3 ms·
Well, if you would consider nuclear winter to be bad (and I certainly would), this is that, doubled, in reverse, plus lasting ten or more times as long. It's
by jaggederest 9y ago
Well, if you would consider nuclear winter to be bad (and I certainly would), this is that, doubled, in reverse, plus lasting ten or more times as long.
It's really difficult to overestimate the level of damage something like this would do to society. Picture half the population of humanity starving to death in famines or being killed in combat over water resources.
- jessaustin 9y agoI thought nuclear winter meant that photosynthesis would cease? That's obviously bad, but "doubled, in reverse" doesn't make sense in this context.
- jaggederest 9y agoIn terms of temperature change - nuclear winter is estimated to be a ~3C global reduction in temperature for ~10-20 years. And yes, you're right, photosynthesis would probably cease. We're going to see similar problems in the opposite direction, probably drought on a scale heretofore never experienced in human history in temperate areas. Imagine the climate of Los Angeles moving north to Vancouver BC, and similar cascading effects across the board.