I immediately wondered that; a low yield dirty bomb, at say, the UN on the Upper East Side would be a different EMP profile, I presume, from a higher yielded ship born bomb inside, say, a container which had cleared customs in Pakistan, and that would be different from a high altitude air burst, right? So, and the physics seems calculable if annoyingly in my past--you should be able to calculate a range of EMP from various yields?

The "Quora" answers are: a ground-based (ship based?) lower yield weapon has EMP effects of note to the 3 mile range.

An airburst would be a different issue. "Starfish Prime”. In this high altitude nuclear test, carried out in 1962, a 1.44 Mt warhead was detonated at a height of 400 km. Electrical damage, including burning out hundreds of street lamps was caused in Hawaii - about 1500 km from the point of detonation.

By contrast there was no direct blast damage at all at that range.

The maximal electric fields induced in the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii were estimated at 6 kV/m. At high latitudes the value could easily be ten times higher.

For electrical equipment to be damaged by an EMP from a nuclear detonation, the detonation point must be above the visual horizon.

A large yield weapon detonated 400 km above Kansas would have an EMP that extended across the entire continental US, but the ground intensity pattern of that EMP would be peaked towards the South of ground zero, it would not be symmetrical."

List of Films used:

Yojimbo (1961)
Secret of the Incas (1954)
Casablanca (1942)
Zorro Rides Again (1937)
Stagecoach (1939)
Zorro’s Fighting Legion (1939)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Foolish Wives (1922)
Kiss Me Deadly (1955)
Citizen Kane (1941)

*spammer

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=+seodaddy&oq=+seodaddy&gs_l=hp.3..0i13k1l9j5.1264.1264.0.1962.2.2.0.0.0.0.166.326.
0j2.2.0.foo%2Cersl%3D1%2Cewh%3D0%2Cnso-enksa%3D0%2Cnso-enfk%3D1%2Cnso-usnt%3D1%2Cnso-qnt-npqp%3D0-1%2Cnso-qnt-npdq%3D0-45%2Cnso-qnt-npt%3D0-09%2Cnso-q
nt-ndc%3D300%2Ccspa-dspm-nm-mnp%3D0-045%2Ccspa-dspm-nm-mxp%3D0-1125%2Cnso-unt-npqp%3D0-15%2Cnso-unt-npdq%3D0-25%2Cnso-unt-npt%3D0-06%2Cnso-unt-ndc%3D3
00%2Ccspa-uipm-nm-mnp%3D0-0075%2Ccspa-uipm-nm-mxp%3D0-0525.1..0...1..64.hp..0.1.165.0.mQt4fRFjovE

I call bullshit. There have already been over 2000 bombs detonated for testing. Though most countries stopped doing surface, ground, underwater and atmospheric tests after the NTB, that still leave a lot of bombs detonated on the surface. I had a quick look at just US tests, and in the late 50s through early 60's, we were setting them off like fireworks on the 4th of July, with almost 100 detonations at the Nevada Test Site alone between 1962-1963.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Chris Marker: La Jetee (1962). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I like his point at the beginning that we're actually living in the best time ever. It's counter-intuitive because the of the way media works today and we're getting blasted with so much bad news.

But honestly, do you think the world is in a more precarious situation than say 1942 or even 1962?

You still can...they are called 'Chūshingura' .
'The Loyal 47 Ronin' is one version you can watch for free with subtitles, it can be found on YT in 2 parts, part one is at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9lG7G6t4E

Many are just named 'Chūshingura', including the most famous one, made in 1962 named "Chūshingura: Hana no Maki, Yuki no Maki" There are many versions. None of the Japanese made versions have dragons or witches, as far as I know. I'm almost certain they are ALL better than "47 Ronin", but I haven't seen them all...I just know it's true.

Your video, Model cars factory in 1962, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

Sweet mother of fuck. Journalists are under investigation for having published some confidential documents. The charge: treason.

Haven't had that kind of shit since 1962.

Edit: English version: http://pastebin.com/kwUyafqi

Edit #2: Guardian

Edit #3: this picture is pure gold -- Journalist of the Year, Grimme Online Award, under investigation on suspicion of treason.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

The sad thing, people like her are educated in colleges that slavery is exclusive to white people, racism is exclusive to white people, and all white people are racist.

Stop 1: This ended in 1962 per her comments. So in the time since, over half a CENTURY, people who were affected have not been able to make it out of their situation. This includes their children and grandchildren, all kept down by 'the man'.

Stop 2: Let's totally ignore the facts that the government subsidizes schools in poor districts and in many states there is a robin hood clause for school funds. Again, in the half century plus time period, there have been no changes to the system that were supposed to improve it. Let's also ignore that ALL of our schools that are not private tend to be having lower education quality. Additionally, let's ignore completely the numerous grants and special loans that are given to people of non-white and non-male status. This includes the special restrictions in place that specifically force schools to give spots in contested classes to minorities.

Stop 3: True, regrettably. You can't stop people from making assumptions.

Stop 4: Yes, but this isn't due to color, it's due to the war on drugs. Yes, crack sentences were harder because it was of epidemic proportions and the effects of crack are wildly different from regular cocaine. Rethink our war on drugs and we could easily solve this disparity.

Stop 5: True, but this goes to the heart of another issue, the failure of our police force.

Stop 6: Same as stop 5.

As a result of this outbreak, Roald Dahl's letter to parents encouraging measles vaccination has been doing the rounds again:

https://roalddahl.com/roald-dahl/timeline/1960s/november-1962

Olivia Dahl died of measles encephalitis in 1962, before there was a measles vaccine.

I stand corrected.
I knew the concept was proposed in the 50's, but I didn't think the design work started until 1962 with a maiden flight in 64.

Either way, it's still goddamn awesome.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Chris-Marker-La-Jetee-1962