And yet we survived. In 2010, any trace amount of radiation will destroy the planet.
See anything interesting about the temperature record while atmospheric testing was going on?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- spren on “filled with racist remarks”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Bob G on “falsely labeling”
- Bill on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
Steven! Now they’ll say that nuclear bombs are good for the planet …
oh wait…
So if global warming ever becomes a problem, just set off some nukes. Sounds simple enough. It has been done before and can be done again.
lol, if I’m not mistaken, the idea was posited last month.
Global brightening, dimming and then brightening again.
There is evidence of sunshine hours going up and down and up again in a similar fashion.
I think much of the brightening occurred as air quality improved. But you may be right that atmospheric testing kicked up some dust.
We could just use more hair spray……………
….and mirrored balls
Yeh!!!!! Bring back disco!!!!!!
I….I….I’m stayin alive……I……I….I’m stayin alive!
good Lord…
…we really were separated at birth!
lmao!
Pingback: Greens fear nukes, Moonbat fears lack of them | JunkScience Sidebar
Hang on… are you saying we can explain the dip in temperatures during that period through global dimming caused by nuke tests? If so, doesn’t that mean the ‘consensus’ is right on global warming?
No. If you remove the cooling from 1945 to 1965, the warming from 1970 to 2000 is greatly reduced.
So why is it cooling at the top of the graph without the nuke tests and CO2 levels have still been rising? What? Nothing to do with CO2? Don’t believe you!
lol, yeh, weird isn’t it?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001.17/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001.17/trend
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image.png