Dem Senator Who Declared Biden Competent and Effective Tries to Alert the Press...
Let's Analyze Bette Midler's 'Joyful, Powerful Show of Resistance' Against Fascist Trump
BUSTED: "Anti-Hate" Group Gets Caught Funding Hate
New York Times Scoop: Elon Musk Scandalously Uses Legal Financial Processes to Conduct...
Zohran Mamdani's First Veto As NYC Mayor Surprises Few
'Why the Need for...'? Shipwrecked Crew Has Questions After the Latest Spin From...
Buckle Up, Mississippi: Governor Tate Reeves Drops BIG News After Virginia's Gerrymanderin...
Joe Biden Says 'Huh'? Never Trumper Chris Truax Declares an 'Emergency' About a...
Scott Jennings Stumps Paul Begala by Challenging Him to Name One ‘Journo’ Who...
Fascist’s Fury: Dem Chris Murphy Vows to Use Government Might Against Companies Dems...
From Human Traffickers to Terrorists: The Convict Parents of the Left’s Loudest ‘Anti-Rich...
Homophobia Is Bad … Except When It’s Against Conservatives: Kimmel’s Cringe WHCD Stand-In...
Is This Photo Purporting to Show Trump Fast Asleep in the WH Real...
Falklands Fallout: US Tells Britain to 'Falk Off' After Iran Snub – Piers...
Rep. Brandon Gill Blows Up Spectrum’s Scooter Love Story: Rep. Min’s Real Reason...

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