Nuclear Change and Climate - Current Info

[Cdnwolf]

NASA computer models reveal what a small, regional nuclear war in one part of the world would do to the global climate and environment. The results are grim.

If 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, each as powerful as 15,000 tons of TNT, were exchanged in a war between two developing-world nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan, models show the resulting fires would send five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper troposphere - the lowest-altitude layer of the atmosphere.

There, the soot would absorb solar heat and rise like a hot-air balloon, reaching heights from which it would not easily settle back to the ground.

In the shade of this carbon shield, Earth would cool. "The effects would [lead] to unprecedented climate change," said NASA physical scientist Luke Oman at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last week. Oman's and his colleagues' models show that for two to three years after a regional nuclear war, average global temperatures would drop by at least 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C), and as much as 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C) in the tropics, Europe, Asia and Alaska.

But the reversal of the global warming trend wouldn't be a good thing. "Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, who compared the likely post-war crop failures and famines to those that followed the 1815 volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia.

Additionally, the models showed global precipitation would reduce by 10 percent globally for one to four years, and the ozone layer would thin, resulting in an influx of dangerous ultraviolet radiation. These results confirm predictions made previously by researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

One hundred Hiroshima-sized bombs make up a mere 0.03 percent of the worldwide nuclear weapons arsenal.

This article was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site of LiveScience. Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover

Small Nuclear War Would Cause Global Environmental

[copeab]

Well, so much for the plan to end global warming with nukes ...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Additionally, the models showed global precipitation would reduce by 10 percent globally for one to four years, and the ozone layer would thin, resulting in an influx of dangerous ultraviolet radiation.

So the drought posited in Howling Wilderness wasn't so far fetched after all.

[Legbreaker]

The thing that strikes me is that we've never had more than a two small nukes fired off in anger although lots more have been fired as tests. Even so, have we actually had more than a handful fired at the same time, or within a short space of time?

Therefore we just don't really know what exactly may happen. Yes, there's been computer models, etc done, but they're all still based on a load of assumptions and single shot test results.

So, to me, anything is possible. We may have the deepest, darkest nuclear winter imaginable, or little more than an environmental hiccup (likely somewhere in the middle though in my opinion). If the worst drought in history is what the writers applied to North America in their version of nuclear aftermath, then I can't see any reason not to run with it. If an individual GM wants to black out the sun for five+ solid years ala "The Road", then that's worth running with also.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

If an individual GM wants to black out the sun for five+ solid years ala "The Road", then that's worth running with also.

Ouch. Great book and good movie but painful to read/watch (respectively).

[Dog 6]

I call bullshit.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

I call bullshit.

Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

I call bullshit.

And just how does it matter?
It's a GAME!

[Dog 6]

Cdnwolf post the link to that plz. smells like the same old bullshit to me........

[Legbreaker]

So you would be more of an expert on the subject than the rest of us then?

Does it really matter if it's true or not since we're basically taking about a work of fiction in the first place?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

I call bullshit.

Fair call. Why don't you school us in some non-bullshit science? Always interested to read opposing views.

Or is this just a gut feeling you have?

[HorseSoldier]

If that's the limit of what you have to bring to the discussion, it's perhaps not worth contributing. If you've got an argument that has more to it than the verbal equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and humming loudly to yourself it would be worth hearing.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Targan

Ouch. Great book and good movie but painful to read/watch (respectively).

Cormac McCarthy is probably my favourite writer - but this one..a man and his boy alone and pretty much helpless in a cannibal infested bleak and barren wasteland - and the man has lung cancer..

It was gut wrenching imho.

But - had to read it and see the movie.

Which was good as far as adaptations go. But a hard film to watch.

[headquarters]

Read something about that once - and picked up various other bits of info about it over the years.

Currently running with the idea in our ongoing ftf campaign. Temperatures have been sinking over many a session ( still havent gotten that desperate scramble for food and lodgings effect that I hoped -oh well. I suppose the players will use violence to solve this one to.. )