I agree that the historical evidence indicates it should be getting colder. And I agree that it is getting warmer instead. But you may be the one using the false logic. The most logical conclusion is that we have overwhelmed the natural cycle. If you combine the temperature issue with the oxygen cycle - we may have a problem it will be hard to fix. [Oxygen has increased for about 2 billion years. Until now.] Killing things that make oxygen (mainly trees by harvesting and plankton by pollution) may be really dumb. Nature does tend to adjust - and if there are too many humans messing up too many things it may indeed adjust that too. No population ever exceeds the available food supply. No matter if it is foolish or not - North Korea killed its topsoil and starvation is the effect. We can ignore things too - but not in the long term.

The issue of an ice age coming may actually be supported by the warming of the planet. I know that that sounds counter intuitive. Ice core and tree ring data indicates that the average temperature during the ice ages was higher than in historic times. The extremes were milder however. The net result was more precipitation and less melting. In geologic terms we are only seeing a very small slice of the climatic cycle. Due to not having records prior to the onset of the last ice age we do not have a lot to go on. However if you warmed up the planet, increase the amount of fresh water going into the oceans you would decrease the salinity of the oceans lowering the vapor point and increasing the atmospheric moister. This would lead to a moderation of temperatures and an increase in cloud cover. (This is not my theory by the way, can not site the source however, very bad on my part) this results in further moderation of temperatures and when you reach the point that precipitation is greater than combined melting and sublimation the glaciation starts. The data indicates that, in geologic terms this was rather rapid. A note, temperatures at the Antarctic are higher than in the past but the amount of snowfall has increased. The next few decades may be very interesting for us lab rats, lots of data and very hard to prove cause and effect. Bb

"No population ever exceeds the available food supply." Your statement is true. A more accurate statement would be that no population ever exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecosystem. There are many cases of food not being the limiting factor for a population. That will be the cause of conflicts in the future. Clean water, fuel, crop land, a cool place or perhaps a warm place. It may be in the interest of some countries to see the coming storm sooner than later, if it can not be stopped. Bb

"The point was, that it doesn't matter if we warm up our planet now, " Wrong. Time scale matters. So do context. The fact that most species which ever existed are now dead - true - does NOT mean that the loss of most species now extent in the next hundred years is irrelevant to human civilization or to the future of the biome. If anything, looking on geological scale, we live in an especially delicate time in the history of life on earth because the biome is already highly stressed by the effects of the repeated ice ages and thaws of the last few million years. Man entered a world at a stage when it was already highly stressed and had lost significant biological diversity. The Americas, especially, are fairly poorly speciated. Outside the tropics, anyway. More so than any other part of the world apart from Australia. Add on that the additional stress from both direct human extermination of species and indirect extermination, due to changes in habitats resulting from human activity, and you're looking at the real risk of the eradication of most variety of life on dry land over the next century. Certainly the larger species. Where, exactly, is the habitat of the European wolf? The European lion? Moderans nearly exterminated the former. Romans, the latter. In fact, when we look, closely, at the instances of species "rescued from the brink of extinction" we find, again and again, that the total gene pools of the survivors are tiny, representing mere hundreds, or, sometimes, dozens, of individuals. That's a poor recipe for survival.

If it went off close enough, it must be very close because of the inverse square law that governs radiation density, say in contact with the containment dome, it might cause a flash chain reaction in the reactor core. However that yeald would probably be less significant that the origional detonation, due to the fact that most of the fuel is not fissile. That means that it will not fission when hit by slow, IE, "thermal" nutrons. Since most of the nutrons reliesed by the weapon are slow, thermal types, the bomb might not have enough fast nutrons to make the core vaporise but just melt in the fireballs thermal flash. In either case the first detonation would cause the vast majority of the damage. Radiation leakage would be terrifing to the population at large but of no significant danger after clean up. Look at the fact that Chernoble is still running and how they are doing that and coping with the disaster.

A neuton bomb is a thermonuclear weapon and as such produces FAST neutrons, fast enough to fission U238 in an ordinary H-Bomb. Hydrogen fusion creates fast neutrons. The normal neutrons produced by uranium fission in a reactor are slowed down by a moderator. Slow neutrons will still fission U235 or Plutonium.

On a PWR reactor which is stable, I don't think like you that reactor would overrun, but what about on a chernobyl like instable reactor(positive void coefficient )?I don't know especially if electronic safeguard are shut.

Time is being overlooked. A neutron bomb would yield a high-density short duration neutron flux. Any design considerations (PWR, negative temperature coefficient, etc.) that moderate reactor power would not have enough time to take effect to counter any increase in power due to this flux. Forget about them, they are irrelevant. Moving on to the EM pulse... This is going to travel at the speed of light; neutrons have mass, so they won't. Most modern reactors drop their control rods with a loss or significant change in the electrical power holding them up. This means that reactor power should be decreasing by the time the leading edge of the neutron flux hits. This could be important, depending on the distance from the blast (I'd need to do some testing to verify, anybody have a spare reactor and neutron bomb?). I believe that U-238 (fuel of choice for civilian reactors) fissions under fast-neutron flux, making it more susceptible to a neutron bomb than its military brethren (who prefer U-235, fissioning better under slow-neutron flux). The question is, will the flux we able to cause fission. If it can, it will most likely do so throughout the reactor (to a lesser extent in areas protected by control rods). The concept of shielding complicates things. Shielding will slow neutrons, making them more effective with U-235, but nuclear subs have no shielding between the hull and the reactor. Water is a very effective shield, meaning the blast distance would have a significant effect on flux levels. I'm not up on civilian shielding, but the more shielding the fewer fast neutrons, making civilian reactors with more shielding less likely to have a fast-fission event. Answering this question requires expertise in too many fields, so anything you read is going to be a best guess. IMHO, it is possible to trigger a fast-fission event (nuclear bomb) by the detonation of a neutron bomb near a nuclear reactor. The blast characteristics would probably be significantly different due to fuel density and poison presence (as compared to a 'standard' nuke). I have to add, that while I think it is possible, I think it is very unlikely