[Chalo]

AMuzi wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

*Tim McNamara wrote:

*AMuzi wrote:

Regarding nuclear weapons I must have missed the news that the
Saudi peninsula and Persia are glowing masses of glass.
There's no reason to pretend to be an idiot, Andy.

I apologize for that, it was just rude and uncalled for.

I wasn't offended.
Ya gotta wonder about the net ROI on our expensive nukes...

I just did a calculation for the cost of the plutonium in an economy-
size nuke-- you know, the minimum sort of nuke you might buy at Home
Depot as a household defensive deterrent. It turns out that takes
about 13kg of plutonium. Plutonium costs about $4000 per gram. So
you're in for $52 million just to get enough of the active
ingredient. Not including packaging, handling, or delivery!

Spring for a few mid-sized and luxury nukes and multiply the lot by a
thousand, and now you're talking real money. And all for a scary
Halloween costume that made all your friends think you were a total
creep.

Chalo

[Tim McNamara]

In article ,
AMuzi wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
AMuzi wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article

,
bicycle_disciple wrote:

Didn't NASA release something a while back saying this global
warming is a planetary phenomenon? Mars and Jupiter is also
facing warming, which probably means there is an appreciable
component attributable to activity in the sun.
Not that I've been able to find. If you've got a link to a NASA
press release or report, then please cite it.

IIRC when that first came out from the right wing blogosphere it
was about the time that Martian spring was beginning for the
Mars rover missions and it was, for them, warming up as a result
of normal seasonal variation.

If you bothered to check around, you'd find that the total solar
irradiance (the energy output of the Sun) has actually been
decreasing over the past 10 years consistent with its regular
cycle; it is currently at or about its normal minima and should
be starting to increase to its maxima which should be in about 6
years or so.

The end result of this is that the Earth has been warming up
while the Sun has been cooling down. Hmmm. The other "saving
grace" is air pollution reducing the infrared radiation reaching
the Earth, particularly high atmosphere microparticulates which
case huge infrared shadows. Particulates come from both
man-made and natural sources (of the latter, especially
volcanoes which put large amounts of particulates into the air
and result in a net cooling effect for a year or two after large
eruptions).

You know where this is going, right? We'll end up seeding the
upper atmosphere with particulates- at taxpayer expense- to
reduce global warming because business and individuals can't be
bothered to reduce their GHG emissions. What can go wrong with
that?

What else would one expect from a species stupid enough to
deliberately irradiate its own planet- at all, let alone more
than once? And to stockpile enough nuclear weapons to kill
everybody a few dozen times on the pretense that this makes them
safer? Cave men with big shiny toys is all we still are.
Old news from NASA about martian ice:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._southpole.htm

Trend: http://www.mars-ice.org/_more/about/spcrocus.php
Thanks for those. From the first:

"Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and
wane. 'It's late spring at the south pole of Mars,' says planetary
scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. 'The
polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on
it.'"

The second shows no long-term warming trend.

So, like I said.

Regarding nuclear weapons I must have missed the news that the
Saudi peninsula and Persia are glowing masses of glass.
There's no reason to pretend to be an idiot, Andy.

I apologize for that, it was just rude and uncalled for.

I wasn't offended.

Well, thanks for saying. I felt bad as soon as I hit "send." Then I
waited to read it and it seemed even worse.

Ya gotta wonder about the net ROI on our expensive nukes...

That is a good point. Even deciding how to measure ROI would be an
interesting discussion. It's a little like buying unicorn repellent.
"See any unicorns? No? That's how good it works."

Reagan had a fundamental BGO which is hard to argue with: the very
existence of nuclear weapons is a threat to the survival of humanity.
One is too many and 100,000 are not enough.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c.../11149806.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...890189,00.html