Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years
Regional war could spark "unprecedented climate change," experts predict.
Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.
Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.
During the Cold War a nuclear exchange between superpowers—such as the one feared for years between the United States and the former Soviet Union—was predicted to cause a "nuclear winter."
In that scenario hundreds of nuclear explosions spark huge fires, whose smoke, dust, and ash blot out the sun for weeks amid a backdrop of dangerous radiation levels. Much of humanity eventually dies of starvation and disease.
Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan.
To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world's current nuclear arsenal. (See a National Geographic magazine feature on weapons of mass destruction.)
The researchers predicted the resulting fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere.
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.
Reversing Global Warming?
The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.
Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.
At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said.
After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.
Years Without Summer
For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet.
"Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
"Examples similar to the crop failures and famines experienced following the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 could be widespread and last several years," he added. That Indonesian volcano ushered in "the year without summer," a time of famines and unrest. (See pictures of the Mount Tambora eruption.)
All these changes would also alter circulation patterns in the tropical atmosphere, reducing precipitation by 10 percent globally for one to four years, the scientists said. Even after seven years, global average precipitation would be 5 percent lower than it was before the conflict, according to the model.
In addition, researcher Michael Mills, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, found large decreases in the protective ozone layer, leading to much more ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth's surface and harming the environment and people.
"The main message from our work," NASA's Oman said, "would be that even a regional nuclear conflict would have global consequences."
78 Comments so far
Show AllYa know Dick, it really is a gas playing with the lives of little people.
If this is serious it is fucking insanity.
This incredibly destructive idea sounds like another "creative destruction" insanity straight from Rand corporation.
Remember Doctor Strangelove? That was Kubrick's spoof on a deadly serious Rand proposal that nuclear war was, not only survivable, but winnable.
http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-175-the-rand-corporation-exposed/
By the way, National Geographic has great pictures, but you'll never guess where they get the data to describe conditions on the ground in various countries in the world.
Hint: It's an Alphabet agency that has a reputation for ignoring laws.
Believe it or not, National Geographic is a pro-US propaganda outlet. When you research their foundation, funding and history, it all comes out. It takes a lot of cheerleading to make a country that goes around invading other countries and overthrowing governments appear to be the great good guy. For over a hundred years this seemingly objective scientific magazine would tut tut about social problems among indigenous groups in many countries while totally ignoring racisim and genocide against African Americans, Chinese, Native Americans and minorities of all stripes in the USA. The incredibly syrupy articles on farming production, 4H clubs and county fairs in various rural states in the USA over the last century is enough to make any historian puke. All those pictures of prize bulls was more like prize bullshit.
And no Virginia, National Geographic is NOT mostly funded by subscriptions.
It never occurred to me that anyone read National Geographic except to look at the pictures - just like Playboy.
20 million tops.
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!"
My first impression of this article was that if guys like Dick Cheney and John Bolton were to read this, they'd get a rare erection. Then they'd head straight over to the American Enterprise Institute to propose inducing a nuke-off between India and China. They'd say: "Look at all the problems it would solve: overpopulation, global warming, economic competition...hey, what's the downside? Oh, yeah. It would be 'immoral' or something. Well, we can put Bill Kristol on the PR problem."
Cheney would have to get a new battery pack.
Ah yeah, Bill Kristol, whose father Irving was a company man specializing in cultural and intellectual manipulation, or the manufacturing of consent as Chomsky calls it, or PR.
Toxic Sludge Is Good For You. One of the best books on PR ever written.
The Cultural Cold War by Francis Stoner Saunders documents Irving Kristol's CIA sponsored "cultural" projects.
Not an experiment I would like to try: nuclear war. Wouldn't there be less photosynthesis and less carbon uptake by plants? Wouldn't that result in more carbon dioxide in the air? After the dust settles, we would be in a worse position than before. This article is utter nonsense, not science but the fantasies of uninformed and lawless people. Better if it hadn't been published.
[After the dust settles, we would be in a worse position than before.]
Yep. Although I don't agree that it shouldn't have been published. It's a reminder, at least, that the threat of humanity being obliterated due to the insanity of war is still with us. Even at a puny level of nuclear war, we'd be screwed in more ways than ... (I'd finish the thought but some would object to the sexually graphic nature of the comment). It puts paid to the idea that any 'small' or 'limited' nuclear war would have been winnable.
The article is not nonsense, it's just been sensationalized quite a bit. The underlying truth remains that there are ways we can make the world much worse than it now is.
...guess the intention was to share what is cooked up behind the scenes.
putting saw dust and ash to flour to maximise profits on bread is happening already.
the globals will come up with all sorts of 'good ideas' to show radical solutions where in reality there is only one solution: to get rid of them asap.
A silver lining inside the mushroom cloud?
Who comes up with this kind of nonsensical framing? The subject is almost trying to make it sound like a little WWIII might just help things!, despite what some of the the content of the article may conclude.
Hey everybody, let's do a multi-million/billion dollar study to prove that the effects of a small nuclear holocaust will be highly destructive, unpredictable, uncontainable, and wide-ranging! Can I be treasurer for that study?
"But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud, for man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day, someone will set the spark off... and we will all be blown away."
The Merry Minuet
The Kingston Trio
Thanks for that snippet.
Geoengineering - Republican-style... Bible thumpers are hellbent on proving that the Book of Revelations is accurate. Unfortunately, the apocalypse will be man-made, just like the man-made global warming.
Sick S.O.B's, the whole lot of them.
You really have to be a fully paid up member of the military industrial complex to think that fighting a nuclear war is easier than reining in use of fossil fuels and rebalancing the world's activities in sustainable ways. Unfortunately, that is what most people in the west seem to be.
"Easier?" Surely you jest. One push of the button is pretty dang easy. Where is a McCain Presidency when we need him? Or HER? That button push could reduce demand for crude. We wouldn't even have to hurry to dig those new Alaska and off-shore oil wells.
Yeah - all our worries would be over.
Ever since the world ended,
I don't go out as much.
People that I once befriended
Just don't bother to stay in touch.
Things that used to seem so splendid
Don't really matter today.
It's just as well the world ended--
It wasn't working anyway.
Every since the world ended,
There's no more bible belt.
Remember how we all pretended?
Going 'round, lying 'bout the way we felt.
Every rule has been amended,
There's no one keeping score.
It's just as well the world ended
We couldn't have taken much more.
Ever since the world ended,
There's no more black or white.
Ever since we all got blended,
there's no more reason to fuss and fight.
Dogmas that we once defended
no longer seem worthwhile.
Ever since the world ended,
I face the future--
With a smile.
-Ever Since The World Ended by Mose Allison
Who caes what is in the articles? I thought people read National Geogrpahic for the pictures - like Playboy.
lol
I think everyone here is missing the point. This is not being offered as a solution to global warming. If it was, it is extremely foolhardy and worse than the disease, which is why I said above Bolton and Cheney would love it. The article is more of a thought experiment about what a limited nuclear exchange would do to world climate. I think the headline is a little misleading.
I am chairman of our county's Democratic Party. My neighbor is the daughter of one of the oldest Republican families in the county. I was invited to their Christmas party. The subject of global warming came up and a man who is the husband of our county librarian and is a tech freak made the point that we could put carbon in the atmosphere in the form of soot with nuclear weapons and thereby lower the global temperature so we "really don't need to worry about global warming."
I was speechless. So don't think that idea is not out there among the insane on the right. I mention my membership in the Democratic party to distinguish myself from the Republicans whose party I attended.
Then perhaps your party might consider getting out of the war business someday.
Makes as much sense as a narcoleptic's doctor encouraging him/her to smoke cigarettes, snort cocaine, smoke crack or crystal meth to stay awake.
So why shouldn't geo-engineering include the casual flippant use of nuclear devices to 'cool' the planet.
To me, it's actually a diversionary way of using nukes to eradicate america's ghost's in its 'war ghost on terror'.
"Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years"....yes and if an overweight person had their legs and arms cut off they'd immediately lose weight, but life would rapidly lose its point.
Good answer,only one so far that makes sense. I feel very bad for Americans that were used as guinee pigs, but no sympathy for people that help to create these, and other mass murder machines. Right now today, all around America, there are scientists working to create horror, they get paid tons of money, and live in big houses, we respect them in town, but if we really knew what these people, fellow Americans, smiling in our faces, were really up too, I doubt we would be very respectful of them.
I am really sorry that you hold this grossly incorrect view of scientists. Yes, a few live quite well, but the vast majority are hard-working people that live extremely modestly considering that they have 18+ years of rigorous schooling. Some too are media-whores that seek the limelight by shocking society, but again, most scientists are dedicated to improving the lives and habitats of all denizens on our planet that is rapidly losing resources due to overpopulation pressures. The threats to our planet are technical and they can be easily, efficiently and effectively solved given political will.
Leadership is the problem, but this is not the forte of scientists.
What kind of insanity? Oh, your have a headache, here, eat this poison mushroom, then you'll feel all better.
WTF..$%^&)(*&^%^&*&^&*(&^&*#$#@!@#$%^&*()_
I am a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956) who has seen WW-III up close and personal. I had radiation poisoning and survived, but most of us are gone, some from horrible cancers.
I've spent most of my life trying to convince the world that, "No Nukes is Good Nukes." Sadly, those in power seem to worship the money spent on them, and rationalize the potential harm. My impression of the tests is below.
http://steveosborn.blogspot.com/2010/02/only-some-of-names-have-changed.html
My heart goes out to you. Now, we have poisoned most of the earth with DU. I don't see much hope, but we've got to keep trying.
The downwinders from the Nevada tests were classified as "A low-use segment of the population," by the Eisenhower Administration. A photojournalist named Carole Gallagher wrote "American Ground Zero, the Secret Nuclear War." She interviewed and photographed hundreds of people, most of them unknowing victims, some involved in the testing. With the proliferation of DU, we are all downwinders.
Essay on minitrue. Thank you for using your experience and voice to get on the senate floor.
I just wrote a bucnh of stuff and once again it got lost in space...not turned away just never made it to the site....this new writing is interesting, I think I like the colored background. Nucleor Bombs are mans evil, our real Devil, we have created the ability to destroy a beautiful Planet, and their are far to many, Generals, and Leaders, that would love a Good Hard War ! They want to use their toys, and they have o concern who dies. You say you were one of them and I guess you got exposed, well at least you have an Idea of what it is you help to create.I see you said you have spent most of your lives saying No Nukes, but how much did you get paid to help create this Monster / How into it all were you until you got injured ?
"You say you were one of them and I guess you got exposed, well at least you have an Idea of what it is you help to create.I see you said you have spent most of your lives saying No Nukes, but how much did you get paid to help create this Monster / How into it all were you until you got injured ?"
I was an eighteen year old navy seaman. I think the pay was about $125/month. I was posted aboard the Badoeing Strait (CVE 116). She was sent to Bikini. I don't really think I was creating anything. Admittedly, it was a kind of exciting concept, until after the Cherokee shot.
I wrote my parents after that first shot and said, "If everybody in the world could be put in some kind of amphitheater and watch just one of these things, they would mob all of the nuclear sites and missiles and tear them apart."
A lot of us were exposed to some degree or another. We did a lot of diving in the lagoon. We were told not to eat anything on the island, but most of us kids had no idea as to why. A lot of us ate at least one coconut; after all, we were on a Pacific atoll, probably a once in a lifetime experience. All I knew was that I began to be tired and sick to my stomach, then my gums began bleeding and my hair came out in clumps whenever I put a comb through it. I expected to die, but slowly recovered. As I said, most of us are dead now, many by really nasty cancers, etc. Many have flashbacks. I know I do.
Just because you were at something does not mean you support or create something. If you were at the scene of a horrible accident, would you feel that you caused or created it? Perhaps you would just try to help the survivors.
Generating such a pall with nukes (no casualties) might actually be a credible way to buy the necessary few years AFTER we've already done, worldwide, the necessary reforestation, insulation, comm-net development, greenhouse building, sailing-fleet building, food commitments, fossil-fuel abandonment, and have reproduction reduction well underway.
I hope it doesn't come down to using nukes to buy the time to *do* those things, though. That would be cutting it far too close for emotional health, never mind comfort.
I hope nobody ever asks for your advice. To even consider that as a possible aid in any Earth preservation is just Nut's , this is why America is going down. We are so devided ,half want reallity and the other half is depending on the man in the sky to work it all out, and that they just keep F-n up because the sky man will fix it ! In the 70's we called them Cults, now we call them Churches...
Do you think the politicians will do something less drastic while there's still time to do it? I'm certainly doubtful - on the record to date, they'll die protesting that they're *rich* and *important*, and that dying is something for the peasantry to do on their behalf.
Which means it's up to us, and if we want the opportunity to use less-drastic methods, then shouldn't we damned well get weaving?
We would probably only have to have 10 or so nuclear wars to get it right. You know, trial and error?
So many Americans think we can use nukes strategically, like in North Korea, with no understanding of the global environmental consequences. These same small minded, limited intellects, dismiss industrial pollution as a cause of global warming. Apocalypse now, indeed!
This is total BS. Have you ever watched the weather channel? They cannot predict the weather with any certainty more than one day in advance.
The temperature, cloud cover, winds, ect., are usually wrong.
So I am supposed to be impressed by this "weather" report? Give me a break.
Standing Ovation! The only weather report that is reliable is the view out of the window. Everything else is pure speculation, as we witness on a daily basis. Or have you ever heard the following:
'Heavy rainfall in seven month will cause widespread flooding.'
This article is a joke and a bad one at that.
This is a dangerous analysis. I hope no one is stupid enough to trap the world into a run-away attempt at macro-scale weather engineering because it looks like a simple solution to a complex problem.
Nukes being used on a large will only bring disaster!
I agree with Judah. This article seems to suggest that a little nuclear war might be just the ticket to solve our global warming problem...how absurd.
I'll try ALMOST anything once, maybe twice, but this is crazy. Considering the sanity quotient of our leaders though, I would never say never.
nuclear arsenal can be cut 90% and still be a deterrent /
alternative energies to nuclear are hydro and wind but the cost of private land needed is staggering, to escape the funny wind fans installed currently and to build sealing wagons on tracks around towns / also area for new dams, to construct hydro-energy plants is urgent / customers' base ownership would be the evidence of democracy / till then the conservatives left and right will run the show under social narratives
"Nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan."
_____________*
Let's see: The only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against a civilian population was the USA... twice in three days. The only countries CONSTANTLY threatening to nuke other countries are the USA and Israel... "all options are on the table". The only countries that would benefit from nuking other countries are the USA and Israel. How does this idiot conclude that we should be afraid of nuclear war between India and Pakistan?
This article may have its merits in the "food for thought" category, but given the various domestic and international crises on the front burner(s) this week, I question whether readers really needed this speculative tidbit foisted upon us just now.
Even Gwynne Dyer, who's been curiously optimistic about geoengineering, hasn't descended to expounding on the silver linings of WMDs.
It reminds me of a joke that seemed hilariously witty when I first heard it-- I was about eight years old: a man complains to his friend that he has a headache, and aspirin isn't helping; the friend promises a sure cure, and brings the man a hammer.
When the man asks, "What's this for?" the friend replies, "Hit your big toe with it as hard as you can-- you'll forget all about your headache!"
And now, on to something more elevating...
_______________________________
Afterthought: I should've paid more attention to the commenters who correctly pointed out that the headline is misleading, and that the piece is an unfortunately sensationalized rumination on the potentially catastrophic global effects of a "limited" nuclear weapons deployment.
Maybe this is startling news to "National Geographic" readers, but it seems that any reasonable person of ordinary intellect could figure this out. "Reasonable person" excludes warmongering technophiliacs who are DU, DIME, and "tactical nuclear weapon" enthusiasts.
Absolutely idiotic comment deleted by its author
Cutting off your head is a great cure for migraines as well.
Oh, let's not *even* get started. What are the odds that any two to five nations would detonate the right amount of fissile material in the right places to cause anything beneficial--even if we are to ignore the direct deaths, the massive toxicity and the intense motivation for other nations to burn more hydrocarbons for defence would almost certainly counteract any benefit that might randomly occur.
While we try to undertake the hubris of pretending that we may foresee delicate differences in the effects of such things, let's beware the distortions in our understandings of events that have already happened:
Why should there be any less danger of nuclear war because the Soviet bloc has dissolved? It's not like the US or Soviet masters were ever much merchants of ideology anyway.