The Shep Solution = Catastrophic Climate Change

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Even for small-scale regional nuclear conflicts.

Small Nuclear War Would Cause Global Environmental Catastrophe
By Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 December 2006
08:12 am ET


SAN FRANCISCO—A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded.

The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II.

"Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large," said one of the researchers, Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles. "The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term."

The lingering effects could re-shape the environment in ways never conceived. In terms of climate, a nuclear blast could plunge temperatures across large swaths of the globe. "It would be the largest climate change in recorded human history," Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College and another member of the research team.

The results will be presented here today during the annual meeting of American Geophysical Union.

Blast fatalities

In one study, scientists led by Owen "Brian" Toon of the University of Colorado, Boulder, analyzed potential fatalities based on current nuclear weapons inventories and population densities in large cities around the world.

His team focused on the black smoke generated by a nuclear blast and firestorms—intense and long-lasting fires that create and sustain their own wind systems.

For a regional conflict, fatalities would range from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. "A small country is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage," Toon said.

Chilled climate

With the information, Robock and colleagues generated a series of computer simulations of potential climate anomalies caused by a small-scale nuclear war.

"We looked at a scenario of a regional nuclear conflict say between India and Pakistan where each of them used 50 weapons on cities in the other country that would generate a lot of smoke," Robock told LiveScience.

They discovered the smoke emissions would plunge temperatures by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees Celsius) over large areas of North America and Eurasia—areas far removed from the countries involved in the conflict.

Typically when sunlight travels through the atmosphere, some rays get absorbed by particles in the air, before reaching Earth's surface. After a nuclear blast, however, loads of black smoke would settle into the upper atmosphere and absorb sunlight before it reaches our planet's surface. Like a dark curtain pulled over large parts of the globe, the smoke would cause cool temperatures, darkness, less precipitation and even ozone depletion.

At the end of the 10 years, the simulated climate still hadn't recovered.

Global upshot

The study showed it doesn't take much nuclear power to drive meteoric results. Whereas the scenarios presumed the countries involved would launch their entire nuclear arsenals, that total is just three-hundredths of a percent of the global arsenal.

Will the conclusions result in worldly changes? "We certainly hope there will be a political response because nuclear weapons are the most dangerous potential environmental danger to the planet. They're much more dangerous than global warming," Robock said.

Not sure how solid these results are, but it is something of a sobering thought, as the Kookoostans and Bumfuckistans of the world get their hands on nuclear weapons.

[Lord Zentei]

I find this highly suspect, given that Krakaota was a one gigaton blast. A single Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II? Bullshit.

[Kane Starkiller]

Am I missing something here? A single Hiroshima scale nuclear weapon could cause more causalities than WW2 during which two such weapons were detonated?

This is, of course, not the only problem but it is painfully obvious.

[Lord Zentei]

Am I missing something here? A single Hiroshima scale nuclear weapon could cause more causalities than WW2 during which two such weapons were detonated?

This is, of course, not the only problem but it is painfully obvious.

That is apart from the Manhattan project itself of course.

And in any case, vast numbers of nuclear devices were detonated throughout the cold war during nuclear tests. No catastrophic climate change occoured.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Am I missing something here? A single Hiroshima scale nuclear weapon could cause more causalities than WW2 during which two such weapons were detonated?

This is, of course, not the only problem but it is painfully obvious.

That is apart from the Manhattan project itself of course.

And in any case, vast numbers of nuclear devices were detonated throughout the cold war during nuclear tests. No catastrophic climate change occoured.

To be fair, we tended to detonate these nuclear devices out in the middle of nowhere. The article states, if I'm reading it correctly, that they're assuming that a regional nuclear war would intentionally target cities and spark off massive, uncontrolled firestorms, which would probably burn unchecked for longer than they might if the national emergency response mechanisms weren't on fire. It's the soot kicked up by the fires that appears to be the agent of change, moreso than the total destructive yield of the nuclear devices utilized.

I suppose, to see the effects that the widespread destruction and burning of urban centers could cause, one could dig up climate data from before WW2 and after WW2. The second World War appears to have generated a dip in global temperatures that persisted for over three decades, though the firebombing and general bombing and burning and such was confined largely to the regions encompassing Western Europe, and Japan.

[General Zod]

A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded.

"We looked at a scenario of a regional nuclear conflict say between India and Pakistan where each of them used 50 weapons on cities in the other country that would generate a lot of smoke," Robock told LiveScience.

So, wait. 50 nukes is somehow a small-scale regional nuclear war? WW2 was huge and we only ever used 2 nukes. Something doesn't add up.

[Lord Zentei]

To be fair, we tended to detonate these nuclear devices out in the middle of nowhere. The article states, if I'm reading it correctly, that they're assuming that a regional nuclear war would intentionally target cities and spark off massive, uncontrolled firestorms, which would probably burn unchecked for longer than they might if the national emergency response mechanisms weren't on fire. It's the soot kicked up by the fires that appears to be the agent of change, moreso than the total destructive yield of the nuclear devices utilized.

I'm picturing something...

Forest fires, in Indonesia, California and Australia. Also, volcanic eruptions.

Something does not add up with this study. It reminds me all too much of the infamous TAPSS report, which at least involved 5000 megatons worth of detonations, iirc, whereas these guys are talking about a measly 750 kilotons.

I just don't buy it.

I suppose, to see the effects that the widespread destruction and burning of urban centers could cause, one could dig up climate data from before WW2 and after WW2. The second World War appears to have generated a dip in global temperatures that persisted for over three decades, though the firebombing and general bombing and burning and such was confined largely to the regions encompassing Western Europe, and Japan.

Are we talking about correlation or demonstrated causality, since I have not heard of this previously? And how do the WW2 bombardments compare with large scale historic eruptions?

[Lord Zentei]

So, wait. 50 nukes is somehow a small-scale regional nuclear war? WW2 was huge and we only ever used 2 nukes. Something doesn't add up.

WW2 was only nominally a nuclear war due to the bombs being dropped at the ass end of the conflict. A small scale nuclear war between countries each of which have already amassed an arsenal could easily involve 50+ bombs. Hell, the USSR and USA together had a thousand times that number at the height of the Cold War.

[TheMuffinKing]

So by this article, small scale nuclear war would stave off global warming?

[Pelranius]

If you concentrate enough nuclear explosions within a certain timeframe at a climatically sensitive area, you'd probably get something. (I must admit that I have no idea on how many megatons you'd need to impact something, like say the Indian Subcontinent Monsoon cycle or like)

Messing up something like the Atlantic Current could trigger all sorts of other funny effects, such as shortening the growing season for some parts of the northern hemisphere, which might through the CO2 levels out of balance.

Some areas on Earth, if nuked, would potentially throw out more fallout due to regional soil composition.

Weather science is a very tricky bitch, though, so nothing could theoretically happen as well. The only way to really find out is to start a nuclear war, I guess.

[Lord Zentei]

Weather science is a very tricky bitch, though, so nothing could theoretically happen as well. The only way to really find out is to start a nuclear war, I guess.

Or we could test-detonate 50 Hiroshima scale bombs in an area where they would cause large fires. Or merely observe natural volcanic detonations of equivalent yield plus forest fires and then infer from there.

The thing is, a large number of small bombs are going to have less influence than a small number of large ones, since in the former case less dust is thrown into the stratosphere as opposed to merely the troposphere.

[Velthuijsen]

So they nuke the 25 largest cities of both parties and they end up with a catastrophic reduction in temperature that is worse then when Mt. Pinatubo blew it's top (literally, seeing that it lost 250m of height ) straight into the stratosphere (between 21 km and 34 km for the different eruptions) in 1991.

The two nukes they used on Japan both got into the stratosphere (about 18 km height) but the follow up firestorms don't get there, right? And how much dust and other junk gets put in the stratosphere and how much of that mushroomcloud is water condensing?

[Surlethe]

The thing is, a large number of small bombs are going to have less influence than a small number of large ones, since in the former case less dust is thrown into the stratosphere as opposed to merely the troposphere.

If, however, a large number of small bombs each touched off firestorms, you could have more firestorms with many small bombs than with a few large bombs; since the article attributes the change to the soot thrown up by the fires instead of the dust from the blast itself, more firestorms would seem to indicate greater climate change.

[Lord Zentei]

The two nukes they used on Japan both got into the stratosphere (about 18 km height) but the follow up firestorms don't get there, right?

No; and moreover, the amount of stuff that gets into the stratosphere from small nukes is rather limited compared with the big ones.

The thing is, a large number of small bombs are going to have less influence than a small number of large ones, since in the former case less dust is thrown into the stratosphere as opposed to merely the troposphere.

If, however, a large number of small bombs each touched off firestorms, you could have more firestorms with many small bombs than with a few large bombs; since the article attributes the change to the soot thrown up by the fires instead of the dust from the blast itself, more firestorms would seem to indicate greater climate change.

They speak of both the nuclear blasts throwing up dust into the atmosphere as well as firestorms. In any case, there is still the matter of the comparative amount of emissions from eruptions and forest fires. And this nonsense remains:

Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II.

[Surlethe]

They speak of both the nuclear blasts throwing up dust into the atmosphere as well as firestorms. In any case, there is still the matter of the comparative amount of emissions from eruptions and forest fires. And this nonsense remains:

Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II.

Oh, of course; I'm not contesting that the study's conclusions are prima facie absurd. Perhaps their conclusions take into account the current levels of wildfire and volcanic activity: I wonder what would happen if the frequency and duration of incidents throwing soot and dust into the stratosphere doubled?

[Lord Zentei]

They speak of both the nuclear blasts throwing up dust into the atmosphere as well as firestorms. In any case, there is still the matter of the comparative amount of emissions from eruptions and forest fires. And this nonsense remains:

Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II.

Oh, of course; I'm not contesting that the study's conclusions are prima facie absurd. Perhaps their conclusions take into account the current levels of wildfire and volcanic activity: I wonder what would happen if the frequency and duration of incidents throwing soot and dust into the stratosphere doubled?

Difficult to say of course, though I imagine that there are considerable variations in the incidents of wildfire and volcanism, which would suggest that temporary spikes are not likely to cause catastrophy.

It would be nice to be able to scrutinize their study in greater detail.

[J]

So a few burning cities will somehow throw enough smoke into the air to cause global climate change...sounds pretty suspect to me. Following Gulf War II, millions of barrels of Kuwaiti oil were going up in smoke every day, over a billion barrels burned before the fires were put out. In most of the country the sun didn't reach the ground and smoke drifted nearly a thousand miles at times, in short, conditions similar to quite a few cities going up in flames and it lasted for many months, longer than any city could burn. And yet climate change if any outside of the immediate area was measured in fractions of a degree.

[LaserRifleofDoom]

Well... if we wanted to be fascetious and ignore the fact that they're talking about climitological changes, a single small but well-placed nuke in a large city could kill several million. Though this clearly isn't what they're talking about. And it would be a hell of a stretch to talk about WWII equivalent levels of causalites.

[CarsonPalmer]

Well, to go back to WWII, there were many, many firestorms. After all, the US firebombed the hell out of Japan, and the RAF used a technique to create firestorms. Like Zentei says, it doesn't quite add up.

[CJvR]

If the world didn't end when Tamboro blew and caused the year without a summer then I suspect that using enough nukes to cause something major will leave few to worry about the fallout from the exchange.

[Singular Intellect]

*loud cough*

I strongly smell bullshit in the face of the above evidence.

[Pelranius]

If you blew up a dam with a nuke, like say the Three Gorges or Aswan, you could theoretically cause WWII level casualties.

[Broomstick]

I find this highly suspect, given that Krakaota was a one gigaton blast. A single Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II? Bullshit.

Depends on where it hits, doesn't it? Hit downtown New York, London, or Tokyo you really could kill millions. Maybe not as many as WWII, but still a LOT of people.

[Lord Zentei]

I find this highly suspect, given that Krakaota was a one gigaton blast. A single Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II? Bullshit.

Depends on where it hits, doesn't it? Hit downtown New York, London, or Tokyo you really could kill millions. Maybe not as many as WWII, but still a LOT of people.

Already commented on:

Well... if we wanted to be fascetious and ignore the fact that they're talking about climitological changes, a single small but well-placed nuke in a large city could kill several million. Though this clearly isn't what they're talking about. And it would be a hell of a stretch to talk about WWII equivalent levels of causalites.

They are talking about climatological change.

Incidentally, a 15 kiloton nuke has a kill radius of about 2.1 kilometers by third degree burns and 1.4 kilometers for the airblast, according to the nuclear blast calculator on the main site. That will certainly have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands. Millions is stretching it, but it might be pulled off. However, keep in mind that Hiroshima was pretty densely populated and many buildings were made of wood.

[Uraniun235]

The article states, if I'm reading it correctly, that they're assuming that a regional nuclear war would intentionally target cities and spark off massive, uncontrolled firestorms, which would probably burn unchecked for longer than they might if the national emergency response mechanisms weren't on fire. It's the soot kicked up by the fires that appears to be the agent of change, moreso than the total destructive yield of the nuclear devices utilized.

That sounds exactly like the assumptions underlying the TTAPS report.