Anyone who thinks the planet would split in half either severely overestimates the power of nukes, or severely underestimates exactly how large Earth is lol
Yeah we've had volcanic eruptions with forces 18,000x stronger than the strongest nuke ever tested and 75x stronger than the entire world's nuclear arsenal lol the earth creates forces our minds can't even begin to comprehend lol like we think our 50 megatons is big when there have been eruptions of estimated 900,000 megatons and probably bigger ones than that lol
You could not even split a 1000km diameter asteroid with those nukes... let alone a 12000km diameter earth that has 1700 times more mass. 1000 times more nukes like those we have could not split the earth. But... there is no theoretical upper limit on the yield of hydrogen bombs... so in theory and with enough engineering, we could make 1 reaaaaaaaaally big nuke that could.
@@zhadoomzx there isn't enough explosives in the world to explode the earth, hell... If you were somehow able to blow the earth up, the matter would simply come after losing all outwards acceleration and reconstitute back into earth
Changing global temperatures by "a few degrees" is describing a mean average, that is , sum of all values divided by the number of data points. You get extreme consequences that the "few degrees" wouldn''t change if it was just that at that one location.
You have it backwards. It's the Amazon Rainforest that uses up CO2 in the atmosphere and it's the oceans that produce oxygen with phytoplankton ect... Not the other way around
What if we detonated all nuclear bombs at once? We'd be stupid. That's what. All that precious power source wasted... You could game for multiple lifetimes with all that electricity.
Only about 97% of the material, 94% would be uranium, is recyclable according to some articles I found. The problem is that it’s extremely expensive to do so while some countries do recycle the material many don’t including the US.
@@lurkingllama8364I doubt it would kill all of it, it would definitely get rid of most life we currently know but life has survived volcanic eruptions lasting millions of years producing tera if not petaatons of force and singular eruptions of 900+ gigatons all in all every nuke on earth is only about 12 gigatons. Life would be fine, humans and most large animals would probably be fucked but life itself would continue
100,000 population is the general definition of when something becomes a city rather than like a town which is why they ysed that number. And the amazon only produces 6-9% of the total oxygen supply and only 16% of what's created on land, not great but still managable if it was gone and would only bring the overall oxygen concentration down 1.2% which is the equivalent of being at like 1500 feet in altitude. The areas with not enough oxygen to breath would drop a bit lower on mountains but overall the oxygen itself wouldn't be the big deal it would be all the carbon and other compounds from it burning that would be the real issue especially since cities would be burning too
To crack the planet you need an amount of energy that, to us, is essentially infinite. It gets even more infinite to make sure it can't ever form again.
Well, not infinite, it's about 250 QJ (quetta-joule), or slightly more than a week's worth of total energy output from our sun, to gravitationally unbind Earth (i.e. properly get rid of it). You're definitely not going to "crack" it though, given that it is mostly molten (and the parts that aren't right now certainly will be if you input the amount of energy required).
@@MatthijsvanDuin I didn't say properly infinite but instead essentially infinite to the human mind. Such numbers are extremely difficult to understand due to how the human mind works. You are also taking the cracking part a little too literally.
Losing the rainforest would in no way mean the end of humanity, since it is estimated that between 50% - 85% of the world's oxygen comes from phytoplankton residing in the world's oceans. However, it would decidedly be bad for us; it would mean losing a biodiversity hotspot. Its absence would lead to increased carbon in the air and oceans, the loss of medically and culturally significant species, and worsening drought and flooding. Additionally, millions of people would lose their homes and livelihoods. So while in no way species ending, it would considerably worsen the quality of life for every human on the planet in some way.
The idea that nukes would split the earth in half is as silly as the idea that a single dust particle landing on a table could completely break it in half
So I looked it up. The ocean is the major source of the world’s oxygen supply. The Amazon is a perfect balance of using everything thing that it produces. The one theory I saw was that 20% comes from the misquoted fact that the Amazon produced 20% of the land based oxygen supply, which makes sense due to it being one of the largest rainforests on the planet.
If we lose the amazon rainforest, we will see massive algae blooms due to the higher temperatures of the released co2 and the higher acidity of the water. The algae blooms will, due to algae's efficiency, produce even more oxygen than before, so it would balance itself out again.
Algae produces an estimated 70% and saying the oceans are "dying" does not effect the fact that changing weather patterns and temperatures are INCREASING the amounts of algae. I do wish people would stop destroying biodiversity in both ocean and freshwater though. When I was a kid I used to be able to catch fish by rubbing bait against a hook. People built condos around lakes and intentionally destroyed all the reeds. Nothing like destroying the spawnpoints because you want a more homogenous, cleaner looking view from your rich little getaway.
What if we had 70,000 nuclear bombs just like back in 1986, and all of those bombs were of the Tsar Bomba with the U-238 tamper that was in the design which would have a yield of 100 megatons, and detonated it all at once?
honest question. is this a guy larping as a girl with an AI voice or something? it makes really weird and buggy sound effects in some sentences. I'm just curious
Anyone who thinks the planet would split in half either severely overestimates the power of nukes, or severely underestimates exactly how large Earth is lol
Yeah we've had volcanic eruptions with forces 18,000x stronger than the strongest nuke ever tested and 75x stronger than the entire world's nuclear arsenal lol the earth creates forces our minds can't even begin to comprehend lol like we think our 50 megatons is big when there have been eruptions of estimated 900,000 megatons and probably bigger ones than that lol
Only Kirby can do such a feat
its bullet ants vs a human yes it hurts but only for a moment
You could not even split a 1000km diameter asteroid with those nukes... let alone a 12000km diameter earth that has 1700 times more mass.
1000 times more nukes like those we have could not split the earth.
But... there is no theoretical upper limit on the yield of hydrogen bombs... so in theory and with enough engineering, we could make 1 reaaaaaaaaally big nuke that could.
@@zhadoomzx there isn't enough explosives in the world to explode the earth, hell... If you were somehow able to blow the earth up, the matter would simply come after losing all outwards acceleration and reconstitute back into earth
Changing global temperatures by "a few degrees" is describing a mean average, that is , sum of all values divided by the number of data points. You get extreme consequences that the "few degrees" wouldn''t change if it was just that at that one location.
You have it backwards. It's the Amazon Rainforest that uses up CO2 in the atmosphere and it's the oceans that produce oxygen with phytoplankton ect... Not the other way around
They're doing the same process, consuming CO2 and creating oxygen as waste.
@@MatthijsvanDuinone man's trash, another man's treasure
What if we detonated all nuclear bombs at once?
We'd be stupid. That's what. All that precious power source wasted... You could game for multiple lifetimes with all that electricity.
Psh, all I need is one lifetime.
You can't generate electricity from nukes
@@Xnoob545but you could from the fissile material used in those nukes.
Only about 97% of the material, 94% would be uranium, is recyclable according to some articles I found. The problem is that it’s extremely expensive to do so while some countries do recycle the material many don’t including the US.
Niclear weapons are very powerful, but the planet is MASSIVE, some little bombs wont damage it at all
Might kill the life on it, but the planet itself won't give a fuck at all.
Insert George Carlin joke about "saving the F***in' PLANET?!"
@@lurkingllama8364I doubt it would kill all of it, it would definitely get rid of most life we currently know but life has survived volcanic eruptions lasting millions of years producing tera if not petaatons of force and singular eruptions of 900+ gigatons all in all every nuke on earth is only about 12 gigatons. Life would be fine, humans and most large animals would probably be fucked but life itself would continue
100,000 population is the general definition of when something becomes a city rather than like a town which is why they ysed that number. And the amazon only produces 6-9% of the total oxygen supply and only 16% of what's created on land, not great but still managable if it was gone and would only bring the overall oxygen concentration down 1.2% which is the equivalent of being at like 1500 feet in altitude. The areas with not enough oxygen to breath would drop a bit lower on mountains but overall the oxygen itself wouldn't be the big deal it would be all the carbon and other compounds from it burning that would be the real issue especially since cities would be burning too
It's pronounced:
Kurrts-geh-zaagt
The word Kurzgesagt literally means "said short" and it's used in the same way as English "in a nutshell".
The ocean has plancton in it.
Take a shot every time there's dumb.
I have died…
que "Drunk" by living tombstone
I'm sure I'd die after a single shot....
We're talking about gun shots right? 😅
18:05 That Poor bird got Vaporized!!! LOL
To crack the planet you need an amount of energy that, to us, is essentially infinite. It gets even more infinite to make sure it can't ever form again.
Death Star.
@@gundam2jimmy Yeah, or an anti-matter weapon.
Well, not infinite, it's about 250 QJ (quetta-joule), or slightly more than a week's worth of total energy output from our sun, to gravitationally unbind Earth (i.e. properly get rid of it). You're definitely not going to "crack" it though, given that it is mostly molten (and the parts that aren't right now certainly will be if you input the amount of energy required).
@@MatthijsvanDuin I didn't say properly infinite but instead essentially infinite to the human mind. Such numbers are extremely difficult to understand due to how the human mind works. You are also taking the cracking part a little too literally.
@@irystocrattakodachithatmooms :-)
Losing the rainforest would in no way mean the end of humanity, since it is estimated that between 50% - 85% of the world's oxygen comes from phytoplankton residing in the world's oceans. However, it would decidedly be bad for us; it would mean losing a biodiversity hotspot. Its absence would lead to increased carbon in the air and oceans, the loss of medically and culturally significant species, and worsening drought and flooding. Additionally, millions of people would lose their homes and livelihoods. So while in no way species ending, it would considerably worsen the quality of life for every human on the planet in some way.
The idea that nukes would split the earth in half is as silly as the idea that a single dust particle landing on a table could completely break it in half
So I looked it up. The ocean is the major source of the world’s oxygen supply. The Amazon is a perfect balance of using everything thing that it produces. The one theory I saw was that 20% comes from the misquoted fact that the Amazon produced 20% of the land based oxygen supply, which makes sense due to it being one of the largest rainforests on the planet.
Awesome to see you do a reaction to one of my favorite info shows! 👍
At least you are learning something. Cheers
humans actually dont need trees to survive
Your wooden furniture says otherwise but I get what you meant
If we lose the amazon rainforest, we will see massive algae blooms due to the higher temperatures of the released co2 and the higher acidity of the water.
The algae blooms will, due to algae's efficiency, produce even more oxygen than before, so it would balance itself out again.
Algae produces an estimated 70% and saying the oceans are "dying" does not effect the fact that changing weather patterns and temperatures are INCREASING the amounts of algae.
I do wish people would stop destroying biodiversity in both ocean and freshwater though. When I was a kid I used to be able to catch fish by rubbing bait against a hook. People built condos around lakes and intentionally destroyed all the reeds. Nothing like destroying the spawnpoints because you want a more homogenous, cleaner looking view from your rich little getaway.
Love this channel, well both channels lol
What if we had 70,000 nuclear bombs just like back in 1986, and all of those bombs were of the Tsar Bomba with the U-238 tamper that was in the design which would have a yield of 100 megatons, and detonated it all at once?
honest question. is this a guy larping as a girl with an AI voice or something? it makes really weird and buggy sound effects in some sentences. I'm just curious