The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

When kid I heard there was a bomb that could destroy Earth, that it would freeze atmosphere.

Well, today I know the largest hydrogen bomb detonated,Tzar Bomb (58 megatons), didn't affected the world. I wonder if the entire nuclear weapon in the 80' (largest number than today) was detonated, how it could affect the Earth atmosphere if each bomb alone don't do much.
Would such detonation be worse than Cracatoa to Earth ?

It would depend on as many factors as you could think of,and maybe some you'd never anticipate, or think to consider.Like at Bikini Atoll and Japanese fishermen.(the 3rd atomic bombing of the Japanese).
The Japanese and Americans are still studying 'survivor's' of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,as they still don't know 'all' there is about human responses to nuclear blast and fallout.
The fallout from Krakatoa wasn't radioactive,and it settled in a couple of years without incident,other than global cooling.
Americans have died from exposure to fallout in Utah,USA,especially if they smoked tobacco.
Today,all California wines are radioactive,courtesy of Fukushima's legacy.
You can eat Plutonium,but breathing it will kill you.
Paul Beckwith has advocated exploding nuclear bombs as a form of geoengineering to counter climate change.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I watched a Youtube video that made the dubious claim that detonating in the Marianas Trench would trigger earthquakes since it's on a fault line. Those earthquakes would then trigger volcanic activity like we've never seen, blocking sunlight and killing most life on Earth.

Maybe nukes triggering earthquakes that then trigger volcanoes is in the realm of possibility, but it doesn't sound reasonable to me.

I believe that the adjoining tectonic plates would have to already possess stored stress(potential energy) of which the explosion could trigger slip, and release of this energy,otherwise it would just be like a pimple an an elephant's behind.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I listened to part of the Rogan podcast with the climate alarmist and intend to finish it. The thing I kept thinking is, even if everything were as bad as was presented, we're still taking 200 years before the cities he's talking about are inundated by water. That's a heck of a long time to stop building there and slowly migrate away, or develop walls to hold back the seas, or reverse warming.

Even if things get really bad, they will very slowly get very bad, and humans are among the most adaptable species there is. The issue is worth pondering and acting on now, but not in ways that will usher in the terrible living conditions immediately.

Some scientists point to past 'abrupt' climate change,and don't rule out the possibility that it could happen again,which would make 'adapting' a bit more challenging.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*'What' is not yet germane to the question.
*We can talk about that after.

“We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future.”

— Marshall McLuhan

*One notion that eats away at me is,that my electrical consumption is 19% of what a friend is using.

There's your problem right there.

Some scientists point to past 'abrupt' climate change,and don't rule out the possibility that it could happen again,which would make 'adapting' a bit more challenging.

Some rule out the possibility it won't happen again.


edit:

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The skill you have that I'm envious of is the use of strikethrough. I always forget how to do that.

I just remember '[' 's' and '/' are all lower case. With those it's a standard construction.

[oil pan 4]

If you get a plug in car your electricity usage could more than double.

[redpoint5]

hmm, maybe it was a different forum I was struggling to strikethrough

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you get a plug in car your electricity usage could more than double.

It will be less energy than an ICE car though. Except for the embodied energy tied up in putting one more car on the road with a huge battery. Electricity we can try to make more of with a decent ER/EI. Up to a point. But liquid fuel we can't affordably make any more of. And it will soon be leaving us.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you get a plug in car your electricity usage could more than double.

I'm driving 112-miles a month.A used Mitsubishi i-MiEV or 1st-gen LEAF would cover my needs really well.
I think I'd be looking at under $12/month for an EV. And 'theoretically' it would be zero-carbon.
My electric bill is typically $22 /month.$10 of that is just for being connected to the electric cooperative's grid.Other than a flat-fee of $10 /month for water,it's the only utility I have.

[freebeard]

There's some part of BBCode that vBulletin doesn't support. Without doing the experiment I think it's tables:

{content}

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you get a plug in car your electricity usage could more than double.

If you get a plug in car you get a battery back for your house, or at least you should.

[oil pan 4]

For an additional $4,000 or so you can get a chademo inverter that does like 3,000w.