Climate change fanatics want to blow up the seabed with massive nuclear bombs

[Scott Downey]

MSN

www.msn.com

Nuke the climate​

We all know that climate change is dangerous, which means it can be tempting to take drastic measures to tackle it. Such as building a nuclear bomb orders of magnitude bigger than any to date and setting it off deep under the seabed.

News reporter Alex Wilkins drew Feedback's attention to this little scheme. It is the brainchild of Andrew Haverly, who described his idea in a paper released on 11 January on arXiv, an online repository without peer review.

Haverly's plan builds on an existing approach called enhanced rock weathering. Rocks like basalt react with carbon dioxide in the air, slowly removing the greenhouse gas and trapping it in mineral form. By crushing such rocks to powder, we can accelerate this chemical weathering and speed up CO2 removal. However, even under optimistic estimates, this will only mop up a small fraction of our greenhouse gas emissions.

That is where the nuke comes in. A decent nuclear explosion could reduce a large volume of basalt to powder, enabling a huge spurt of enhanced rock weathering. Haverly proposes burying a nuclear bomb at least 3 kilometers below the Southern Ocean seabed. The surrounding rocks would constrain the blast and radiation, minimizing the risk to life. But the explosion would pulverize enough rock to soak up 30 years' worth of CO2 emissions.



The first hurdle Haverly identifies is the scale of the bomb required. The largest nuclear explosion was that of Tsar Bomba, detonated by the USSR in 1961: it had a yield equivalent to 50 megatons of TNT. Haverly wants a bigger blast, a device with a yield of 81 gigatons, over 1600 times that of Tsar Bomba. Such a bomb, he writes solemnly, "is not to be taken lightly".

Quite how we are supposed to build this thing, then transport it to the notoriously windy Southern Ocean, safely lower it to the seabed, and then send it several km below said seabed, is very much left as an exercise for the reader. Haverly estimates this endeavor would cost "around $10 billion dollars", which would indeed be a lot of bang for your buck considering the huge costs of climate change. However, Feedback has no idea how he came up with that figure.

Anyway, nobody tell Elon Musk.

 

[LoveYeshua]

MSN

www.msn.com

Nuke the climate​

We all know that climate change is dangerous, which means it can be tempting to take drastic measures to tackle it. Such as building a nuclear bomb orders of magnitude bigger than any to date and setting it off deep under the seabed.

News reporter Alex Wilkins drew Feedback's attention to this little scheme. It is the brainchild of Andrew Haverly, who described his idea in a paper released on 11 January on arXiv, an online repository without peer review.

Haverly's plan builds on an existing approach called enhanced rock weathering. Rocks like basalt react with carbon dioxide in the air, slowly removing the greenhouse gas and trapping it in mineral form. By crushing such rocks to powder, we can accelerate this chemical weathering and speed up CO2 removal. However, even under optimistic estimates, this will only mop up a small fraction of our greenhouse gas emissions.

That is where the nuke comes in. A decent nuclear explosion could reduce a large volume of basalt to powder, enabling a huge spurt of enhanced rock weathering. Haverly proposes burying a nuclear bomb at least 3 kilometers below the Southern Ocean seabed. The surrounding rocks would constrain the blast and radiation, minimizing the risk to life. But the explosion would pulverize enough rock to soak up 30 years' worth of CO2 emissions.



The first hurdle Haverly identifies is the scale of the bomb required. The largest nuclear explosion was that of Tsar Bomba, detonated by the USSR in 1961: it had a yield equivalent to 50 megatons of TNT. Haverly wants a bigger blast, a device with a yield of 81 gigatons, over 1600 times that of Tsar Bomba. Such a bomb, he writes solemnly, "is not to be taken lightly".

Quite how we are supposed to build this thing, then transport it to the notoriously windy Southern Ocean, safely lower it to the seabed, and then send it several km below said seabed, is very much left as an exercise for the reader. Haverly estimates this endeavor would cost "around $10 billion dollars", which would indeed be a lot of bang for your buck considering the huge costs of climate change. However, Feedback has no idea how he came up with that figure.

Anyway, nobody tell Elon Musk.

this is total madness as usual, a really stupid and dangerous idea. Climate change is linked to sun activity mostly and also it is now proven that chem trails increase cloud coverage that increases and trap heat in the lower atmosphere potentially disrupting otherwise "normal" weather patterns, what is behind this climate change folly is big bucks mostly. Many states are in the process of passing laws to map these chem trails at this time, look this um for Florida and other states.

How can 300 ppm witch represents 0.03 % of the total CO2 atmospheric gases 100 years ago and now about 400 ppm or 0.04% of total atmospheric gases be responsible. really the earth mechanisms for trapping excess carbon is quite sufficient, in the list of potential green house gases, CO2 is the lowest of them all with a relative index of only One! We need not and should never implement these crazy ideas.

know that the relative index for water vapour is 300, this mean it is 300 times more potent than CO2 at the same atmospheric concentration with in the atmosphere. and representing between 2.5 and 5% of total atmospheric gases, much much higher then co2 concentrations. the science is clear but we are being lied to.

ALSO BELOW 180 PPM NO PLANT GROWTH IS POSSIBLE AND WE ALL DIE within 3 years. CO2 is necessary for life and is not pollution. in many greenhouses they inject CO2 up to 1200PPM to increase plant growth....

 

[lforrest]

this is total madness as usual, a really stupid and dangerous idea. Climate change is linked to sun activity mostly and also it is now proven that chem trails increase cloud coverage that increases and trap heat in the lower atmosphere potentially disrupting otherwise "normal" weather patterns, what is behind this climate change folly is big bucks mostly. Many states are in the process of passing laws to map these chem trails at this time, look this um for Florida and other states.

How can 300 ppm witch represents 0.03 % of the total CO2 atmospheric gases 100 years ago and now about 400 ppm or 0.04% of total atmospheric gases be responsible. really the earth mechanisms for trapping excess carbon is quite sufficient, in the list of potential green house gases, CO2 is the lowest of them all with a relative index of only One! We need not and should never implement these crazy ideas.

know that the relative index for water vapour is 300, this mean it is 300 times more potent than CO2 at the same atmospheric concentration with in the atmosphere. and representing between 2.5 and 5% of total atmospheric gases, much much higher then co2 concentrations. the science is clear but we are being lied to.

ALSO BELOW 180 PPM NO PLANT GROWTH IS POSSIBLE AND WE ALL DIE within 3 years. CO2 is necessary for life and is not pollution. in many greenhouses they inject CO2 up to 1200PPM to increase plant growth....

I didn't know that plant life isn't possible below 180 PPM. The earth has been sitting at 200 PPM for thousands of years. This implies that plant growth had reached a saturation point, where it was being limited by the available CO2.

Now we have a bit higher concentration, seems it could be handled with plants.

 

[Jack]

More population control? LOL

 

[JohnDB]

A nuke at the bottom of the ocean won't do much. If the largest nuke (made by Russia) the Tzar bomb was detonated at the bottom of the Marianas Trench....
All we would get is a few bubbles rising to the surface.
The water pressure is so much that it will literally crush the explosion. (If we could build a shell strong enough to withstand the pressure in order for the thing to work)
There's several reasons why a submarine has to surface to launch missiles.

Couple other points.

Nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain.
The ones we have all contain tritium as well as deuterium. Tritium has a half life of 20 years meaning that the element needs to be replaced at 12 years. And it's just under a billion dollars per nuke missile. (8 warheads per MERV missile)

this also is why we believe that ALL of Russia's nukes are duds. 50 billion dollars is what they needed to maintain their nukes. That's the entire budget for the Russia Federation....not military alone.
And Russia has been broke for a while....

 

[LoveYeshua]

I didn't know that plant life isn't possible below 180 PPM. The earth has been sitting at 200 PPM for thousands of years. This implies that plant growth had reached a saturation point, where it was being limited by the available CO2.

Now we have a bit higher concentration, seems it could be handled with plants.

I cannot recall the study but it was observed by satellite imagery that plant growth has indeed increased since the beginning of satellite imagery, the problem is that we humans cut forests bare without reseeding, this is the case in the amazonian Forest and also here in Canada, our government promised to plant 200 million trees but so far only 20000. were planted as of last year, a real joke. We Canadians allow industry to destroy forests even if it is forbidden to do so, human hypocrisy and stupidity for the gain of moneys for big corporations.

 

[JohnDB]

I cannot recall the study but it was observed by satellite imagery that plant growth has indeed increased since the beginning of satellite imagery, the problem is that we humans cut forests bare without reseeding, this is the case in the amazonian Forest and also here in Canada, our government promised to plant 200 million trees but so far only 20000. were planted as of last year, a real joke. We Canadians allow industry to destroy forests even if it is forbidden to do so, human hypocrisy and stupidity for the gain of moneys for big corporations.

Here in the USA there is no harvesting of old growth trees. We have actually a surplus of tree farms and farmed trees.(for lumber products) our forests (except in California) are regularly cleaned up to prevent forest fires. Big mills get most of the trees.
BUT
Small mills usually go in after the big mills clear out the bulk and leave the seconds. Which is where small mills can clean up. They can mill the seconds into usable lumber.

Trees are sometimes cut from the national forests too with tree planting afterwards being a mandatory thing. Species are replaced....(and there are many)

When you grow up with your mother working for national forests you lean a LOT about our national forests.