3 ms·

tl;dr: Sensationalist but unconvincing. This is because of statements like made here: >“But global warming would be over.” Why? “Because CO2 production would

tl;dr: Sensationalist but unconvincing. This is because of statements like made here: >“But global warming would be over.” Why? “Because CO2 production would stop with the destruction of civilization.” Man-made climate change, and the drought conditions that come with it, would cease. I find this is just ignoring reality. CO2 content in atmosphere is the result of a balance in the world. It's a result of processes that bring more CO2 there, and process that remove it. There's plenty of CO2 production that happens without civilization. And almost all of CO2 removal is not the result of civilization. The balance is not quite solid, but it is there. The man-made climate change is about changing that balance (and the balance with some other gasses like methane). Annual man-made CO2 emissions are however only a small portion of the total CO2 currently in atmosphere, and of total CO2 removed. Even if civilization wouldn't make any CO2 emissions, the CO2 content of atmosphere would not go to zero. For CO2 levels in atmosphere, there is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppm which is negatively correlated with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. [1] Thus, a far more important factor in the CO2 balance of Earth after a nuclear winter would be how vegetation and seawater plankton survive. If large areas of forests were destroyed, and if seas would be poisoned, then the conversion of CO2 to oxygen and absorption of carbon to plankton would change drastically. The impact of that would be vastly larger than the CO2 output of any human industries. Climate change would not be over because of lack of civilizsation; climate change would be unpredictable because we wouldn't know what are all the things that blew up in the air and what impact they have. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmo...

sqeaky 10y ago
I think the bigger point is that in the face of nuclear annihilation CO2 doesn't matter. Just maybe the particles launched into th atmosphere, the radioactive fallout and the death of the human race are more important than CO2
- ptaipale 10y ago
  The death of human race would mainly come via climate change. No nuclear war will directly kill all people, nor will radioactive fallout of even an extensive one. But if the climate would get really much colder, then the human race might be in danger. For the majority of existence of anatomically modern human being (50 000 years to 200 000 years, depending on definition) the world population has been less than 5 million people (the population of world 10 000 years ago). I think it is quite likely that a similar population could be maintained today, with today's technology, by building artificial environments, running on nuclear power and other modern technology. Think of Caves of Steel. Major powers surely have done some preparations towards that. It would be what was attributed to Stalin having called "statistics", of course [1], but it wouldn't be the extinction of the human race. [1] http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I am curious as to why you think "No nuclear war will directly kill all people" and then after that climate change would be a problem. I agree a limited exchange might leave people in hardened bunkers alive. But a full exchange, we have sop many weapons[1] it seems entirely that only the luckiest in hardened bunkers would survive and largely they would emerge in a polluted radioactive wasteland. There are only about 3,000 cities[2] with more than 10,000 people, and only about 19,000 cities in total. We very nearly have a warhead per city, but a city does not need a warhead to hit it to die, irradiating the farmland will kill off everyone just fine. They will have trouble growing food because of pollution levels, radioactivity. I guess you could call a spontaneous transformation in a barren wastes "climate change" but I think that would be underselling the problem. I also think doing that does a disservice to the modern political about climate change. [1] http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-towns-counties-and-cities-are-in-the-USA https://www.quora.com/How-many-towns-counties-and-cities-are...
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      There are lots of smaller cities and towns, and not all people live in cities or towns. Nuclear attacks would not cover all land areas where people live. Thus the detonations would not kill all people directly. Would the radioactive waste kill people? That is something which is harder to calculate. But the dangers of radiation are much exaggerated, and humans are generally more resilient than most people think. But nuclear winter, drastically reduced temperatures, particles in the air that prevent vegetation from growing and which thus changes the composition of the gasses in atmosphere? That sounds a real threat.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        I agree that radiation dangers are exaggerated for most things. The amount of radioactive material left over in most nuclear detonations is staggering. Most fission bombs consume only a tiny percent of their fuel and scatter the rest as particles. Unlike a simple meltdown like Chernobyl there is no container to hold this. Put another way all nuclear weapons are also immensely powerful dirty bombs. To contrast further, I am well aware of stories of survivors in Japan, even the one survivor who is still alive (last I heard) who was thrown tens of meters twice, once per blast. He and most others only survived because of immediate medical attention and then sustained infrastructure that could not survive a doomsday scenario. Uranium and Plutonium are some of the most dangerous materials to ingest tiny particles of and these are exactly what will be launched and scattered into all the food supplies. The radiation of being near tiny specks of dust can consume the safe dose of a person for the year and likely do nothing more than increase their chance for cancer in 30 years. Eat that same dust and die of horrible cancer and burns in a few months. It will be in all the food because we have enough warheads, as stated in my previous post, to erase most cities, the resulting damage and fallout would leave no on the planet untouched because the dust would scattered high into the upper atmosphere [1] and it will settle every where The preposterous devastation of a total nuclear war cannot be understated and again I say that comparing it to climate change does climate change a real disservice. CO2 based climate will disrupt industry and cause wars, but it cannot exterminate humanity. The first volley in a nuclear exchange can exterminate all of humanity before the the next planting of crops. Any comparison to nuclear extinction makes it easy for climate change deniers to claim climate change is hyberbole. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

sqeaky 10y ago

I think the bigger point is that in the face of nuclear annihilation CO2 doesn't matter. Just maybe the particles launched into th atmosphere, the radioactive fallout and the death of the human race are more important than CO2

ptaipale 10y ago
The death of human race would mainly come via climate change. No nuclear war will directly kill all people, nor will radioactive fallout of even an extensive one. But if the climate would get really much colder, then the human race might be in danger. For the majority of existence of anatomically modern human being (50 000 years to 200 000 years, depending on definition) the world population has been less than 5 million people (the population of world 10 000 years ago). I think it is quite likely that a similar population could be maintained today, with today's technology, by building artificial environments, running on nuclear power and other modern technology. Think of Caves of Steel. Major powers surely have done some preparations towards that. It would be what was attributed to Stalin having called "statistics", of course [1], but it wouldn't be the extinction of the human race. [1] http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/
- sqeaky 10y ago
  I am curious as to why you think "No nuclear war will directly kill all people" and then after that climate change would be a problem. I agree a limited exchange might leave people in hardened bunkers alive. But a full exchange, we have sop many weapons[1] it seems entirely that only the luckiest in hardened bunkers would survive and largely they would emerge in a polluted radioactive wasteland. There are only about 3,000 cities[2] with more than 10,000 people, and only about 19,000 cities in total. We very nearly have a warhead per city, but a city does not need a warhead to hit it to die, irradiating the farmland will kill off everyone just fine. They will have trouble growing food because of pollution levels, radioactivity. I guess you could call a spontaneous transformation in a barren wastes "climate change" but I think that would be underselling the problem. I also think doing that does a disservice to the modern political about climate change. [1] http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-towns-counties-and-cities-are-in-the-USA https://www.quora.com/How-many-towns-counties-and-cities-are...
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    There are lots of smaller cities and towns, and not all people live in cities or towns. Nuclear attacks would not cover all land areas where people live. Thus the detonations would not kill all people directly. Would the radioactive waste kill people? That is something which is harder to calculate. But the dangers of radiation are much exaggerated, and humans are generally more resilient than most people think. But nuclear winter, drastically reduced temperatures, particles in the air that prevent vegetation from growing and which thus changes the composition of the gasses in atmosphere? That sounds a real threat.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I agree that radiation dangers are exaggerated for most things. The amount of radioactive material left over in most nuclear detonations is staggering. Most fission bombs consume only a tiny percent of their fuel and scatter the rest as particles. Unlike a simple meltdown like Chernobyl there is no container to hold this. Put another way all nuclear weapons are also immensely powerful dirty bombs. To contrast further, I am well aware of stories of survivors in Japan, even the one survivor who is still alive (last I heard) who was thrown tens of meters twice, once per blast. He and most others only survived because of immediate medical attention and then sustained infrastructure that could not survive a doomsday scenario. Uranium and Plutonium are some of the most dangerous materials to ingest tiny particles of and these are exactly what will be launched and scattered into all the food supplies. The radiation of being near tiny specks of dust can consume the safe dose of a person for the year and likely do nothing more than increase their chance for cancer in 30 years. Eat that same dust and die of horrible cancer and burns in a few months. It will be in all the food because we have enough warheads, as stated in my previous post, to erase most cities, the resulting damage and fallout would leave no on the planet untouched because the dust would scattered high into the upper atmosphere [1] and it will settle every where The preposterous devastation of a total nuclear war cannot be understated and again I say that comparing it to climate change does climate change a real disservice. CO2 based climate will disrupt industry and cause wars, but it cannot exterminate humanity. The first volley in a nuclear exchange can exterminate all of humanity before the the next planting of crops. Any comparison to nuclear extinction makes it easy for climate change deniers to claim climate change is hyberbole. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]