Regional Nuclear War Offsets Global Warming
See National Geographic February 22, 2011 article at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years
Regional war could spark "unprecedented climate change," experts predict.
by Charles Q. Choi
"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."
"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."
"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."
Also a very interesting comment / question:
erikleeolson
February 28, 2011
I have a question about the "Scenario" where 100 15KT bombs are used in this war. I'm just wondering about the numbers. That would be 1.5 Megatons of energy, whereas many above-ground atomic tests had a much higher yield, such as the 5,000Kt Tsar Bomba which was 1,400 10 times the combined energy of all explosives used in WWII, yet just one quarter of the estimated yield of the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. Did any of these events change the climate of the whole planet?
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years
Regional war could spark "unprecedented climate change," experts predict.
by Charles Q. Choi
"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."
"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."
"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."
Also a very interesting comment / question:
erikleeolson
February 28, 2011
I have a question about the "Scenario" where 100 15KT bombs are used in this war. I'm just wondering about the numbers. That would be 1.5 Megatons of energy, whereas many above-ground atomic tests had a much higher yield, such as the 5,000Kt Tsar Bomba which was 1,400 10 times the combined energy of all explosives used in WWII, yet just one quarter of the estimated yield of the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. Did any of these events change the climate of the whole planet?
Labels: Energy, Environment, Global Warming
posted by Gene Felder at 10:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home