Buyer Beware: Divided Ohio Supreme Court Says Boneless Wings Can, In Fact, Contain...
FIGHT! Trump Announces Plans to Hold Another Rally in Butler, PA
WATCH: Kamala Is All in on Defunding the Police, 'Upending the System' and...
BANANA REPUBLIC: 40 Former DOJ Officials Endorse Kamala Harris for President
In a Terrible Blow to 'Ear Truthers' the FBI CONFIRMS President Trump Was...
Days After Trump Was Shot, Former Secret Service Agent Says Harris Faces Greater...
Flat 'Ear-th' Truther Wajahat Ali Demands Trump's Medical Records
VERIFIABLY FALSE: Judge in Defamation Case Rules Rachel Maddow, MSNBC Straight Up Lied...
No One Is Above the Law (Except Democrats): Charges DROPPED Against DC Protesters...
New Green Grift? Kamala Clearly Has No 'Fracking' Idea What She's Talking About
THIS Is Biden's Actual Legacy: Never Forget He Tried to Mandate Vaccines for...
History Rewrite Continues: CBS Says Trump 'Falsely' Accused Harris of Donating to MN...
Wait? She's RIGHT! Democrats Should DEFINITELY Do What Kamala Harris Wants When It...
President Trump Welcomes Bibi Netanyahu with a Hearty Greeting at His Personal Home...
Scientific American Shifts Into Propaganda Overdrive Explaining Expertise Kamala Harris Wo...

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