Scott Adams Thanks Perma-TDS Dems for Helping Perpetuate Trump's 'Unmatched Political Skil...
Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Posts Cringe-Inducing 'Scam Stopper Showdown' Video
Photographer Critiques Vanity Fair's Photos of Trump Administration Officials
City of St. Paul Tells ICE to Cease and Desist Using City Parking...
Outrageous Stalking of ICE Ends with Epic Warning: Follow Us Again and You're...
JFK's Unknown Niece Vows to Remove Trump's Name From Building With a Pickaxe
Tara Palmeri Asks If It’s a Coincidence Trump’s DOJ Released the Epstein Photos...
Outgoing DC Police Chief Has Meltdown and a Biblical Message for the Haters
Heartbreaking Cat Theft: Amazon Delivery Man Snatches Piper by the Scruff, Leaves Family...
Sen. Van Hollen Vows to End Trump's Desecration (Then Maybe Rename It the...
When Men Run for Seats Instead of Wars: A Lament for Lost Chivalry
Bernie Sanders: The Grinch Who Blocked a Pediatric Cancer Bill for Political Leverage
The Clinton Files: Scott Jennings Renames the Epstein Files as Dems Screech Over...
It's AMAZING That More People Don't Watch Late-Night Shows With a 'Joke' and...
MS NOW’s Lisa Rubin’s Reaction to Dem’s Trump Hoax Photo Differs From Bill...

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
Advertisement
Advertisement