Home | About | Donate

Study of Massive Smoke Cloud From 2017 Wildfires Offers Terrifying Hint of How Even Small Nuclear War Would Escalate Climate Crises

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/08/study-massive-smoke-cloud-2017-wildfires-offers-terrifying-hint-how-even-small

1 Like

Global Warming and Nuclear Winter doesn’t cancel each other out it seems.

2 Likes

Well, it would for a while. This article is dishonest in that it does not point out that the effect of atmospheric smoke from massive fires of any cause is cooling. Nuclear war would be good for global warming! (/s)

I’m getting tired of the way global heating is becoming a target for so much issue-parasitism. Nuclear wapons must be abolished because of the horrible direct effects of the weapons. Then there are the vegans also latching on and trying to get people to think that they only need to stop eating meat and global heating will be solved.

1 Like

Seventy five thousand years ago(give or take a few thousand years), a super-volcano named Toba erupted in what is now Indonesia. It came within a heartbeat of killing off homo sapiens. It’s estimated only a few thousand humans survived. In fact, it’s still in our DNA, showing the bottleneck of a few alleles. Our ancestors survived because they knew how to live with the earth, how to live with the weather, not to constantly be “at war” with Gaia. In our arrogance, we have forgotten basic survival skills. Too bad Toba didn’t finish its job, given how we devolved…

1 Like

a small nuclear war

1 Like

There are no "small nuclear wars. Survivors of ancient extinctions seemed to have moved underground, ie what is southeastern Turkey Gobekeli Tepe (misspelled perhaps 15,000 bc) today and in Chinese caves. Earth has twenty year cycles, biorhythms, 63, 83,03, 2023.

1 Like

Help fight this mess Ellen Thomas
WILPF-US Disarm/End Wars Co-Chair

et@prop1.org (PC) and
etprop1@me.com (iPhone)

WILPF-US Ban Treaty Petition to the Senate
(Online Version) - http://bit.ly/wilpfus-bantreatypetition
( Paper Version) - http://prop1.org/wilpf/2017/Petition.ban.treaty.wide.pdf
Sign the online petition to the House supporting

HR-2419 -


Paper petition - http://prop1.org/wilpf/2019/Petition.prop1.pdf

You can sign and you can run off petitions and get others to sign. Any questions I am sure Ellen can answer them

Im not for a nuclear war, but how does a nuclear explosion produce 15 million tons of soot, when its not releasing carbon?

The mushroom cloud is not a fireball…

That’s not going to get passed. The committees in charge of overseeing nuclear weapons and policy regarding nuclear weapons severely outrank congress - not necessarily legally, but by political might, prestige and defense intelligence its overwhelming.

The problem is these committees actually have some pretty legitimate points for keeping nuclear weapons, for example weighing comparisons in global strategic policy against other superpower nations like China and Russia.

Legitimate question: Russia wants to take ownership over natural gas resources in Latvia and Estonia, which it used to own when these countries were a part of the USSR.

What is currently stopping an invasion? Latvia and Estonia are NATO countries and nuclear response is warranted under global strategic policy if an aggressor and enemy of NATO invades a NATO country.

We have already seen the UN throw its collective might against Russia with significant economic sanctions following their invasion of Crimea, and while this did significantly damage the Russian economy overall it didn’t have significant leverage against Russian political policy.

You take nukes off the table, what is stopping Russia from invading these countries?

  • Potential war?
  • Massive economic and trade deal cancellations?

Are these outcomes better than our current situations?

1 Like

“It’s a game of nuclear tit for tat,” said Hudson, “in which there can be no winners as the threat of nuclear war rises.”

Why don’t they just tell it like it is? Whether climate heating, BOE or nuclear war; we are fucked. And don’t forget to eat your “roundup” /gmo enhanced cereals.

Exactly.

Looks like the next wave of fallout shelter mania, is about to begin soon.

The first wave began right after I was born, and now, within a relatively short time before I pay my last taxes, the level of fear created by the scum of the Earth, (better known as politicians), we are back here again.

Farewell Cruel World.

Skeedaddle Sport. Your Mama is calling you.

Now, wait a minute. Back in the good old days we were supposed to be terrified of the “nuclear winter” that was the inevitable follow-on to a nuclear exchange. Now, all of a sudden, the same theoretical nuclear exchange is going to accelerate global warming?!?

In a civilization antithetical to knowledge and its use for the well being of all, corrupted oligarchs, nationalism and the corporatocracy push humanity toward the brink while claiming they are leaders and centrist politicians.
Immune to evidence, history and rationality, normalized insanity ravages the globe. Hundreds of millions suffering unnecessarily are no problem for deviants who act like psychopaths.
Put them on a leash.

I think the issue is more that such events could result in massive atmospheric changes. If you drastically change the atmosphere in either cooling or warming then the resultant situation will cause ecosystems to face significant temperature changes that which they cannot sustain over a human lifescale (80-100 years).

To be honest this study or at least how it is framed makes zero sense. The article is claiming that a nuclear war could release 15 millions tons of CO2 into the air, but a nuclear explosion does not include a carbon reaction, so how are you creating CO2 without carbon?

Yes there is usually a pin explosion to iniate the propulsion of fissile material and thus create an immense reaction, but at no time is a nuclear reaction converting Carbon to oxygen. Normal combustible materials are made of carbon compounds, but the fuel in a nuclear bomb in plutonium or uranium, and carbon is not a typical or high concentration fission product for plutonium or uranium reactions, so this conclusion makes zero atomic or chemical sense.

I believe the confusion is that in nuclear reaction there is an immense release of thermal energy, which is what burns everything. Now maybe the argument is that this release of energy would impact large amounts of infrastructure that include high concentrations of carbon, however if this is the conclusion then the location of the explosion is more important than the actual nuclear reaction. If drop a nuclear bomb in the desert you wouldn’t have a significant increase CO2 as there is little to no impacted infrastructure than if you hit a city, but it appears that this analysis is non-existent in the article even though it is perhaps the largest factor.