Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Sun Jul 20, 2014, 02:35 PM Jul 2014

U.S. atmospheric and environmental scientists modeled what would happen after"limited, nuclear war

You've seen what a nuclear winter looks like, as imagined by filmmakers and novelists. Now you can take a look at what scientists have to say. In a new study, a team of four U.S. atmospheric and environmental scientists modeled what would happen after a "limited, regional nuclear war." To inexpert ears, the consequences sound pretty subtle—two or three degrees of global cooling, a nine percent reduction in yearly rainfall. Still, such changes could be enough to trigger crop failures and famines. After all, these would be cooler temperatures than the Earth has seen in 1,000 years.

Let's take a detailed look at some of these super-fun conclusions, shall we?

First, what happened?

The team imagines 100 nuclear warheads, each about the size of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, detonate over the Indian subcontinent. The team members are imagining an India-Pakistan nuclear war. It seems unfair to single out these nations, but I guess they're the poster children because they have relatively small nuclear stockpiles compared to countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. The idea is, If these lightweights can do this to Earth, imagine what the bigwigs can do.

After the Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange…

Five megatons of black carbon enter the atmosphere immediately. Black carbon comes from burned stuff and it absorbs heat from the sun before it can reach the Earth. Some black carbon does eventually falls back to Earth in rain.////////////////////////////////////////////


Okay, I know I've just made your day with this list. Still, there's a point to all this doom and gloom, the modelers write in their paper. The scientists want to motivate countries to destroy the estimated 17,000 nuclear weapons they still hold.

Will this work? Well, scientists and artists have been imagining the dire consequences of an atom-bomb war for decades. The very idea of a "nuclear winter" entered the popular imagination in 1983, when a study, authored by a team including Carl Sagan, first proposed that soot from fires after a nuclear war would block sunlight from reaching Earth.


Twenty-five years later, environmental scientists began using modern climate models to figure out what might happen after a nuclear war. Yep, these are the same models that scientists use to predict the effects of human-driven global warming. This new paper combined a number of those state-of-the-art models. If you check out the paper, published in the journal Earth's Future, you can see how these conclusions compare to previous climate-model-based calculations. Different modeling efforts have come up with slightly different years for when the Earth would be coldest after a nuclear war, for example, but they generally agree that the effects would be, well, severe and long-term.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. atmospheric and environmental scientists modeled what would happen after"limited, nuclear war (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Jul 2014 OP
I think the author could have placed more emphasis on the 2 billion iemitsu Jul 2014 #1
Well said. Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #2
agree defacto7 Jul 2014 #3
No more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops, depending on the breaks.... Xipe Totec Jul 2014 #4
We will not stand for a mine-shaft gap. iemitsu Jul 2014 #5
See? We've got the answer to global warming right there. Silent3 Jul 2014 #6
I always throw this at the GW deniers who claim we don't have the power to alter Earth's climate NickB79 Jul 2014 #7

iemitsu

(3,888 posts)
1. I think the author could have placed more emphasis on the 2 billion
Sun Jul 20, 2014, 03:18 PM
Jul 2014

dead from starvation consequence. While a few degrees temperature difference or some small percentage less rainfall might not seem catastrophic, to the lay person, nearly half of the world's population dead from starvation does.
Too bad these weapons are in the hands of people, who might see the results of a nuclear war as beneficial.

Silent3

(15,220 posts)
6. See? We've got the answer to global warming right there.
Mon Jul 21, 2014, 09:28 AM
Jul 2014

Just drop a few nukes to cool things off a bit.

Gotta love these counter-intuitive solutions.

NickB79

(19,253 posts)
7. I always throw this at the GW deniers who claim we don't have the power to alter Earth's climate
Mon Jul 21, 2014, 12:55 PM
Jul 2014

You know, the ole line about how humans are "arrogant" to believe we can alter the climate of an entire planet, because we're so insignificant. It's something I heard Rush Limbaugh state over a decade ago, and still hear RW acquaintances of mine say.

100 A-bombs. 1940's technology.

Fuck you and your "arrogance".

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»U.S. atmospheric and envi...