Nuclear Winter?

[Beeazlebub]

Would a nuclear exchange unleash enough smoke to cool the climate, creating a "nuclear winter"?

"So here we get into the meat of the question. We know with pretty good certainty how a given amount of smoke in the atmosphere, distributed a certain way, will affect the climate and for how long; but what we can only guess at is how much smoke is produced when a city burns after a nuke. Our guesses are educated, but they're all over the map. Cities also vary wildly in just about every relevant aspect. Let's look at what we know from history."

 

[qazplm]

Would a nuclear exchange unleash enough smoke to cool the climate, creating a "nuclear winter"?

"So here we get into the meat of the question. We know with pretty good certainty how a given amount of smoke in the atmosphere, distributed a certain way, will affect the climate and for how long; but what we can only guess at is how much smoke is produced when a city burns after a nuke. Our guesses are educated, but they're all over the map. Cities also vary wildly in just about every relevant aspect. Let's look at what we know from history."

The concept is probably accurate back in the day when the vast amounts of nukes the west and communist bloc had pointed at each other were, well, vast.

Now, I agree with the article that the numbers are so greatly reduced that a nuclear winter is highly unlikely today.

 

[Beeazlebub]

The concept is probably accurate back in the day when the vast amounts of nukes the west and communist bloc had pointed at each other were, well, vast.

Now, I agree with the article that the numbers are so greatly reduced that a nuclear winter is highly unlikely today.

I use this video (starting 11:34) from Vice about the potential of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in one of my classes, and one of the implications made toward the end is that 100+ nuclear detonations would potentially be a civilization ending event. It was a way for me to reach the extremely selfish and more narrow-minded students (as if the thought of 10s to 100s of millions of lives lost between the two countries isn't enough to care), but based upon this info, I may have to moderate the chances of global climate impact.

Then yesterday came this article from Vox on the potential of a nuclear exchange, accidental or otherwise, between NATO and Russia. Toward the end of the article, they cite this study:

The explosions, the study found, would push a layer of hot, black smoke into the atmosphere, where it would envelop the Earth in about 10 days. The study predicted that this smoke would block sunlight, heat the atmosphere (they should have said "stratosphere" instead of "atmosphere"), and erode the ozone for many years, producing what the researchers call without hyperbole "a decade without summer." As rains dried and crops failed worldwide, the resulting global famine would kill 1 billion people.

The question seems to come down to how much and how high the smoke would rise from burning cities. Here's to hoping we never find out.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I use this video (starting 11:34) from Vice about the potential of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in one of my classes, and one of the implications made toward the end is that 100+ nuclear detonations would potentially be a civilization ending event. It was a way for me to reach the extremely selfish and more narrow-minded students (as if the thought of 10s to 100s of millions of lives lost between the two countries isn't enough to care), but based upon this info, I may have to moderate the chances of global climate impact.

Then yesterday came this article from Vox on the potential of a nuclear exchange, accidental or otherwise, between NATO and Russia. Toward the end of the article, they cite this study:

The explosions, the study found, would push a layer of hot, black smoke into the atmosphere, where it would envelop the Earth in about 10 days. The study predicted that this smoke would block sunlight, heat the atmosphere (they should have said "stratosphere" instead of "atmosphere"), and erode the ozone for many years, producing what the researchers call without hyperbole "a decade without summer." As rains dried and crops failed worldwide, the resulting global famine would kill 1 billion people.

The question seems to come down to how much and how high the smoke would rise from burning cities. Here's to hoping we never find out.

Wouldn't it depend on the location, number, geographic spread of the cities, etc? I would think a nuclear war in India and Pakistan would have a dramatic effect on east Asia, but based on prevailing winds and rotation would be a limited issue to, say, Europe and Australia.

You'd know more than I would. My understanding of trades and currents is limited to that which affects me as a mariner.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Wouldn't it depend on the location, number, geographic spread of the cities, etc? I would think a nuclear war in India and Pakistan would have a dramatic effect on east Asia, but based on prevailing winds and rotation would be a limited issue to, say, Europe and Australia.

You'd know more than I would. My understanding of trades and currents is limited to that which affects me as a mariner.

I think you're referring to fallout rather than smoke, correct? Fallout would presumably be dependent upon winds at the lower levels, which generally fluctuate between northeasterly during the dry season and southwesterly during the wet. I'm no expert on fallout, but I would think that SE asia would see highest impact during the Indian wet season, and less so during the dry. The dry season might take most of the worst fallout over the Indian ocean, which probably wouldn't be so great for any ships in the area. Again, I'm guessing here, but it also stands to reason that China would be spared from much of the fallout because of the Himalayas.

You might like this global wind map showing winds at the lower levels.

If the fires burn with enough energy for smoke to reach the stratosphere, winds at the lower levels cease to have impact, and the potential for global climate disruption is realized. There is some evidence that aerosols from wildfires can sometimes reach the stratosphere, as 1998 fires in Canada/Russia seem to have done.

In any case, a nuclear exchange in this region would be cataclysmic for humanity.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think you're referring to fallout rather than smoke, correct? Fallout would presumably be dependent upon winds at the lower levels, which generally fluctuate between northeasterly during the dry season and southwesterly during the wet. I'm no expert on fallout, but I would think that SE asia would see highest impact during the Indian wet season, and less so during the dry. The dry season might take most of the worst fallout over the Indian ocean, which probably wouldn't be so great for any ships in the area. Again, I'm guessing here, but it also stands to reason that China would be spared from much of the fallout because of the Himalayas.

You might like this global wind map showing winds at the lower levels.

If the fires burn with enough energy for smoke to reach the stratosphere, winds at the lower levels cease to have impact, and the potential for global climate disruption is realized. There is some evidence that aerosols from wildfires can sometimes reach the stratosphere, as 1998 fires in Canada/Russia seem to have done.

In any case, a nuclear exchange in this region would be cataclysmic for humanity.

Nuclear exchanges in that part of the world scare the crap out of me because I think there are just enough assholes over there who believe in martyrdom that they think if they nuke Israel they'll get their virgins. It's just a matter of time before someone does get nukes, and then the security risks are what concern me. Iran, specifically. But then we will digress into proxy discussions... And we've been down that road.

I don't think India and Pakistan are bound to war. Pakistani proxies maybe if they can get their hands on weapons.

 

[qazplm]

Nuclear exchanges in that part of the world scare the crap out of me because I think there are just enough assholes over there who believe in martyrdom that they think if they nuke Israel they'll get their virgins. It's just a matter of time before someone does get nukes, and then the security risks are what concern me. Iran, specifically. But then we will digress into proxy discussions... And we've been down that road.

I don't think India and Pakistan are bound to war. Pakistani proxies maybe if they can get their hands on weapons.

We've had this discussion before, but my belief that nukes for Iran is far more about being part of the big boys club than any intention to nuke Iran. The leadership isn't crazy, and they know that if Israel is nuked, they are pretty much suspect A, B, and C. I also think the leadership has too much control for an accident to happen. Unlike Pakistan, where I also think the leadership isn't crazy, but I fear their level of control is a lot lower.