Shackles and Shakedowns: Gavin Newsom Seeks to Shame California Companies With Ties to...
Susan Rice Wants Steve Hilton to Stop Using Her Name Against Becerra (by...
LA-HOO-ZA-HER: Hillary Clinton Instantly REGRETS Sharing 2 Headlines to Dunk on Trump's Ec...
Letitia James Appointed Special Prosecutor in Cornell 7 Case
LOL-YIKES: Randi Weingarten's Unhinged Rant Appears to Frighten the 2 Dems Onstage With...
El-Sayed's Viral Exchange With Iranian-American Backfired So Hard the Guy Cut an Ad...
Abdul El-Sayed Says 'Black Folk' Have Never Had Access to REAL Capitalism —...
Sir Charles Barkley Has a Few Questions for the No-Cops, No-Prisons Crowd (Dems...
James Woods Just Needs One PERFECTLY Brutal Pic-Post to END Ro Khanna and...
Try to Spot Trends in These Gas Price, Income Tax and Population Gain/Loss...
Clean Up, Aisle CNN! WATCH Bill de Blasio Loses His Cool Debating...
Abdul El-Sayed Would Like a Million Millionaires Instead of 1 Billionaire (Has He...
Socialist Nutball Rep. Angie Nixon BIG MAD at JD Vance for Speaking HIS...
Absolutely Freaking NOT! Zohran Mamdani Describes His Grand Vision for Socialist Utopia to...
Marrow-Minded: Ben Rhodes Says His Bones Tell Him Racism Over Obama Shapes Today’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