Posted on 02/27/2011 5:12:08 PM PST by Innovative
Regional war could spark "unprecedented climate change," experts predict.
Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.
Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.
Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
The left is hoping for it, to cover their tracks on the global warming big money scam.
Well, if we're going to have just a "small nuclear war" I have a good candidate for the designated target.
Is somebody recommending this? The world has gone mad.
I have a better idea... drop a nuke down Old Faithful and perhaps we can get Yellowstone to finally blow up. That should help.
If they’d just leave well enough alone we would be better off. This year hasn’t felt like we need to worry about global warming!
Given that global warming is farce and the earth has been cooling, launching a nuclear war to save the earth is ludicrous.
Experts - what would we do without them?
They state with certainty that a specific series of variable events will impact global temperatures for many years and they can do it to 1/100 of a degree!
Yet they can not accurately forecast if the next winter will be colder or warmer than the norm or it there will be more or less snowfall than the average.
They can’t even run their climate models on past years and get predictions that match the actual climate history.
These are the same groups of mainstream experts who, in the 1970’s, warned us of a coming ice age and predicted that by now we would have abandoned our northern cities to be crushed under the oncoming glaciers.
Back when we were first married (43 years ago), one of my aunts gave us a subscription to National Geographic. We thoroughly enjoyed it when it stayed with geography. When it drifted over into religious science (Gaia Worship and Global Warming), we canceled it.
What does “long-term warming trend” mean: as opposed to the second ice age?
Should be good for a century or so
Plus or minus a few unnecessary species /sarc
Since GW doesn’t exist in the first place, anything could claim to reverse it.
The more these loons are proven to be wackos and liars, the greater the level of insanity we see. One has to wonder what next week will bring.
So, what are we waiting for? To quote Michael Corleone, “Today I settled all of the family’s business.” And fixing global warming in the balance... Hoo-ah! Who would have guessed that Armageddon could be green?
Given this information, our required course is obvious. We must allow plenty of global warming in case some fool starts a nuclear war.
The white house or mtv studios? ;)
Yes, let’s have a nuclear war. We can say that “it’s for the
children.” What a heartwarming thought.
A small nuclear war would work well with this ice age.
Baloney. They detonated dozens of nuclear devices in the Pacific and in Nevada in the 50’s & 60’s. The climate absorbed all of that and stayed stable.
..now what?
Al Gore’s group is no doubt pushing this idea.
“Not even wrong”
National Geographic is a wing of the WH. Are they floating this idea? They will try anything to get carbon ex. dollars which will totally imprison us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.