[ExI] global warming again.

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Fri Mar 20 13:05:23 UTC 2009

Il 20/03/2009 0.36, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Keith Henson
> <hkeithhenson at gmail.com <mailto:hkeithhenson at gmail.com>> wrote:
> How do you propose to prevent fission neutrons from making vaporized
> rock radioactive?
> I don't, actually. :-)
> I just wonder whether the relevant increase in radioactivity could
> ever be a match for the "billion of deaths" preconised by GW and
> oil-peak prophecies...
> Please explain the orbital mechanics of going from a nuclear powered
> cannon launch to GEO.  Earth escape I can see, but how do you
> propose to match with GEO?
> Orion Project does not have anything to do with a "cannon". For all
> practical aspects, it is a pulse rocket like the V1, if I am not
> mistaken, albeit an unconventional and large-scale one. See, e.g.,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29>
>  How do hydrogen burning rockets contribute to carbon emissions?
> In fact, as I said, only *very* marginally, by burning the
> environmental carbon close to the launch area into CO2. More or less
> as a military nuclear bomb does.
> OTOH, isn't the "nuclear winter" effect supposed to cool the earth
> out of the airborne debris generated by each launch?

"Nuclear winter" is a concept invented in the '970 from the Soviet
propaganda groups to discourage people of West Europe to install
Pershing and Cruise Missiles.

In this, the concept resemble too much to the GW histerya.

It is taken without critical thinking (I was fooled at the time, too).

Then came Mt. Saint Helen Eruption:

> St. Helens released an amount of energy equivalent to 27,000
> Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons and ejected more than 1 cubic mile (4
> km³) of material. A quarter of that volume was fresh lava in the form
> of ash, pumice, and volcanic bombs while the rest was fragmented,
> older rock. The removal of the north side of the mountain (13% of the
> cone's volume) reduced St. Helens' height by about 1,313 feet (400 m)
> and left a crater 1 to 2 miles (2 to 3 km) wide and 2,100 feet (640
> m) deep with its north end open in a huge breach. More than 4 billion
> board feet (14.6 km³) of timber was damaged or destroyed, mainly by
> the lateral blast.

Did it caused a cooling? A notable one? The civilization wes in danger 
to be destroyed?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list