What am I doing to reduce AGW?

[GreyICE]

Wrangler, this is hideously off topic, but you're accusing me of lying or somesuch, so here we go.

A hurricane operates by bring up moist air from the center of the storm. The eye drags the moist air into the upper atmosphere by virtue of the wind pattern. This moist air in the upper reaches of the storm causes condensation. This is also why they never survive landfall, but can batter coasts indefinitely - if the eye is over land it loses its constant supply of hot moist air, and therefore the storm is doomed to dissipate.

The heat of condensation provided by the water keeps the storm going. That's its energy source. The heat of condensation.

Now what does a sonic shock do to the air? Well, here's pictures of planes breaking the sound barrier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier

See that white wall they're running through? That's water vapor. Sonic booms wring water out of the air like us squeezing a sponge.

The Blast Wind from a nuke is a sonic boom. At a thousand kilometers per hour, it's faster than the speed of sound.

Now drop a nuke in the eye of the storm. First, the blast winds will stop the storm from spinning around the eye. Second, they will wring the air like a sponge, making it hot and dry. Very, very dry.

That means the entire storm mechanism is done for.

Now the question is the perimeter winds. They could potentially tighten up, and restart the eye. That would mean the storm would move on with minimal disruption.

Or they could collapse, like hurricanes frequently do on their own. We can't really model this well enough to decide what will happen.

In any case, we're very tangential, but now your stupid nitpick is dead. Happy? Now stop picking at word choices, it makes you look stupid. The fact that it goes over well on freeperville or wherever you've seen it before doesn't make it a good debate tactic. It's just stupid.

Now can we get back to the stupid idea that humans couldn't possibly effect the global climate?

P.S. I am not endorsing this plan. I would love to see it in operation, from a curiosity standpoint (would it restart or collapse? We can't model something that complicated) but it's definitely risky in many ways (nuclear detonations probably have some effect on our climate, overall)

 

[Soapy Sam]

I don't think there's any doubt a big thermonuclear event would have some effect on even a super hurricane. As you say, we don't know what effect- it might snuff it briefly, only to have it start up again, but this time with added radionucleides.
I doubt it's a practical mechanism, though I agree it would be neat to see it tested once, preferably over somewhere we don't mind losing. Several possibilities spring to mind.

But at the end of the day, the only way humans can affect global climate is by not doing things- not burning oil or coal, not eating meat that requires a whole field to fatten one cow, not buying hardwood furniture made from tropical rain forests and most of all, not producing even more humans.
Save the planet. Use condoms.

 

[Don At Work]

I have moved closer to work, and do not drive nearly as often as I used to (for pleasure).

Not because of AGW, but because of the economy

 

[tyr_13]

I didn't take a bath today and I might not take one tomorrow. Also, I quit my job and burned my car. Now I'll spend my time grazing in a field.

 

[Wangler]

....... but now your stupid nitpick is dead. Happy?

I am sorry to nitpick...but I have found that in debates about scientific issues, especially on forums such as this, it is helpful to be precise and accurate in one's use of words, and of facts.

Perhaps AGW-proponents don't worry too much about precise and accurate words and facts?

Also, your comparison of the energy output of a 30 megaton bomb to the daily output of a hurricane was a poor choice, as bombs of that yeild don't exist.

But, using realistic figures for megaton yield would have made the comparison less sensational.

 

[Lonewulf]

There's no such thing as a 30 megaton bomb? Well, even if that were true, then he could just simply say 50+ megaton. Those exist. The Tsar Bomba developed by Russia could function.

And, you know, we could just make one, since as far as I know, nothing is keeping us from being able to, especially since bombs of much higher yields have already been made.

But I guess 30 Tg of explosives is "less sensational" than 50 Tg or even 100 Tg.

 

[GreyICE]

I am sorry to nitpick...but I have found that in debates about scientific issues, especially on forums such as this, it is helpful to be precise and accurate in one's use of words, and of facts.

Perhaps AGW-proponents don't worry too much about precise and accurate words and facts?

Also, your comparison of the energy output of a 30 megaton bomb to the daily output of a hurricane was a poor choice, as bombs of that yeild don't exist.

But, using realistic figures for megaton yield would have made the comparison less sensational.

Did you really just say bombs of that yield don't exist?

I used a nice round number. But sure, call it sensationalist. It helps your conspiracy theory leanings.

I explained the theory, now go hype your New World Order bs elsewhere. There is not some conspiracy of climate scientists trying to bring about a one world government by scaring people with climate change. It's not an absurd theory.

Little old us can change the environment. Given how many species we've driven to extinction, given the rivers we've changed the course of, this seems obvious. Unless your ideology demands that you think that's impossible, of course.

 

[mhaze]

The Blast Wind from a nuke is a sonic boom. At a thousand kilometers per hour, it's faster than the speed of sound.

Now drop a nuke in the eye of the storm. First, the blast winds will stop the storm from spinning around the eye. Second, they will wring the air like a sponge, making it hot and dry. Very, very dry. ...

When you have ran a Naviar Stokes analysis on that crazy scheme let me know.

 

[tyr_13]

You know, I was going to start a thread on bad AGW solutions, and other AGW woo (not about supporting or denying AGW, but the stupid stuff around it), but I don't think anything I can come up with will beat using nuclear weapons to disrupt storms.

I fail.

 

[lomiller]

You know, I was going to start a thread on bad AGW solutions, and other AGW woo (not about supporting or denying AGW, but the stupid stuff around it), but I don't think anything I can come up with will beat using nuclear weapons to disrupt storms.

I fail.

I don’t think either of them was arguing that it’s a good idea or even that it would work. The question seems more of a hypothetical “could it work”. GreyICE seems to make a pretty good case for the possibility it may, but it’s clearly something no one is ever going to test.

 

[GreyICE]

When you have ran a Naviar Stokes analysis on that crazy scheme let me know.

Sure, as soon as you publish your solution the Navier-Stokes equation, which might actually give us a vague hope of getting close to an analysis on that, you tell me.

And we're not just talking simple Navier-Stokes. We're talking Navier-Stokes for compressible flows, which is a whole different layer of pain. Masochists run in fear of that.

Oh wait, you just found the term Navier-Stokes in a blog somewhere, right.

I said what happens after the eye is gone is where it gets touchy.

 

[Lonewulf]

You know, I was going to start a thread on bad AGW solutions, and other AGW woo (not about supporting or denying AGW, but the stupid stuff around it), but I don't think anything I can come up with will beat using nuclear weapons to disrupt storms.

I fail.

Yes, you do, considering you totally missed the point of why it was brought up.

 

[Wangler]

There's no such thing as a 30 megaton bomb? Well, even if that were true, then he could just simply say 50+ megaton. Those exist. The Tsar Bomba developed by Russia could function.

And, you know, we could just make one, since as far as I know, nothing is keeping us from being able to, especially since bombs of much higher yields have already been made.

But I guess 30 Tg of explosives is "less sensational" than 50 Tg or even 100 Tg.

Existed Apparently you did not read my post...russia made up to 25 of these super-yield weapons. It is doubtful that any exist today.

These sensational claims and comparisons just get tiresome.

 

[Lonewulf]

Existed Apparently you did not read my post...russia made up to 25 of these super-yield weapons. It is doubtful that any exist today.

Well, even if you could prove that none of them did, so what? You make it sound like bombs are Mana from Heaven, that we cannot create ourselves.

These sensational claims and comparisons just get tiresome.

Well, harping on it certainly doesn't help, nor does making ignorant counter-claims.

 

[GreyICE]

Anyway, we're all about to suffer the wrath of thread split, I sense.

 

[Spud1k]

Anyway, we're all about to suffer the wrath of thread split, I sense.

How many megatons of nuke yield does it take to split a thread?

 

[CapelDodger]

Then there's the danger that it would just make it worse. After all throwing 30 megatons of energy into a chaotic system is not necessarily a recipe for an ongoing string of successes.

I must say, that was the first thought that struck me. "Ummmm ... you guys are gonna do what now?"

 

[CapelDodger]

I doubt it's a practical mechanism, though I agree it would be neat to see it tested once, preferably over somewhere we don't mind losing.

Preferrably on another frickin' planet.

 

[CapelDodger]

Manure on our fields put up methane and nitrous oxide. Every single car that exists (and they don't just exist in the U.S., like some might believe; Athens, Greece has horrible traffic, and has nearly 1.5 million people living in a very very tight space), every single airplane, every single train, hell, every single boat, every single factory that requires energy, every single power plant that relies on fossil fuels, every single house that requires energy for heating, cooling, television, computers, lights, etc., all of this exists at a massive scale.

And let's not forget the concrete.

 

[CapelDodger]

I wanted to just make it clear that folks who don't prescribe to "AGW" did not begin concentrating on man-related warming, just to "shift the goal posts".

IPCC is concentrating on man-related warming, as well.

It is, after all, clearly written in their mandate.

Indeed; the IPCC was established to investigate and report on the AGW thing that more and more scientists were getting concerned about. An example of what diplomats call "taking action"; to whit, establish a committee to look into the matter. Hopefully by the time it reports the issue (whatever it might be) will have gone away.

Four reports later and the issue of AGW still hasn't gone away, of course. It's a persistent irritant. That's why diplomats will gather yet again next year, in Copenhagen, to finally thrash out how they're going to decide what to do about it.