Did the AP Not Want to Completely Ruin AOC's Narrative by Leaving Something...
The Difference Between How NBC Boston Covers 11 Jurors vs. the Holdout Is...
TMZ Busted for Photoshopped Attempt to Gin Up Sympathy for Lindsay Clancy
'Mess With One of Us, Mess With All of Us': NY Fans Unite...
Non-Practicing White: Lindsay Clancy Fan Explains Not Commenting on Black ‘Holdout Juror’...
Off Her Rocker: Smug Karen’s Seat Collapses, Legs Go Flying After Debating Content...
Retroactively Racist: Anti-‘Holdout Juror’ Online Videos Hit Differently Now That We Know...
Kathy Hochul Ditches Ground Zero Ceremony for Pow-Wow With CNN and Wolf Blitzer
Media Moving Forward With Sick Effort to Smear Lone Holdout Juror in Lindsay...
Pro-Clancy Juror Is Asked How the 11 White Jurors Tried to Get the...
25 Years After 9/11: What America Forgot
George W. Bush Is Every American Looking at Zohran Mamdani in This Pic
Hey Guys, Don't Forget It's an Anniversary for Hillary Clinton As Well ...
James Talarico Shares His 'BANNED' Jimmy Kimmel Interview and It Does NOT Go...
Wasn't an Earthquake, BRO: Buck Sexton SHREDS Zohran Mamdani and His Deliberately Vague...

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