PDA

View Full Version : Study: ‘Small’ Nuclear War Would Destroy The World



Teh One Who Knocks
03-27-2014, 10:46 AM
CBS Radio


http://i.imgur.com/iFMiDZF.jpg

DENVER (CBS4) – With an estimated 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, we have the power to exterminate humanity many times over.

But it wouldn’t take a full-scale nuclear war to make Earth uninhabitable, reports Live Science.

Even a relatively small regional nuclear war, like a conflict between India and Pakistan, could spark a global environmental catastrophe, says a new study.

“Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe out the ozone layer for a decade,” said lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

Researchers developed a computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere and ran simulations to find out what would happen if there was a nuclear war with just a fraction of the world’s arsenal.

What they saw was the stuff of nightmares:

Firestorms would belch over 5 million tons of ash into the sky.

The ash would absorb the sun’s rays, causing deadly cooling on the surface.

Global temperatures would plummet my nearly 3 degrees Farenheit on average, with most of North America experiencing winters that would be colder by 4 to 10 degrees.

Lethal frosts would cover the Earth and reduce the growing seasons bu about a month for several years.

Rainfall and other precipitation would be reduced by about 10 percent, triggering worldwide droughts and leading to wildfires in the Amazon, which would spew more smoke into the atmosphere.

The sky ash would heat the stratosphere and accelerate the chemical reactions that destroy the ozone layer.

The intense ultraviolet radiation that would get through to the surface would be a dramatic threat to human health and damage fragile ecosystems on land and sea.

“All in all, these effects would be very detrimental to food production and to ecosystems,” Mills said.

The findings are published in the journal Earth’s Future.

FBD
03-27-2014, 12:39 PM
The sky ash would heat the stratosphere and accelerate the chemical reactions that destroy the ozone layer.

fucking tripe, CFCs are heavy molecules and most manmade shit never even gets close to the ozone layer. let's entirely leave out that the hole waxes and wanes as a result of it being in the sun or the fkn shade. but somehow all that ash is going to go right up there and clog the fker up. yup, ok. :yawn:

PorkChopSandwiches
03-27-2014, 03:35 PM
Im sure it would have an overall damaging affect anyway

FBD
03-27-2014, 04:06 PM
of course it would, but for these idiots to make wild assertions based on half century old assumptions is just beyond stupid.


but then again, look at the subscription to AGW in the first place and that says all you need to know about intelligence level.

Hal-9000
03-27-2014, 09:40 PM
Carl Sagan explained nuclear winter to me when I was a lad and this story is 100% correct...it won't take much to upset the delicate balance we all take for granted right now

KevinD
03-27-2014, 11:33 PM
All you need to know about cfc is that ALL of them are heavier than air, and surprise, surprise, surprise:

In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[9]*DuPont representatives appeared before the*Montreal Protocol*urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants]

Muddy
03-27-2014, 11:45 PM
All you need to know about cfc is that ALL of them are heavier than air, and surprise, surprise, surprise:

So what are you saying. cfc's dont rise?

KevinD
03-28-2014, 01:19 AM
That is correct. They are heavier than air. For example, r-12, the most common that was/is identified with ozone depletion is over 4 times heavier than air. They also are very difficult to breakdown, by design. Not water soluble at all, and not flammable.

http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/r12.htm

FBD
03-28-2014, 12:27 PM
Muddy, this is actually a significant reason why "AGW exists." These guys never abandoned their idea that there's got to be some significant amount of CFCs that we emit up into the atmosphere. Sans volcanic eruptions and shit...at the level where the ozone layer is, not much if any at all human made CFCs ever reach there.

So not abandoning that idea, curve fitting math bastardizing scumbags had to find a way to balance the equation, and the logarithmic curve nature of CO2's "warming impact" as a "greenhouse gas" was something needed to be figured out, and jacking up that coefficient as represented in the equations gave us this entire notion that man's CO2 output is some sort of problem. (Note I am not discussing pollutants here ;) )

When the government saw they could potentially reap tax monies from this, they began tossing a lot of money at research on it, and you know a lot of the people involved (Mann, Jones, Briffa) had a lot of grant money thrown at them for being part of the racket that destroyed the peer review system where climate research is involved. And people like Hansen, employed by NASA with a wink and a nod to make this work out...ever notice the stuff with Hansen's name on it have the most prominent and dire predictions?

Anyway...here we are. :)

Lots of bad shit can happen with the nukes, no doubt, I am not disputing that at all - but when people toss in uninformed fkn garbage to promote a fallacious status quo view, :hand: I am often compelled to call that shit out...

lost in melb.
03-28-2014, 01:39 PM
That is correct. They are heavier than air. For example, r-12, the most common that was/is identified with ozone depletion is over 4 times heavier than air. They also are very difficult to breakdown, by design. Not water soluble at all, and not flammable.

http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/r12.htm

However, it is worth noting that the "air" in question is not still :)

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/heavier.html

FBD
03-28-2014, 02:57 PM
it survives to be uniformly distributed, both vertically and horizontally
:-k


About 90% of the ozone in our atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere


Concentrations [of CFCs] drop off rapidly, however, in the stratosphere.

so which is it, EPA? sure, they are entirely trustworthy and credible, with no agenda or ulterior motives :)