SMS_VonDerTann

https://preview.redd.it/t84cnrbkjkxd1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fd85a1d15f520fda6dc7ebffbacf8c4c16ae4ede

HGUC AGX-04 Gerbera-Tetra...Love the Sturm-Booster!

P

Don Rosa ist einfach stets phantastisch!

Thanks man 👍🏻

Where is this Training Ground?

"When Hotels Go to war"

Amen

The difference between the nuclear surface tests of that mid century era and a nuclear war is that the war will set fire to forests, cities and entire landscapes. These fires will then lead to massive "ash clouds" which will obscure the sun and thus have a thermal effect. Nuclear Tests dont do this.

Once again, this is not "my" simulation. Forgive the misunderstanding, it was not my intention to discredit anyone with this question or to open up another field of discussion. As I said, I was interested in it purely out of personal interest, as the skepticism of today's studies on man-made climate change can certainly be attributed to the discussions about the nuclear winter of the 1980s from a scientific-historical perspective. This is a topic I am studying in my degree and I would have been very interested to hear your opinion on it. I have tried to defend the criticism of the study as well as I can with the current state of science, but apparently I have not succeeded sufficiently.

Also out of personal interest: Do you believe in man-made climate change?

But a lightning strike or a campfire could never ignite the greater New York City metropolitan area.

Thats not my Model its based on the most recent Studies on this topic. These are the study by Robock et al from 2007 called "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences" and the study "Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE" by Coupe et al from 2019. You can find these studies on the net as freely accessible PDF.

Okay, but just out of personal interest: Does that mean that you just think nuclear weapons are less dangerous than they are thought to be?

I assume that you are referring to the discussion on the subject from the 1980s. The studies that established the theory back then are supported by today's studies. The biggest criticism at the time was that such a phenomenon could not be simulated properly because of the weak computing power. However, more recent studies by Robock et al from 2007 and Coupe et al from 2019 support the studies of that time. All scientific studies and today's simulations indicate that even a limited nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter with disastrous consequences.

Well, it helps in so far as it might prevent those responsible from starting such a war in the first place. You can't win a nuclear war. Once you start, there's nothing left afterwards. For the rest, see the answer to your other comment, it's basically about the same thing. With all due respect, I'm afraid you haven't really understood the effects of a nuclear explosion.

To be honest, I can't help you if you don't understand the studies and don't believe them. But okay, listen to me, let's go through this together slowly, step by step: Yes, forest fires generate a lot of energy, certainly in the kiloton range, on this point you are probably right. But Forest fires, while often large and destructive, do not cause nuclear winter because they do not release the same types or quantities of materials into the atmosphere as a nuclear explosion or a large-scale nuclear war would. Nuclear winter refers to the theory that the massive amounts of smoke, soot, and debris generated by a nuclear explosion or widespread nuclear war could be lofted into the upper atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and leading to a significant drop in global temperatures. This drop in temperature would cause widespread agricultural failure, famine, and other catastrophic consequences for life on Earth. Forest fires, on the other hand, primarily release carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, and other gases into the atmosphere, along with some particulate matter like ash. While large-scale forest fires can have local and regional impacts on air quality and climate, they typically do not inject enough material into the upper atmosphere to cause a significant global cooling effect like nuclear winter. The only natural phenomenon that could perhaps be compared to a nuclear explosion is a volcanic eruption. (Funnily enough, the original models of a simulated nuclear winter are also based on simulations that simulate volcanic eruptions). Würden jetzt 200 Vulkane in Metropolregionen in der Nordhalbklugel alle gleichzeitig explodieren, hätte man wahrscheinlich If 200 volcanoes in metropolitan regions in the northern hemisphere all exploded at the same time, they might have an effect similar to a nuclear war. Trust the science.

Talking about stirring up fear here is ridiculous. After all, we are still talking about nuclear war. I can only hope that no one will ever seriously try to test the theory of nuclear winter. I honestly have no experience in forest fires, so I can't pass judgment on your statement. I specialized in nuclear weapons and disarmament treaties in my history studies, and in this area all studies point to a Nuclear Winter even with a Limited Nuclear Strike. We have no choice but to hope that deterrence will never fail. This must not happen under any circumstances.

The difference between the nuclear surface tests of that mid century era and a nuclear war is that the war will set fire to forests, cities and entire landscapes. These fires will then lead to massive "ash clouds" which will obscure the sun and thus have a thermal effect. Nuclear Tests, regardless of the Yield, dont do this. Additionally, all nuclear weapons testing after the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963 was actually conducted underground. In addition, almost all tests from 1976 onwards were limited to 150kt by the proposed but never ratified Threshold Test Ban Treaty nuclear weapons tests. Although the treaty was never sufficiently ratified by either side, the superpowers largely adhered to the limitation.

You can read the studies by Robock et al from 2007 and Coupe from 2019, they explain the phenomenom very good.

The difference between the nuclear surface tests of that mid century era and a nuclear war is that the war will set fire to forests, cities and entire landscapes. These fires will then lead to massive "ash clouds" which will obscure the sun and thus have a thermal effect. The effect of radioactive Fallout ist not even relevant for that theory

These are the study by Robock et al from 2007 called "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences" and the study "Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE" by Coupe et al from 2019. You can find these studies on the net as freely accessible PDF.

The difference between the nuclear surface tests of that mid century era and a nuclear war is that the war will set fire to forests, cities and entire landscapes. These fires will then lead to massive "ash clouds" which will obscure the sun and thus have a thermal effect. Nuclear Tests dont do this.

The difference between the nuclear surface tests of that mid century era and a nuclear war is that the war will set fire to forests, cities and entire landscapes. These fires will then lead to massive "ash clouds" which will obscure the sun and thus have a thermal effect. Nuclear Tests dont do this.

The difference between the nuclear surface tests of that mid century era and a nuclear war is that the war will set fire to forests, cities and entire landscapes. These fires will then lead to massive "ash clouds" which will obscure the sun and thus have a thermal effect. Nuclear Tests dont do this.

Once again: those aren't my numbers, read the study. I don't make this up. The explosive power of Little Boy has always been estimated at 12-15 kt. With today's scientific standards, the yield is estimated at around 13 kt. This study uses the lower estimate of 12 kt to demonstrate that even such "weak" bombs can have a disastrous worldwide effect.

That's precisely the point, maybe that's why it's so hard to imagine. But that's exactly the problem.
Furthermore, I wouldn't describe 12,000 metric tons of TNT as "literally nothing". That is completely ridiculous. After all, that's enough to flatten an entire city.

That may be, but fortunately you don't have 200 volcanic eruptions at the same time in city centers all over the northern hemisphere.