5 Comments so far

1. ezeflyer February 14th, 2007 11:58 am

   Nuclear Winter, from Science News, Week of Feb. 3, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 5 , p. 72

   Chill in the air

   Although wildfires are a prodigious source of small particles in the atmosphere, the largest suppliers of what scientists call natural aerosols are major volcanic eruptions. The sun-blocking effect of the minuscule bits of volcanic ash and droplets of water and sulfuric acid can cool Earth’s climate significantly for months or even a year or two. The aerosols are especially persistent if they reach the stratosphere, where they waft above most weather and therefore aren’t efficiently cleansed from the atmosphere.

   Once the volcanic plumes spread at high altitude, they typically prevent no more than 1 percent of the sun’s light from reaching Earth’s surface (SN: 2/18/06, p. 110: Available to subscribers at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060218/note16.asp). But high-flying smoke and soot in the aftermath of even a limited nuclear war—one with as few as 100 Hiroshima-size bombs—would be much denser than that and the materials would block the sun as effectively as the thick clouds of a stormy day do, says Luke Oman, an environmental scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. He and his colleagues used computer models to simulate the effects of just such a war between India and Pakistan.

   If those bombs exploded over the most-populated areas of the nations, more than 5 million metric tons of smoke and soot would soar into the sky. Most of those particles would stay aloft for more than 6 years, says Oman. On average, the temperature at Earth’s surface would drop around 1.25°C for up to 3 years—about four times the short-term cooling effect resulting from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. After 10 years, the global average temperature would still be 0.5°C below normal.

   Those temperature decreases may seem no more than a slight chill, but they’re substantial, says Alan Robock, also of Rutgers University. Temperatures in the first few years after a 100-bomb India-Pakistan war would be cooler than during a centuries-long cold spell called the Little Ice Age, which ended during the mid-1800s. Average global temperatures were at that time between 0.6°C and 0.7°C below what they are today, and glaciers advanced in mountainous regions worldwide.

   While temperatures at Earth’s surface would drop, those in the stratosphere would increase by 30°C or more for at least 3 years, says Michael J. Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. At those higher temperatures, the large quantities of nitrogen oxides formed during the nuclear explosions—when nitrogen in the air literally burns—would destroy high-altitude ozone at rates much higher than normal, he notes.

   In the team’s simulations, between 50 and 70 percent of the ozone high over polar regions disappeared. Losses were lower over the tropics, but ozone there still decreased by at least 10 percent. A 100-bomb nuclear exchange would create “a global ozone hole,” says Mills. Because animals are adapted to the particular level of ozone protection that’s normal for their latitudes, any significant ozone loss could be catastrophic, he suggests.

   “Only disarmament can prevent the possibility of a nuclear environmental catastrophe,” Robock grimly told the audience at the San Francisco meeting.

   That a nuclear winter could be triggered by a regional war is particularly ironic, adds Stephen Schneider, a climate scientist at Stanford University. A few decades ago, people were afraid that an all-out nuclear war between superpowers would trigger a climate catastrophe. Today, the United States and Russia could simply end up as helpless bystanders—who would nevertheless be left out in the cold.

2. expatincebu February 14th, 2007 6:48 pm

   ezeflyer you have hit on it. I now understand the Bush’s looming nuclear attack on Iran is not about their nuclear program, or about their fueling insurgency in Iraq. No Bush has come up with a master plan to save the world from global warming by using nuclear winter. Once again the neocons prove there is no problem that cannot be solved by giving billions to defense welfare whores, killing hundreds of thousands of brown skinned people, and showing just how tough the US is.

3. Peace39 February 14th, 2007 9:23 pm

   The security of the people of the US will continue to diminish.
   The foreign policy needs to be changed so that the US always has more friends on Friday afternoon than they did on Monday morning.
   Friends are not made by killing others either on purpose or by accident.
   Friends are not made by threats of any sort.
   Try staying out of other countries unless you are asked to provide aid in the form of food or doctors.
   I know there is not as much money to be made from Peace and that the arms industry will take a battering on the stock market.

4. Uncle Buck February 15th, 2007 7:42 am

   I’m a little slow, so please help clarify. We need experts to tell us that if you poke a hornets nest with a stick, then your chances of getting stung increase 43%? Is it true that if you steal a salmon from a bear there is a 86% chance the bear will get mad? What percentage of lions will retaliate if you kill their cubs? Help, I need an expert with pole figures.

5. ballerina February 15th, 2007 10:45 am

   and another thing..do you really think ANYONE in washington gives a damn about what the rest of us think, expert or not?…the only thing they care about is power and the revolving door between government and corporate america….Bush has already said that he doesn’t give a damn and he’ll do whatever he wants..why don’t you believe him?

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)