National Geographic: "Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming" !

axj

The Living Force
This is as sick as it gets:

Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years
Regional war could spark "unprecedented climate change," experts predict.

Charles Q. Choi

for National Geographic News

Published February 22, 2011

Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.

Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.

During the Cold War a nuclear exchange between superpowers—such as the one feared for years between the United States and the former Soviet Union—was predicted to cause a "nuclear winter."

In that scenario hundreds of nuclear explosions spark huge fires, whose smoke, dust, and ash blot out the sun for weeks amid a backdrop of dangerous radiation levels. Much of humanity eventually dies of starvation and disease.

Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan.

To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world's current nuclear arsenal. (See a National Geographic magazine feature on weapons of mass destruction.)

The researchers predicted the resulting fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere.

In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky.

(Related: "'Nuclear Archaeologists' Find World War II Plutonium.")

Reversing Global Warming?

The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.

At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said.

After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.

(Pictures: "Red Hot" Nuclear-Waste Train Glows in Infrared.)

Years Without Summer

For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet.

"Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

"Examples similar to the crop failures and famines experienced following the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 could be widespread and last several years," he added. That Indonesian volcano ushered in "the year without summer," a time of famines and unrest. (See pictures of the Mount Tambora eruption.)

All these changes would also alter circulation patterns in the tropical atmosphere, reducing precipitation by 10 percent globally for one to four years, the scientists said. Even after seven years, global average precipitation would be 5 percent lower than it was before the conflict, according to the model.

In addition, researcher Michael Mills, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, found large decreases in the protective ozone layer, leading to much more ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth's surface and harming the environment and people.

"The main message from our work," NASA's Oman said, "would be that even a regional nuclear conflict would have global consequences."

_http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/
 
Yup. Just kill a few hundred thousands... or a few million... and we'll be right as rain! Never mind that we have had the equivalent of a "small nuclear war" already with all the bomb tests they've done since 1945. Heck, for all we know, the climate change we are experiencing is due to THAT. And all the cancer.

But yeah, the fearmongering about climate change could be calculated to drive the masses to back nuclear war...
 
Laura said:
Yup. Just kill a few hundred thousands... or a few million... and we'll be right as rain! Never mind that we have had the equivalent of a "small nuclear war" already with all the bomb tests they've done since 1945. Heck, for all we know, the climate change we are experiencing is due to THAT. And all the cancer.

But yeah, the fearmongering about climate change could be calculated to drive the masses to back nuclear war...

It could also be a cover for overhead cometary Ka-Booms. "So and so set off a bomb!" :rolleyes:
 
Gimpy said:
Laura said:
Yup. Just kill a few hundred thousands... or a few million... and we'll be right as rain! Never mind that we have had the equivalent of a "small nuclear war" already with all the bomb tests they've done since 1945. Heck, for all we know, the climate change we are experiencing is due to THAT. And all the cancer.

But yeah, the fearmongering about climate change could be calculated to drive the masses to back nuclear war...

It could also be a cover for overhead cometary Ka-Booms. "So and so set off a bomb!" :rolleyes:

Could be if it come over a uninhabited region but if it explode over a city or anywhere in the USA for that matter, they may use there favorite scape goat, terrorist.
 
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming.... Wow... Good idea. Nut!

I wonder how superior one should feel to even consider something like that. I wonder if Atlantida Civilization pulled out something similar.

An idea of fixing what they consider is an internal cause externally... Hmmm.. Where did I hear that. Oh, wait. Everywhere !
Can I take my pill now that will fix my health issues tomorrow ?

How about control of planetary rotation to make sure some surfaces do not get heated? Already been considered ? Can be handy with meteors too, so the "right" areas do not get hit.

Is it me, or does it sound like someone considers waging a war on Mother Nature ? Certainly looks like that from aside.
 
'"The main message from our work," NASA's Oman said, "would be that even a regional nuclear conflict would have global consequences."'

Well, duh! Who would have guessed such? :O

Article seems like a 'storefront' type just to keep the notion of global warming alive and kicking.
 
interesting how they never mentioned israel vs. ROW nuclear war as something equally like to happen.

more obfuscation & FUD
 
moksha said:
interesting how they never mentioned israel vs. ROW nuclear war as something equally like to happen.

Well, I am NOT surprised about that not being mentioned on National Geographic... Way beyond "politically correct".

I had to look up what ROW means - Rest of the World. Not really obvious, if you ask me. Plus, I have not idea what FUD is.
 
opps sorry, FUD is fear, uncertainty and doubt - often used in the business world for shady corporate policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom