4 ms·

I was distracted by the middle. It's not really the bomb, it's the fires. Setting a hundred cities on fire in an afternoon, each one pushes soot up into the upp

by jfoutz 9y ago

I was distracted by the middle. It's not really the bomb, it's the fires. Setting a hundred cities on fire in an afternoon, each one pushes soot up into the upper atmosphere. sunlight gets absorbed there rather than down on the surface. It's really all about scale. The wiki article is interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

cyberferret 9y ago
Interesting point. I assume they chose these atolls because the prevailing winds wouldn't blow any radioactive waste or ash clouds over populated lands. I've seen plenty of pre and 'during' photos of the test explosions, but rarely seen ones that are a few minutes after the fact. I wonder just how much fire, smoke and debris was ejected into the atmosphere? I assume not much given the extent of water around the place, but if indeed 23 Skyscrapers worth of matter was moved, you would assume that most of it would have been scattered into the upper atmosphere as fine dust amongst the water vapour etc. I wonder how that affected the weather and climate around the area over the next few days. They must have studied that, but I don't see very much available in terms of their findings.
ghostcluster 9y ago
That's not true. People said the same thing about the potential Kuwaiti Oil Fires in the first gulf war, and yet hundreds of wells and lakes of oil burned for months and caused no winter scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Kuwait_wells_in_the_first_Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Kuwait_wells_in... Nuclear Winter is a case of scientists running personal social activism and using their cover as scientists to implant a false narrative. > Even Dr. Richard P. Turco, the physicist who coined the phrase ''nuclear winter,'' discounts the idea. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-the...
- jfoutz 9y ago
  yup, that one event didn't make it up to 10k feet. But as pointed out, it was like twilight, and the temperature dropped 5C. Asia was spared. But if you continue on, you'll find more recent research, both pro an con. I think it's still a completely reasonable foundation for a dystopian fantasy story. In spite of the specific events in Kuwait, I'd be willing to wager that if humans launch, say, 500 nuclear weapons there will be climate consequences resembling nuclear winter. We probably won't agree on this point. I think we can agree, let's not find out.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  But volcanos can cause a volcanic winter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter So why not a nuclear exchange?
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    The models justifying the "nuclear winter" scenario are wrong, and "nuclear winter" relies on politically motivated rhetoric to push a social agenda that is at odds with similar events in magnitude. The Kuwaiti Oil fires are a great example, as are events where forests the size of nation-states have burned, and caused no signifiacant cooling. It's hyped exaggeration using rhetoric for political effect.
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      I don’t know why you are getting downvotes. Odds are you are right. People are getting emotionally attached to nuclear winter I guess.
      - ghostcluster 9y ago
        I provided a link from the NYTimes with the scientists from the original 1983 Nuclear Winter paper retracting their original prediction as well. Well done, HN.
        pjc50 9y ago
        I suspect its your use of the phrase "social agenda", as if nuclear war might be a thing that it was unreasonable to be against.
        ghostcluster 9y ago
        It is unreasonable to make up fake models and rhetoric, and then push it in the media under the auspices of science. How can you be trusted in the future?

by jfoutz 9y ago

cyberferret 9y ago

Interesting point. I assume they chose these atolls because the prevailing winds wouldn't blow any radioactive waste or ash clouds over populated lands. I've seen plenty of pre and 'during' photos of the test explosions, but rarely seen ones that are a few minutes after the fact. I wonder just how much fire, smoke and debris was ejected into the atmosphere? I assume not much given the extent of water around the place, but if indeed 23 Skyscrapers worth of matter was moved, you would assume that most of it would have been scattered into the upper atmosphere as fine dust amongst the water vapour etc. I wonder how that affected the weather and climate around the area over the next few days. They must have studied that, but I don't see very much available in terms of their findings.

ghostcluster 9y ago

That's not true. People said the same thing about the potential Kuwaiti Oil Fires in the first gulf war, and yet hundreds of wells and lakes of oil burned for months and caused no winter scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Kuwait_wells_in_the_first_Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Kuwait_wells_in... Nuclear Winter is a case of scientists running personal social activism and using their cover as scientists to implant a false narrative. > Even Dr. Richard P. Turco, the physicist who coined the phrase ''nuclear winter,'' discounts the idea. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-the...

jfoutz 9y ago
yup, that one event didn't make it up to 10k feet. But as pointed out, it was like twilight, and the temperature dropped 5C. Asia was spared. But if you continue on, you'll find more recent research, both pro an con. I think it's still a completely reasonable foundation for a dystopian fantasy story. In spite of the specific events in Kuwait, I'd be willing to wager that if humans launch, say, 500 nuclear weapons there will be climate consequences resembling nuclear winter. We probably won't agree on this point. I think we can agree, let's not find out.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
But volcanos can cause a volcanic winter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter So why not a nuclear exchange?
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  The models justifying the "nuclear winter" scenario are wrong, and "nuclear winter" relies on politically motivated rhetoric to push a social agenda that is at odds with similar events in magnitude. The Kuwaiti Oil fires are a great example, as are events where forests the size of nation-states have burned, and caused no signifiacant cooling. It's hyped exaggeration using rhetoric for political effect.
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    I don’t know why you are getting downvotes. Odds are you are right. People are getting emotionally attached to nuclear winter I guess.
    - ghostcluster 9y ago
      I provided a link from the NYTimes with the scientists from the original 1983 Nuclear Winter paper retracting their original prediction as well. Well done, HN.
      - pjc50 9y ago
        I suspect its your use of the phrase "social agenda", as if nuclear war might be a thing that it was unreasonable to be against.
        ghostcluster 9y ago
        It is unreasonable to make up fake models and rhetoric, and then push it in the media under the auspices of science. How can you be trusted in the future?