Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?

Nuclear war is a bad thing.

Right?

Scientists from NASA and a number of other institutions have recently been modeling the effects of a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, or 0.03 percent of the world's current nuclear arsenal, according to National Geographic. The research suggests five million metric tons of black carbon would be swept up into the lowest portion of the atmosphere.

The result, according to NASA climate models, could actually be global cooling.

From National Geographic:

In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky.

While the global cooling caused by superpower-on-superpower war could be catastrophic (hence the term "nuclear winter") a small scale war could have an impact on the world climate, says National Geographic. Models suggest that though the world is currently in a warming trend, small-scale war could lower global temperatures 2.25 degrees F for two-to-three years following war.

In more tropical areas temperatures could fall 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.

But the likelihood of disaster over reversing global warming is a more imminent concern, according to TIME.

From TIME:

...even a small exchange of nuclear weapons--between 50-100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, which India and Pakistan already have their in arsenal--would produce enough soot and smoke to block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history.

In addition, the extreme weather caused by even a mild nuclear winter would have a tremendous effect on crops and famines, including creating a 10 percent global decrease in precipitation, according to National Geographic. The soot could also cause tremendous harm to the ozone layer, allowing more ultraviolet rays to reach Earth.

The cons seem to outweigh the pros in the event of global cooling caused by even a small nuclear war.

Comments

[FTracy3]

05:28 PM on 04/12/2011

This is terrific! I'm going to go buy a bunch of 100 watt bulbs and start throwing darts at a world map.

[WonderingNThinking]

02:53 AM on 04/06/2011

What a sick premise!

[Oginikwe]

02:17 AM on 04/02/2011

Jeez! Don't give them any ideas!
We could all just hope for a big honkin' volcano to blow up somewhere, too. That would also help. :/

[Bianca Befana]

01:28 PM on 03/26/2011

'nother unbelievable idea supposedly supposedly emanating from the thought processes of "geni"...I don't think so...let's just wipe everything out....and reanimate the dinosaurs.

[jimboy71]

10:20 AM on 03/30/2011

You should read the article. It's a study of what MIGHT happen if we were to have a small scale war, not a suggestion that we SHOULD. It is prudent to study the effects of possible outcomes.

[dragonmaster]

06:26 AM on 03/26/2011

I guess in this situation its pick your poison. Die quickly with a nuclear war- or se the slow death of a civilization over the next 90 years- either way it will ruin the planet.

[GirlFriday123]

04:27 PM on 03/24/2011

The cons seem to outweigh the pros in the event of global cooling caused by even a small nuclear war.

-- Ya think?

[KarlaElisa]

03:05 PM on 03/24/2011

this is considered more acceptable than a return to a pre industrial time? wth is wrong with mankind?

[Hunn40]

04:44 PM on 03/18/2011

I really think someone should take a look at the people hired at NASA.

It seems as if the Eco terrorist have taken control of NASA.

[jimboy71]

10:20 AM on 03/30/2011

1. How so?

2. Read much?

[johnny boiy]

10:45 AM on 03/07/2011

There would certainly be fewer people concerned with global warming after a nuclear exchange.

[builderman55]

02:19 PM on 03/05/2011

Really, this article seems to belong in the WTF category. Who sits around thinking about stuff like this???

[KarlaElisa]

02:50 PM on 03/24/2011

Couldn't have said that better myself. What is this madness...this arrogance that by mankind further contaminating the planet we can 'work the bugs out of climate change'...?????

[jimboy71]

10:21 AM on 03/30/2011

Yes, then you read it, and realise it is proactive, and not prescriptive. The headline is grossly misleading.

[trumphent]

07:07 PM on 04/02/2011

Taxpayer funded government agencies are supposed to think about it. I think the National Academy of Science was tasked to do a study back in the early '70's. Dr. Stephen Schneider was one of the lead scientists. The term "Nuclear Winter" came from that. It makes a compelling argument for not having a nuclear war. This isn't anything new. It sounds like the idea was revisited to update findings with new data, models and instrumentation. This is one of the reasons I support the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Visit them at NTI.org

[builderman55]

08:16 PM on 04/02/2011

Thanks for the info!

[Bryan Seigneur]

10:39 PM on 03/04/2011

FoxNation is linking to here with the title "Huff Po: Could a Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?" as if Ariana and those upside-down progressives consider this a good idea.

Good job, folks. This is non-news science because it falls under the category of somewhat positive confirmation of what anyone with half an education would have guessed. It is ironic though, so great on finding that ironic bit of science literature today for me, you've really done your job, HuffPo. I'm never sarcastic.

[builderman55]

08:29 PM on 03/04/2011

Or Faux News headquarters... KIDDING...well........

[Caleb Overly]

03:40 PM on 03/04/2011

How small are we talking? ... I vote Texas (they want to be their own country anyways) *joking*

[George Saufley]

02:55 PM on 03/03/2011

Millions of people might perish in a Nuclear War. It appears to me that such a strategy to halt global warming doesn't have very much compassion. Especially after Hitler used manipulating peoples fear and the "ethereal" to slaughter millions of Jews. Now someone is suggesting that we use the "environmental ethereal" to start a "Nuclear War" and save the planet. Interesting and frightening.

[Vermicious Knid]

02:34 PM on 03/03/2011

I realize this is probably an absolutely terrible idea, but there's something the article doesn't touch on that I'd like to know just out of curiosity: How much of a nuclear detonation would you need simply to compensate for global warming annually? The scenario here is for an India-Pakistan type war, and seems to go too far in the direction of global cooling. Could you figure out just how many nuclear detonations you'd need to stop global warming in its tracks but not go too far in the other direction? We could nuke some uninhabited desert area or something. And of course, what would be the unavoidable side effects?

[trumphent]

07:16 PM on 04/02/2011

You wouldn't choose to detonate nuclear weapons to combat global warming A far more effective, cheaper and elegant solution is already waiting. Sulfer dioxide particles could cheaply be inserted into the stratosphere. Those could be replenished easily. They would filter the sun. They would also eventually settle out into the ocean and create another problem with ocean acidity. That's only one known unintended consequence. It's called geoengineering. Dr. Paul Crutzen wrote the book.