🫸🫷

  • tal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Winter

    Even using the most conservative numbers here, an all-out exchange between the US and Russia would produce a nuclear winter that would at most resemble the one that Robock and Toon predict for a regional nuclear conflict, although it would likely end much sooner given empirical data about stratospheric soot lifetimes. Some of the errors are long-running, most notably assumptions about the amount of soot that will persist in the atmosphere, while others seem to have crept in more recently, contributing to a strange stability of their soot estimates in the face of cuts to the nuclear arsenal. All of this suggests that their work is driven more by an anti-nuclear agenda than the highest standards of science. While a large nuclear war would undoubtedly have some climatic impact, all available data suggests it would be dwarfed by the direct (and very bad) impacts of the nuclear war itself.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      90% of people being dead and the other 10% being pre-industrial is what’ll fix global warming, we don’t need nuclear winter for that.

      • tal
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        The direct effects on the world of a nuclear war between the US and Russia isn’t going to include killing 90% of the world’s population.