From Guest Blogger Dennis Miles: We CAN end Global Warming.
But the Politicians don’t trust Science to believe it is Reasonable. Please read it all don’t stop without the entire picture! There is a SOLUTION to “Global Warming”
The efforts of Humans to control carbon-dioxide emissions and thereby reduce global warming is at most a few percent (95%)most of the emissions come from plants at night and some is converted back to oxygen and the carbon used in the plants in daylight. Our feeble efforts will have little effect.
Now, there is something we can do. You may recall reading about the long term effects of Nuclear WAR. It included localized Destruction, Fallout for a few hundred miles, and the creation of thousands of tons of dust propelled high into the stratosphere, which acted to reflect 25 to 50 % of the sunlight and would result in global COOLING perhaps to Ice Age conditions for a couple hundred years.
This suggests to me a “Solution to Global WARMING.” Our scientists can calculate the Minimum Nuclear blast at the surface and amount of dust it would propel into the upper atmosphere and how much cooling (We want only 5%) it would produce. After two weeks fallout becomes, no longer radioactive. After a year the melted glass bowl is safe to approach, so dig a canal to a nearby stream and fill it up as a lake.
We might create a “Nuclear Cooling Project’s Crater Lake National Park” and we have ended Global Warming for hundreds of years, for the Whole World. (The effect in Solar Energy Systems is three or five percent less output, similar to a few small clouds in the sky. (I am NOT making a joke, this can work!) We have the Technology, but our Politicians may not have the nerve to present it to the electorate.
Hi Dennis,
I’d like to refer you to the following links, please take a moment to open a new window and cut and past them into a new browser:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
Hello,Cameron, You are the first person to stop laughing long enough to reply. It is unfortunate that you didn’t take the time to read the three references you suggested, as they all support my position. (The Devil is in the details.)
In the first from your list a steady modern trend of increased CO2 presence is displayed as data but no definite reasons are proven for the increase.
In the second a repeating pattern of peaks is shown after many hundreds of thousands of years, and the text explains that all the historic data is a average of 1,000 years per point graphed but at the right it is averaged in 100 year units, and if averaged over 1,000 years like the others, the peak would disappear.
In the third reference, on fallout, a lot of articles about warfare but we are not exploding a bomb in a city, as I said in an extremely remote area, with blast optimized to produce dust in the stratosphere, and localized fallout would indeed be dissipating in only a few weeks, as I stated. Also only using minimum strength for desired result, and carefully evacuated location, perhaps in a desert, the Best location might be in a location in a friendly nation, of course we would have to take care of them too.
So THANK YOU for the three references supporting my position.
It is always nice to have someone provide additional support to my premise.
Most of what I have said was what I learned in training as a Nuclear Weapons Loading Assistant in the U.S.A.F. in the mid ’60s. And the public instruction provided to me as a Resident 90 miles from Havana during Kennedy’s Missile Crisis.
Miles, are you honestly suggesting that the rise in CO2 levels in not anthropogenic? I think the real debate is not whether humans have caused the rise in CO2 but whether the rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming. Read the IPCC reports.
‘The efforts of Humans to control carbon-dioxide emissions and thereby reduce global warming is at most a few percent’
Read the IPCC reports.
Also, I don’t think Cameron’s links support your position at all.
I agree when you say that the most recent rise in CO2 would not be present if it is averaged over a thousand year period rather than a hundred year period, but this is only because the current rise is so recent that a thousand year average would swamp the change. That doesn’t mean the change isn’t there. If the more ancient peaks were averaged out over a hundred years the peaks would be slightly sharper, yes, but the current dramatic rise would not be seen.
The dramatic change coincides with the industrial revolution, and the link between them isn’t perfect I agree, but I find it quite convincing.
As for your proposal for a ‘controlled’ nuclear winter, if you can persuade a climate scientist, then I’ll listen to you.