Comments on: Not with a bang, but with a Winter

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:47:29 +0000

I wonder if the atmospheric modeling software used to make these predictions is any better than that used by meteorologists. If not, I wouldn’t put much stock in these predictions.

Come to think of it, given the complexity of the workings of our planet’s atmosphere (not to mention the politically charged atmosphere we suffer with), I wouldn’t bank on any kind of prediction made by “science”.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:01:19 +0000

the idea of a nuclear winter having far worse consequences than the explosive destructive power of the bombs goes back to the early 80s — anyone who was reading the paper back then has been hearing about this concept for over 25 years…

By: Allison

Allison — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:20:50 +0000

I better get a greenhouse for my poor juniper bonsais . . . between global warming and nuclear winter, they will suffer a bit.

And I think that I still have Al Gore on speed dial.

By: n2y2

n2y2 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 04:13:12 +0000

Finally, a solution to global warming that we have within our technological grasp.

Somebody call Al Gore.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:25:04 +0000

So the solution to global warming is regional nuclear war? What a wonderful time we live in!

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:02:42 +0000

“about 15 megatons each, the size of the Hiroshima bomb ” just to let you know the blast yield for Hiroshima was about 15 KILOtons. The Nagasaki blast was someting like 21 Kilotons. 15 megatons is actually a very large bomb. Can I get a shirt?