Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the growing public awareness and attitudes toward global warming, particularly in the U.S. Participants observe a shift in perception, noting that previously, few events were attributed to global warming, but now many disasters, such as hurricanes and droughts, are increasingly linked to it. There is a recognition that media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion, with commercials aimed at raising awareness about climate change being highlighted as effective yet ultimately failing to spur action.Some express skepticism about the urgency of the global warming narrative, citing the need for reliable, non-political scientific data to motivate action. There are concerns about misinformation and the prevalence of conspiracy theories regarding alternative energy solutions. The conversation also touches on the perceived disconnect between public awareness and individual action, with many feeling overwhelmed or apathetic despite acknowledging the issue.Participants debate the potential consequences of global warming, with some emphasizing the immediate impacts seen in regions like New Orleans post-Katrina, while others question the extent of human influence on climate change.
  • #91
Andre said:
Apparently we have to go for the radiation to heat the oceans and then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas, whereas the solar radiation is thought to have been much more constant.
You have this backwards. Greenhouse gas is supposed to absorb radiation, meaning less of it would reach the ocean and be able to heat it. The greenhouse effect would heat up the Earth's atmosphere which would then heat up the oceans by convection and conduction. That is of course assuming greenhouse gas is to blame. It could be a bunch of underwater nuclear bomb tests for all I know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
ShawnD said:
andre said:
then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas,...
You have this backwards. Greenhouse gas is supposed to absorb radiation,

Of course it does, but I think I expressed myself badly by not explaining what happens next.

So how does greenhouse effect work? incoming solar visible light radiation passes the atmosphere unaltered, then it is absorbed in the surface and retransmitted on a broad spectrum, mostly as infra red. Now if this infra red radiation could escape again unaffected in the atmosphere, then where would not be greenhouse effect. However most frequencies of this infrared are adsorbed as you say by greenhouse gas molecules but by law of thermal radiation[/url] the absorbed IR is retransmitted again in random directions. Some of it is directed downwards again and reach the surface, which would not have happened without greenhouse gas effect. This means that the surface actually encounters more infra red radiation, retransmitted, sort of reflected from the atmosphere.

So what happens to the mix of radiation that hits the ocean surfaces? For the visible light it’s rather obvious by observation, Some light is reflected but most enters the water and gets absorbed after certain distance, the optical depth, the red light goes first, after only a few meters, the blue light penetrates deepest to some 100 meter before it gets adsorbed. But in the end we see that most visible light gets absorbed, meaning that it transfers into heat. Consequently, visible light can penetrate and warm the oceans to a certain depth.

How about infra-red? We know that water vapour is the most potent natural greenhouse gas because of it’s molecular structure. The same mechanism also works for fluid water and infrared light is absorbed by the first molecule layers in the water surface. Here it retransmits in all directions but much of that energy is transferred to heat at the water surface directly. Heat is no more than molecular velocity and faster molecules tend to escape from the water surface, taking the energy away from the water and hence not heating it up.

Consequently, it appears that the net effect of infrared on water is stimulating evaporation but not heating it. Of course this can be tested by very simple means. And when the parameterization is correct, this can also be simulated in climate models. No need for a couple of atom bombs.

So concluding from my scattered posts here, the only effective way to heat oceans is by visible light, infrared cannot heat oceans, consequently, the variation in oceanic heat content is most likely variation in visible light not variation in greenhouse gas concentration.

So if oceans are warmer, it’s because of more light and there was more light, because there were less clouds:

[URL][PLAIN]http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/albedo-temp.GIF

Consequently, it’s the sun that causes global warming, not increased greenhouse effect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
BTW an update on the hockeystick graph which has been discussed earlier in this thread here.

Meanwhile, could we find more evidence for what the main cause is of the recent warming trend? Perhaps the warming trends of land, ocean and lower atmosphere (lower trophosphere). If there is difference, it could confirm or refute any of the two warming mechanisms, more sunlight or more greenhouse effect.

So, if it was greenhouse effect, we would expect the increased infrared adsorbtion cause more warming in the lower atmosphere, causing the highest trend, the radiation backwards to the surface would cause a secondary warming trend. Since the sea surface sort of reflects the IR, the air very close above it, would also show the increased warming trend. So in case of greenhouse effect, you would expect the highest warming trend in the lower trophosphere and lower, about comparable warming trends, over land and over sea.

With more visible sunlight it's abit different. The effect sunlight starts at the surface, increasing land temeratures the most. Sea surface temperatures would rise less because most of the radiation continuous down to deeper levels. The lower trophosphere gets heated from the surface and would show a lower trend. So with more sunlight: highest land temperatures trend, slightly lower sea tempeartures trend and lowest trophosphere trend.

So, what do we know about all those trends?

Here they are, against the 1988 prediction of Hansen in fainter color for best-worst scenarios and the reality in red for land stations, black for all, including oceans and dark blue (MSU2LT), giving the satellite readings for the lower trophosphere. So what's the verdict?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/predict.GIF
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
MeJennifer said:
The reality of "stopping the global warming" will be that the western world will go and attempt to stop car ownership and energy consumption in the developing world.
I don't know about the rest of the west, but America would like nothing more than to sell billions of cheaply made crap cars to all those new middle class Asians.

The irony is that it's illegal to sell American cars in China because they don't meet the People's strict emission standards.

I know it would be very cynical and ironic but it will be justified as some other "manifest destiny".

Perhaps sad but true IMHO.

Whoa... you need to cheer up! :smile:

Before something like that would ever happen, we'd much rather try to make a couple billion off them by exporting nanosolar panels or something.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Jeff Reid said:
Well if global warming becomes a big issue, they could set off a few hydrogen bombs in the oceans to create a mini nuclear winter.
It's not the bombs that bring about a nuclear winter, its the smoke and soot from the things that are set aflame.

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

Go for the smaller cities.
 
  • #96
Just think of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day and it will all go away.
 
  • #97
Mattara said:
Just think of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day and it will all go away.
:bugeye: thanks:wink: :smile: thinking of Margeret Thatcher clothed on any day makes me shudder, speaking as an ex conservative, she did my political direction no end of good.

Something I found whilst playing around in the other parts of the WWW. Counterarguments, anyone think this is a good anti global warming argument:wink:

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel.

Cloud changes

Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.

"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.

Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles.

Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Dr Stanhill called it "global dimming", but his research, published in 2001, met a sceptical response from other scientists.

It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution.

Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide - the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming - but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds.

Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds.

Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall.

There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s.

There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population.

"My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "We are talking about billions of people."

Alarming energy

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect.

They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide we have placed there.

What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6 degree Celsius.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of six degrees Celsius.

But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.

This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers.

As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control.

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up.

"That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

BTW I think I stand on the action side of the issue as a Brit:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Concerning this.

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

I'm sorry to say but it's really a little refuted. We have discussed the problems with that point of view here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37706
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18883

Nice to stand on the action side but so did Don Quixhote, forgive me the comparison but fighting climate is fighting windmills. Better put the action where it makes the difference.
 
  • #99
Andre said:
Concerning this.



I'm sorry to say but it's really a little refuted. We have discussed the problems with that point of view here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37706
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18883

Nice to stand on the action side but so did Don Quixhote, forgive me the comparison but fighting climate is fighting windmills. Better put the action where it makes the difference.



Not at all I appreciate the description, by fighting I of course mean a good defense, ie recycling, reducing CO2 emmisions, using less energy.


Andre your European I would guess, not sure? I worked out my bio footprint the other day and was delighted to find out that it was half the national average. around 2.2, uk is 5.4 the US average was 8, but many big city residents, had around 20+ in the US. Which is because in no small part because of the large distances and over reliance on cars, lack of recycling and high energy needs in general. You guys are bad at that sort of stuff, very bad :smile:
 
  • #100
Yes I'm very European, being Dutch and living in Germany, My sisters live in France and my daughter is going to work in London this month and I just reduced my bio footprint by exchanging my old 1 liter / 12 km gaz car for a new 1 liter / 23 km diesel (55 mpg US) and looking mildly interested at the feasibility of home brewed bio diesel. But that has more to do with economizing, anticipating sky high fuel prizes, than climate.

There are many very good reasons for minimizing energy dependability and reduction of fossil fuel 'addiction' but climate is not one of them. Hence all kind of crash actions to reduce emission tomorrow and save the world, may backfire severely. Windturbines may work fine at the lonely Pondarosa ranch but these produce just about negative energy in high populated areas for instance.

Better to convert gradually and thoughtfully towards really efficient sources, which would include un-scaremongering of nuclear means.
 
  • #101
Good for you.

London, nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live their. Too much polution( London gave me spots) Or their was before they introduced a charge for driving in London.

Why isn't climate change a good reason to reduce energy consumption? Could you clarify what you mean there?
 
  • #102
Because there is no connection. The contribution of CO2 to greenhouse effect is very limited and due to the saturation effect, even a significant increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have an almost negliglible effect on the global temperatures.

Unexplained that here.
 
  • #103
Schrodinger's Dog said:
There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s.
How would this happen? The sunlight isn't being put in different places—wouldn't there just be a tiny bit less?
 
  • #104
Andre said:
Because there is no connection. The contribution of CO2 to greenhouse effect is very limited and due to the saturation effect, even a significant increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have an almost negliglible effect on the global temperatures.

Unexplained that here.

it the only effect we can directly control though and from graphs I've seen it does have a significant effect. In a business as usual scenario CO2 could raise Global Mean Temperatures between 1-5 degrees in the next 50 years, that's pretty significant no?

Mk said:
How would this happen? The sunlight isn't being put in different places—wouldn't there just be a tiny bit less?

Believe me I don't understand that assertion either, perhaps an ecology boffin could explain, their are all sorts of problems with the assertions in the article, which is why I put it up, someone was using it as an excuse to advocate that global warming wasn't real, or was having a negligable effect. I think this article is a strawman.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
Schrodinger's Dog said:
it the only effect we can directly control though and from graphs I've seen it does have a significant effect. In a business as usual scenario CO2 could raise Global Mean Temperatures between 1-5 degrees in the next 50 years, that's pretty significant no?

Dunno. It's all about the warming value for double CO2. Pure mathematically, substituting total radiation numers of the MODTRAN IV calculation into Stefan Boltzman's law for black bodies, you'd get 0,7 degrees C per doubling CO2 instantaneously and after resettling of thermal equilibrium it would be 1,2 degrees. But this would take a few centuries.

So if we hack now at 375 ppmv and we have an increase of 1,2 ppmv per year it would be around 300 years before we double, wouldn't it? and a few more centuries before thermal equilibrium.

So, why those high numbers? 1.5 to 4.5 for this century, I think, the last time I looked. Because the simple numbers 0.7 and 1.2 for the clean physics are not seen in the wild. If we assume that the numbers of the last century, some 0,6 degrees temp increase is purely depending on the increase of CO2 from 280 to 370 ppmv then empirically it seems much worse. It's explained by a positive feedback from all kind of factors, which would boost up the clean numbers.

This is where the hockeystick comes in. When this was to be true:

hockeystick.gif


compared with the CO2 hockeystick:

http://www.ens-lyon.fr/Planet-Terre/Infosciences/Climats/Rechauffement/Images/imageTCO2/CO2-1000ans.gif

...then you got the no-brainer, which has convinced the world that climate disaster was imminent; suggesting that climate is hyper-sensitive to CO2 changes

But the hockeystick is false, death, fake (updated with an interesting article). The Medieval Warm Period is back; making a big spike in the start of the temperature hockeystick, but not in the CO2 hockeystick. this shows that climate variability is much more independent from CO2. Considering further the long term history of CO2, as in five times the current level 50 millions years ago when the climate cooled at middle eocene, then the hypersensitivity cannot be true.

There is much more to this but the post is long enough for the time being, I guess.
 
Last edited:
  • #106
Do you know I've never seen a European expounding the other side of this debate it's usually Conservative US citizens or Australians, and their motives are somewhat biased by their political leanings(not that their stuff isn't interesting, it's just you've always got to question science with bias):smile: I am convinced personally by the scientists that we are seeing a significant effect of CO2 but in the last year or so I have seen some fascinating counter examples which although they don't make me think the mainstream view is wrong they do give cause for concern that models aren't the whole story, that said personally it's not a bad thing as you said to make people think about preserving their environment and limiting energy usage, paticularly fossil fuels, if we're wrong then no harm done, in fact we probably will save lives anyway, if we're right then it's all gravy, either way it's win-win scenario for mankind. If only everyone was on board with this.
 
  • #107
SD, would you think that it's impossible that ordinary unbiased people could be a little curious and a little suspicious when somebody showns a hockestick graph declares all previous science about natural climate variation void and that everybody has to cut emissions or else we all fry?

Is it really necesary to be a right wing conservative greedy oil baron not to buy that? How about those neutral unbiased scientist who saw their work being thrashed?

There is a lot to do about environment, advance of civilisation, destruction of biotopes, declining biodiversity, empty seas, etc. All serious problems, al worth fighting for but it's most definitely not by the same token to buy the physical unrealistic CO2- greenhouse gas global warming myth. It has nothing to do with any of the real environmental problems.

Any idea why all those people who doubt anthropogenic global warming are indeed those climate deniers, enemies of nature, greedy selfish crooks, bribes by the oil companies.

Perhaps because their characters are murdered like http://risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm for instance. So if you are worried about the environment you keep encountering this kind of partisan demagoguery there is probably no way to avoid believing that every climate septic is a crook by definition. Actually I know many of them and most are those specialists whose work was voided by the hockeystick coup.

Cutting back CO2 is not per definition a win win situation if it is done on the wrong grounds and with the wrong priorities. There is absolutely no reason to panic now and take crash actions which will soon backfire, like the massive growth of counterproductive wind farms and penalizing emissions, theathening economic crises. We still have decennia to devellop alternatives to avoid being caught with empty oil wells and no alternatives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #108
Any idea why all those people who doubt anthropogenic global warming are indeed those climate deniers, enemies of nature, greedy selfish crooks, bribes by the oil companies.

Perhaps because their characters are murdered like here for instance. So if you are worried about the environment you keep encountering this kind of partisan demagoguery there is probably no way to avoid believing that every climate septic is a crook by definition. Actually I know many of them and most are those specialists whose work was voided by the hockeystick coup.
Oh my god, I thought we were just laughed at. There's actually an offense. The "Wall of Shame?" That's terrible.
 
  • #109
Right, you may have learned from history that it's not the first time that hatred campaigns against certain groups can be associated with world fires, like WW II or the Russian and French revolutions. The population was to be convinced that there was a vicious enemy in our midst that would need to be eradicated.

Perhaps dig up some speeches of Robespierre, Lenin or Goebbels and see how enemy building is done.
 
  • #110
Within the last week junkscience.com added to the top of the page "Climate Clown of the Moment."

I don't like that. That's a Wall of Shame.
 
  • #111
Is global warming Junkscience?

Perhaps, if it can be proven that the hockeystick was distorting reality on purpose. There are several strong clues for that.

But Junkscience is bringing the message the confronting way.

But http://www.junkscience.com/Skeptics_on_trial.htm is outrageous indeed. I guess there is no way to stop the witch hunt. At the other hand, would such a trial demand evidence that the global warming is caused by increased CO2? The people listed there are more than capable to show that tonns of reasonable doubt about that.

Like here for instance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #112
Andre said:
SD, would you think that it's impossible that ordinary unbiased people could be a little curious and a little suspicious when somebody showns a hockestick graph declares all previous science about natural climate variation void and that everybody has to cut emissions or else we all fry?

Is it really necesary to be a right wing conservative greedy oil baron not to buy that? How about those neutral unbiased scientist who saw their work being thrashed?

There is a lot to do about environment, advance of civilisation, destruction of biotopes, declining biodiversity, empty seas, etc. All serious problems, al worth fighting for but it's most definitely not by the same token to buy the physical unrealistic CO2- greenhouse gas global warming myth. It has nothing to do with any of the real environmental problems.

Any idea why all those people who doubt anthropogenic global warming are indeed those climate deniers, enemies of nature, greedy selfish crooks, bribes by the oil companies.

Perhaps because their characters are murdered like http://risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm for instance. So if you are worried about the environment you keep encountering this kind of partisan demagoguery there is probably no way to avoid believing that every climate septic is a crook by definition. Actually I know many of them and most are those specialists whose work was voided by the hockeystick coup.

Cutting back CO2 is not per definition a win win situation if it is done on the wrong grounds and with the wrong priorities. There is absolutely no reason to panic now and take crash actions which will soon backfire, like the massive growth of counterproductive wind farms and penalizing emissions, theathening economic crises. We still have decennia to devellop alternatives to avoid being caught with empty oil wells and no alternatives.

No and I have read your links and am interested by your side of the story, I'm listening OK, just don't expect me to throw aside the doors to the temple because of evidence of misrepresentation, you do have to remember that dumming down science even if it is dishonest is a ploy by the Governments to make what is a highly technical deabte more palatable, it's not just some conspiracy to keep the world bemused and misinformed, I'm afraid I can't buy that until I see something more concrete.

It's sad that good science is ridiculed, but stick at it if you are right then it's only a matter of time. Einstein was right in the end, Copernicus got a grudging adimital that the Earthcentric universe was wrong from the Catholic church in the 20th century, OK it took nearly 400 years but he was right. We'll see, science is nothing if not willing to change, although like any institution it does not do so overnight, and as I'm not a climatology expert I expect to see efforts by both sides to build a watertight case, until I see that, I see no harm in believing one side over another, in fact it's postively beneficial in my case, even if it's hogwash, although I don't believe that yet, is a yet a good enough compromise for you :smile:.

Efforts by both sides of the debate are scientific, especially if one side is trying to overturn accepted fact.

Science is evolutionary, if it dies it leaves offspring that are fitter, hopefully, to build a better model.

Schrodinger once said although I'm not sure it's entirley apropriate and I'm paraphrasing a bit

My one regret is that I will not be alive to see the death of quantum mechanics as I know it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
No and I have read your links and am interested by your side of the story, I'm listening OK, just don't expect me to throw aside the doors to the temple because of evidence of misrepresentation, you do have to remember that dumming down science even if it is dishonest is a ploy by the Governments to make what is a highly technical deabte more palatable, it's not just some conspiracy to keep the world bemused and misinformed, I'm afraid I can't buy that until I see something more concrete.
Is it that you have read this thread?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54723
 
  • #114
No but thanks anyway, an interesting read. The last thing I want to do is try and represent my side as being right or worthy of respect absolutely, I of course know better than to expouse a theory without having the education or the incontravertable evidence to back up my claims :wink:
 
  • #115
I was always under the impression that there wasn't much proof either way.

I mean, seriously, try to record the data of the whole Earth in a reasonable way. It just seems kind of difficult to get any kind of believable measurements with heterogenous temperatures and turbulent forces everywhere.

And one man can't possibly do it. So how do you trust that everyone collecting the data is using an accurate method, and how can you be sure everyone compiling the data didn't make any errors and how can you be sure the people calculating the implications of the data (i.e. the hockeystick) are using the right kind of statistics techniques?

If there's so much controversy over this, there's obviously not a solid answer.
 
  • #116
IMO, we have to make a choice based on our best guess. The problem here is that many people want undeniable proof or absolute agreement, but we may not have the luxury of time to wait for such proof. From what I can tell, for most of us at least, this is a game of playing the odds, so we need to look at the risk/benefit ratio. Obviously we can't all become climate experts in order to decide, and anyone of lesser credentials has no business arguing about or interpreting the science.

What do we almost always call do-it-yourself physics by amateurs? Nonsense?
 
  • #117
If the experts can't agree, how likely is it that anyone here knows best?
 
  • #118
I can't say that I've bought into the Global Warming issue, there just aren't enough abnormailiteis that can't be explained away by common cycles, but anything we can do to preserve our natural environment I wholeheartedly endorse.

So, if the fear of global warming makes people more environmentally conscious, the results can only be positive. I don't see progress coming to a screaching halt, money talks.
 
  • #119
Going green not only makes sense, which many corporations are beginning to learn, but [in the US] the switch to domestically produced, alternative, carbon neutral fuels, is worth about the cost of the Iraq war to date, every year.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=92841
I just saw that this is doing about twice as well as expected in energy cost reductions.
 
Last edited:
  • #120
jimmysnyder said:
jeffr said:
Well if global warming becomes a big issue, they could set off a few hydrogen bombs in the oceans to create a mini nuclear winter.
It's not the bombs that bring about a nuclear winter, its the smoke and soot from the things that are set aflame.

Go for the smaller cities.
Wouldn't the steam / clouds from the oceans cause a similar effect? Clouds make pretty good insulators. There's got to be some pratical use for all that excess tritium we have.

And what about creating bigger holes in the ozone layer at the south pole to release more radiated heat?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
502K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
64K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K