of weapons is so much worse than anyone can imagine. I think the world should be much more concerned about proliferation than we are."

Prof Turco said that the end of the cold war had taken people's minds focus off the potential dangers of nuclear war.

thank you mantra.....I appreciate that very much.. :) :)

I stand corrected. That does sound plausible, but I'm still sceptical of the extent. If it was that bad, then WWII would have had a demonstrable impact. I think large fires would throw up more ash and they only tend to have a local temporary impact. I don't see any mention in the article of measurements of the type of ash thrown up by nuclear blasts or it's persistance, or any reports about ash clouds from hiroshima or toher tests.

There was an interesting article in the paper a while back looking out how the colour of ash (black or white) impacts cloud formation.

When flights over the US were banned for a weekend after 9/11, temperatures went up by a few degrees (above what everything else predicted).

When flights over the US were banned for a weekend after 9/11, temperatures went up by a few degrees (above what everything else predicted). "
---------------------------

That sounds extremely interesting freediver..Id like to find that article.

An Observation:

Everytime a nuclear bomb is tested we have an earthquake within 6 months which lately tends to create tsunami's. ;)

Mantra thanks for bringing some sense to this thread.

I love some old Topics.
Agnes showed a keen mind back in the day.

The effects of the recent Wild-Fires across Australia resulted in a tremendous amount of rain across the country after such a long drought.
I forget the term, but when smoke particles rise into the atmosphere they create an effect of moisture.

The heat of a huge conflagration can create its own weather pattern.. in South Vietnam - Republic of - the Jan Keys once leveled an entire forest and reduced it to firewood with huge graders etc as part of the deforestation program **... when they set it alight, the heat formed clouds and the rain put the fire out...


**should've waited a few decades until the Vietnamers worked out that chopping down the forest for fine timbers was a lucrative business.. whole war could've been won with a little good old capitalist advice on exploitation of natural resources....

So Auzgurl/Oceans_Blue (Agnes) was spot on.

Jasin wrote on Mar 30^th, 2020 at 10:33pm:

The effects of the recent Wild-Fires across Australia resulted in a tremendous amount of rain across the country after such a long drought.

Incorrect
The fires did not cause the rain. That's just another one of your thought farts


freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 10:22am:

I'm still sceptical of the extent. If it was that bad, then WWII would have had a demonstrable impact. I think large fires would throw up more ash and they only tend to have a local temporary impact. I don't see any mention in the article of measurements of the type of ash thrown up by nuclear blasts or it's persistance, or any reports about ash clouds from hiroshima or toher tests.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small nuclear bombs

A full on nuclear war, it was hypothesized, would create a nuclear winter
Mt Pinatubo did slightly cool the earth for a year or so when it erupted in 1991

These events are only brief and usually local. Global warming, on the other hand, will continue on

Don't shoot me Barnacle.
I'm just going on two Experts that appeared on TV (dif channels) during the Wild Fire Catastrophe here - that said that it would create 'rain' when asked what side-effect all the smoke will do? Fearing more problems.
I think also listening to Dr Karl on Triple JJJ the same question was asked by a phone in, and he responded about how the smoke particles create a 'reaction' in the atmosphere that creates a 'saturation' of moisture. Supposed to be 'chemical' reaction.

Are you still rolling up the idea that Comet's are dirty snowballs and those Comet trails are evaporated moisture?
;D

I found this- A flammagenitus cloud is produced by the intense heating of the air from the surface. The intense heat induces convection, which causes the air mass to rise to a point of stability, usually in the presence of moisture. Phenomena such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires can induce formation of this cloud, by mechanisms similar to those that form homogenitus. The presence of a low-level jet stream can enhance its formation. Condensation of ambient moisture (moisture already present in the atmosphere), as well as moisture evaporated from burnt vegetation or volcanic outgassing (water vapour is a dominant component of volcanic eruptive gases), occurs readily on particles of ash.

Well there you go.
Hope that answers your question Agnes (Auzgurl/Oceans_Blue)?
Sorry about the many years long wait.

But better late than never,
that's what they said when I was finally born.  :D

wrote on Mar 21^st, 2007 at 4:03pm:

That atomic bombs and the like can trigger climate change? or chahges in climate ..such as rain? and if so why wouldnt this technology be used to help bring drought relief?

If it did or could

wouldn't you be worried about radioactive fallout in the rain?

I would not of thought any one could see any benefit in setting off atomic explosions to try & change the weather .... especially rain.

It may well cause more drought .... then what?  ::)

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 1^st, 2020 at 3:22pm:

Jasin wrote on Mar 30th, 2020 at 10:33pm: The effects of the recent Wild-Fires across Australia resulted in a tremendous amount of rain across the country after such a long drought. Incorrect The fires did not cause the rain. That's just another one of your thought farts freediver wrote on Mar 25th, 2007 at 10:22am: I'm still sceptical of the extent. If it was that bad, then WWII would have had a demonstrable impact. I think large fires would throw up more ash and they only tend to have a local temporary impact. I don't see any mention in the article of measurements of the type of ash thrown up by nuclear blasts or it's persistance, or any reports about ash clouds from hiroshima or toher tests. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small nuclear bombs A full on nuclear war, it was hypothesized, would create a nuclear winter Mt Pinatubo did slightly cool the earth for a year or so when it erupted in 1991 These events are only brief and usually local. Global warming, on the other hand, will continue on

Pinatubo has not been the only volcanic eruption/explosion that has affected the earths weather/seasons.

One in Indonesia in 1815 was bigger.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/do-volcanoes-affect-weather?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

Gnads wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2020 at 1:05pm:

wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 4:03pm: That atomic bombs and the like can trigger climate change? or chahges in climate ..such as rain? and if so why wouldnt this technology be used to help bring drought relief? If it did or could wouldn't you be worried about radioactive fallout in the rain? I would not of thought any one could see any benefit in setting off atomic explosions to try & change the weather .... especially rain. It may well cause more drought .... then what?  ::)

Yes. That bit gets me. Nuclear Mushroom Clouds are not like Volcanic Eruptions - nor is their clouds. I somehow can't connect 'radiation' being good for the atmosphere in any way and I certainly wouldn't like Radiation Rain falling on my car and through it.

*Good to see FD & VIC clean up this Board and send the other Topics to where they belong. They can't flush this Topic otherwise it would be a show on their lax performance over the ...years.  :D

-

Agnes wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2020 at 12:34pm:

-

Stop doin that.  :D What does that mean?

Jasin wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2020 at 8:51am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 2nd, 2020 at 1:05pm: wrote on Mar 21st, 2007 at 4:03pm: That atomic bombs and the like can trigger climate change? or chahges in climate ..such as rain? and if so why wouldnt this technology be used to help bring drought relief? If it did or could wouldn't you be worried about radioactive fallout in the rain? I would not of thought any one could see any benefit in setting off atomic explosions to try & change the weather .... especially rain. It may well cause more drought .... then what?  ::) Yes. That bit gets me. Nuclear Mushroom Clouds are not like Volcanic Eruptions - nor is their clouds. I somehow can't connect 'radiation' being good for the atmosphere in any way and I certainly wouldn't like Radiation Rain falling on my car and through it. *Good to see FD & VIC clean up this Board and send the other Topics to where they belong. They can't flush this Topic otherwise it would be a show on their lax performance over the ...years.  :D

You'd be surprised at what's in volcanic eruption clouds.