BREAKING: The US Strikes Venezuela Following Orders by President Trump (WATCH)
That’s Not Reich! Legacy Media Ignores Mamdani Doing the Same ‘Nazi Salute’ They...
Mamdami's Non-Photo Op Photo Op
Locked and Loaded: President Trump Threatens Military Action Against Iran
On Today’s Episode of 'That’s Not How Money Works', The Left Discovers Finance,...
MTV Was the Channel That Raised a Generation - Until the Music Stopped
Need a Mirror? Larry Sabato Smears Americans as 'Village Idiots,' Showing Why Credentialis...
BOOM: Iconic Meme Torches Zohran Mamdani's 'Warm Collectivists' Push for the COMMUNIST Plo...
NYC's 'Ban Guns' and 'Defund the Police' Mayor Has ALREADY Made the Subways...
Somalian Fraudsters Accidentally Blow Their Entire Operation During Humiliating Press Conf...
Former Tea Partier Joe Walsh Wakes Up In 2026 to Realize He's Joined...
MASTER Class! AG Hamilton SCHOOLS WaPo Hack Playing Race Card to Defend Somali...
Tommy Lee Jones's Daughter Found Dead on New Year's Day, She Was 34
Call to Activism's Claim About Jack Smith Footage Proves NOBODY Grifts Better Than...
Babylon Bee Editor Thanks Snopes for Debunking This Believable Story About Tim Walz's...

The Atlantic: Even a 'minor' nuclear skirmish would prove disastrous for climate change

“Special Presidential Envoy” and former Secretary of State John Kerry noted a couple of weeks ago that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could distract the world from the climate change crisis while also having massive emissions consequences. Kerry of course stands with Ukraine, but he knows he needs Vladimir Putin onboard for his climate agenda, and he also doesn’t want to derail America’s cooperation with Russia on the Iran nuclear deal on which he worked so hard. Kerry’s right that Ukraine has distracted people from climate change hoaxsters like himself.

Advertisement

Robinson Meyer writes for The Atlantic that a nuclear war with Russia would not only kill tens of millions of people — it would be a disaster for climate change. We’re so old we remember that 1983 TV movie with Jason Robards, “The Day After,” which showed the effects of nuclear winter. So is it nuclear winter we’re talking about?

Meyer writes:

The hot, dry, hurricane-force winds would act like a supercharged version of California’s Santa Ana winds, which have triggered some of the state’s worst wildfires. Even in a small war, that would happen at dozens of places around the planet, igniting urban and wildland forest fires as large as small states. A 2007 study estimated that if 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated, a number equal to only 0.03 percent of the planet’s total arsenal, the number of “direct fatalities due to fire and smoke would be comparable to those worldwide in World War II.” Towering clouds would carry more than five megatons of soot and ash from these fires high into the atmosphere.

All this carbon would transform the climate, shielding it from the sun’s heat. Within months, the planet’s average temperature would fall by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit; some amount of this cooling would persist for more than a decade. But far from reversing climate change, this cooling would be destabilizing. It would reduce global precipitation by about 10 percent, inducing global drought conditions. In parts of North America and Europe, the growing season would shorten by 10 to 20 days.

Advertisement

We’re still more concerned about the people in the blast zone.

Advertisement

It’s real.


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement

TRENDING ON TOWNHALL MEDIA