3 ms·
Please explain to me -- how could 50 measly “Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons” (in TFA) have an effect multiple factors of ten worse than Krakatoa, with ca 200 MT
by berntb 10y ago
Please explain to me -- how could 50 measly “Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons” (in TFA) have an effect multiple factors of ten worse than Krakatoa, with ca 200 MT...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#1883_eruption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#1883_eruption
Edit: Also, all the fire bombed cities in WW II should at least be in the neighborhood of a large fraction of 100 small nuclear devices. Then we have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires#Oil_fire_smoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires#Oil_fire_smo...
- 6d6b73 10y agoSomethings very fishy here.. The US alone detonated over 1000 nukes, yet nuclear winter is nowhere to be seen.. (thankfully)
- a2tech 10y agoIf you read carefully you'll see the article says its from the ensuing fires-not directly from the fallout of the weapons themselves.
- PeterisP 10y agoWW2 non-nuclear devastation was larger than 100 hiroshima sized bombs, with explicit firebombing burning so many cities to the ground - we have seen the effect of enormous fires, and it doesn't come close to what is described.
- Ygg2 10y agoI assume that if they go out in urban areas, they'll raise a lot more dust and cause fire that raise more dust. Also it's not 50, it's 100. 50 bombs for India and Pakistan each.
- imglorp 10y agoSo it seems nuclear winter occurs not from the bombs but from the smoke from all the fires they would cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
- berntb 10y agoSo if it was burning cities -- how much worse were Hiroshima/Nagasaki than the firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden and so on? The years of WW II ought to play in the same division? Edit: Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires#Oil_fire_smoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires#Oil_fire_smo...
- azernik 10y agoIn part because the author is exaggerating the scientific results - click on the link for "mostly black" skies, and you'll get a gif/video showing (after equilibrium is reached a few months after the event) light absorption of 5-8%. Significant for the climate, for sure, but not what the writer is claiming.