Global warming hoax is Eugenics 2.0

[Intrinsic]

I'm not yet convinced.
- This rock is exposed to a range from 120*C/248*F on the sun side, to -100*C/-148*F in the shade. The bulk of this rock ranges from 2,000*C/3,600*F just under the thin crust to 6,000*C/11,000*F (which is hotter than the surface of the sun 5,500*C/10,000*F) at the core. We are talking aboot a 2*C/3.6*F change. I have some difficulty buying that we have much affect on that...seems a little vain.

Just pointing out that a majority of the 97% also advocate for the use of a deadly alternative that they can not control.

Have these climate scientists factored in the effects of those 2,056 "test" detonations? I haven't seen any of them address that.

You know the cap sealing the Bikini Atoll waste is crumbling.
Percent of properly disposed spent uranium used so far.....ZERO.
Yeeeeah, I trust those guys.

I have some difficulty buying that we have much affect on that...seems a little vain.
So maybe not so difficult since ya have concerns that enormous energy release in fusion testing . Or maybe heat from stored waste That perhaps humans do harness energies that can indeed initiate such changes?

Bikini Atoll.
The 15 megaton fusion explosion there has changed the ecology detrimental for humans. So bad everyone stopped above ground testing. No more talk of surviving a nuclear war, it shut the admirals right up. At only 15 mt that was biggest one ever tested. The hirosima and nagasaki fission bombs were 1000+ times smaller by comparison. The largest fusion one ever built was 300 mt, never tested for obvious reasons. There is no engineering bottleneck for building bigger and bigger ones. The SALT treaties were a no brainier for both sides.

So since we can boil oceans and create nuclear winters..
A small 2c change (relative to the numbers ranges you cited) doesn't seem so hubris.

[Intrinsic]

Just pointing out that a majority of the 97% also advocate for the use of a deadly alternative that they can not control.

Have these climate scientists factored in the effects of those 2,056 "test" detonations? I haven't seen any of them address that.

Cool, A legit alternate hypothesis. something to sink my teeth into. This one is new to me so i did some lazy research (used google). found this on skeptical science:

"How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Posted on 24 August 2012 by Tom Curtis
A reasonable estimate indicates that the total energy released by nuclear explosions in the twentieth century amounts to six hundred megatons TNT equivalent of energy, or 2.5 billion, billion Joules (2.5 x 1018 J). That estimate is larger than the five hundred and thirty megatons TNT equivalent estimated by UNSCEAR (also), so it can be considered a conservative estimate. Divided over the five hundred and ten million, million square meters of the Earth's surface (510 x 1012 m^2), and over the two decades of peak testing, that represents eight millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power. For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year that the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world has generated.

That is not the whole story. Many nuclear tests kick up a lot of dust, which reflects sunlight, thereby cooling the Earth. Indeed, according to Turco et al, 1983, that is the dominant effect of nuclear explosions on climate. The result is that nuclear testing is likely to have reflected more energy from the Sun than they generated. That is, nuclear testing is likely to have been a net cooling factor.

Let us ignore that possibility, and the large proportion of energy released to space as radiation. In that case, during the period of maximum nuclear testing it may have contributed 0.62 millionth of a degree Centigrade (0.62 x 10-6 C) to temperature increase, a contribution too small to notice, and likely to have entirely dissipated since the reduction in nuclear testing in the 1990s. The peak contribution was in 1962, when nuclear testing may have contributed as much as one hundred and seventy megatons TNT equivalent of energy in 1962. Averaged over the year and the Earth's surface, that represents forty-four millionths of a Watt (44 x 10-6 W m-2), for a warming contribution, ignoring dust effects, of around thirty-five millionths of a degree Centigrade (35 * 10-6 C), still too small to notice."
https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Averaged over the year and the Earth's surface, that represents forty-four millionths of a Watt (44 x 10-6 W m-2), for a warming contribution, ignoring dust effects, of around thirty-five millionths of a degree Centigrade (35 * 10-6 C), still too small to notice."

perhaps that is why you haven't seen anything on it, not significant.
i did not look through any published papers to see if any of 'em mention it, just google scholar and it only gives abstracts. didn't find any mention of it..

[Dick Fein]

Another good one from Freeman Dyson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pou3sGedeK4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Roots]

The environmental harm from testing and the risk from using nuclear power doesn’t come in the form of global warming.

I’m not sure if Bob is pointing out the risk in nuclear or the hypocrisy of the scientist but they are both valid points ....not sure why those points would be relevant in this thread?

[Intrinsic]

I should let Bob speak for himself but he did ask if those scientist factored in effects of the detonations. So I looked and that's what I came up with. Having giving me no authors are names I just looked in general

I felt it was a legitimate concern the data could have been skewed when Computing the mean temperature. For what it's worth people have been looking at the global weather and climate since the first detonations took place it has been a concern What the effects are in the atmosphere and climate. A lot of data is out there.

[Dick Fein]

Valid points and that issue probably deserves its own thread. I do have some controversial info on that topic but I am not looking for unproductive discussions. I have outgrown that mentality.

[rSin]

There are several meltdown proof designs
Hopefully thats all the russians are going to
Flood the world with as they crank out
Hundreds of floating models

And hopefully they wont sell them to any terrorists
And that they keep them safe from terrorists
And that they dont sell them to any
Nor any terrorist figure out how to
Enrich with lasers
Etc etc etc

But that still means that they will
Poison millions making the fuel
And billions when the cycle of
Creation/disposal is all told


Japan aint never going to be cleaned up

Its trees are sucking the stuff washed
Deep into the soil up and redistributing
It each year in pollen blooms

:/

[Butcher Bob]

Since I'm anti-pollution, I'm actually to the left of the climate change folks. You can just consider me a chimp throwing wrenches into the "Global Warming" machine for fun and amusement.

It amazes me how folks will blindly follow...not knowing where they are going...not knowing how they will get there. These 97% might be right aboot global warming...but they are also dead wrong that nuclear energy is safe. The danger of which is not the energy expended, but rather the radioactive waste produced. Have we forgotten the importance of the ozone layer?...and then we go creating that shit down here anyways. The question isn't aboot the BOOM, it's aboot the affects the waste has.

Mind you, I'm not arguing one way or the other...I'm just throwing the argument out there.

[Lrus007]

The Soviet RDS-220 hydrogen bomb (code name Ivan[3] or Vanya), known by Western nations as Tsar Bomba (Russian: Царь-бо́мба, tr. Tsar'-bómba, IPA: [t͡sarʲ ˈbombə], lit. Tsar bomb), was the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created. Tested on 30 October 1961 as an experimental verification of calculation principles and multi-stage thermonuclear weapon designs, it also remains the most powerful explosive ever detonated. It was also referred to as Kuzma's mother
The bomb was detonated in secret but was detected by US Intelligence agencies. The US apparently had an instrumented KC-135R (Operation SpeedLight[7]) in the area of the test, close enough to have been scorched by the blast. [8][2] The bhangmeter results and other data suggested the bomb yielded about 58 megatons of TNT [Mt] (240 PJ),[9] and that was the accepted yield in the literature until the Soviet scientists revealed that their instruments indicated a yield of 50 Mt (210 PJ) in 1991.[2] As they had the instrumental data and access to the test site, their yield figure has been accepted as more correct.[8][2]

In theory, the bomb would have had a yield in excess of 100 Mt (420 PJ) if it had included a uranium-238 tamper, but because only one bomb was built, that capability has never been demonstrated. The single bomb was detonated at the Sukhoy Nos ("Dry Nose") cape of Severny Island, Novaya Zemlya, 15 km (9.3 mi) from Mityushikha Bay, north of Matochkin Strait.[10][11][12]

big bad firecracker.
Lrus007

[rSin]

Being the cosumate humanitarians they were
The soviets 'throttled' their tzar bomb

Reason being that at the time it was
Meant to be a demonstration of capacity
To take the americans 'with them'
Should those fool western devils
Ever launch the first strike
They so dearly wanted to

The soviets knew that leaks
Would reveal that bombs full capability
And therefore they chose
Not to make the enviroment suffer
As much as it wovld have

Whether or not only one
Was ever built
Remains open to speculation