Environment & Energy

bananas

(27,509 posts) Tue Mar 6, 2012, 09:30 AM Mar 2012

The (Nuclear) Winter Of Our Discontent

http://news.opb.org/article/the_nuclear_winter_of_our_discontent/

The (Nuclear) Winter Of Our Discontent

Climate Central | March 6, 2012 4:33 a.m.

The specter of a nuclear conflagration looms in the tinderbox that is the Middle East and South Asia. While heads of state and military leaders game out every possible result, including the nightmarish worst-case scenarios, it's worth also contemplating the collateral ramifications of a nuclear conflict, including its potentially dramatic effects on the climate.

Those ramifications, after all, would affect all of us, perhaps irrevocably.

If a nuclear war were to break out in the Middle East or South Asia (or anywhere else, for that matter), the least of our short-term worries would be climate change. But, depending on the size and number of weapons used, as well as the specific targets hit, a nuclear conflict could seriously impact the global climate system, ushering in a period of dramatic global cooling.

Even limited regional nuclear exchanges — which are more likely now that the number of nuclear weapons states has increased — would have major implications for the climate system that would be similar to, although not as severe as, the “nuclear winter” scenarios popularized during the Cold War, according to the most recent studies.

In fact, modern climate simulations show that the climate system may be even more sensitive to a nuclear conflict than previously thought.

<snip>

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The (Nuclear) Winter Of Our Discontent (Original Post) bananas Mar 2012 OP

"Nuclear Winter" isn't the concern. FBaggins Mar 2012 #1

And you forget that a test in the desert isn't the same as incinerating a city... kristopher Mar 2012 #2

So which is it? FBaggins Mar 2012 #3

That's the kind of "reading for comprehension" we've come to expect from climate deniers. kristopher Mar 2012 #5

And that's the kind of Ad hominem we've come to expect from you. FBaggins Mar 2012 #11

Are you saying you are not a die-hard nuclear promoter? kristopher Mar 2012 #12

By your definition? Yes, I'm saying that. FBaggins Mar 2012 #13

Specific references Baggins. kristopher Mar 2012 #14

Once again with that fallacy? FBaggins Mar 2012 #15

The only thing false is your claim about what you said kristopher Mar 2012 #16

The article clearly states "Despite short-term cooling, the CO2 emissions would cause long-term warm bananas Mar 2012 #6

Kris' article says that... yours doesn't. FBaggins Mar 2012 #10

As usual, Jacobson is out of date PamW Mar 2012 #7

Sources kristopher Mar 2012 #8

Just proved my case for me!!! THANKS PamW Mar 2012 #17

ROFL - No, that 1990 NYT article is out of date bananas Mar 2012 #9

Timeline??? PamW Mar 2012 #18

Wrong on several points bananas Mar 2012 #4

FBaggins

(26,754 posts)

1. "Nuclear Winter" isn't the concern.

Reply to bananas (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:02 AM

Mar 2012

None of the Middle east countries have enough nuclear weapons to have that effect (nor any prospect of acquiring that many any time soon). People forget that an above-ground nuclear test is little different (from an environmental-impact measure) than a bomb dropped in anger. More than 200 such tests were conducted in the continental US alone. The environmental imact was substantial, but obviously not "nuclear winter"-esque

The larger impact would be economic.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

2. And you forget that a test in the desert isn't the same as incinerating a city...

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:49 AM

Mar 2012

The explosion of fifty 15 kt nuclear devices (a total of 1.5 MT, or 0.1% of the yields proposed for a full-scale nuclear war) during a limited nuclear exchange in megacities could burn 63–313 Tg of fuel, adding 1–5 Tg of soot to the atmosphere, much of it to the stratosphere, and killing 2.6–16.7 million people.68 The soot emissions would cause significant short- and medium-term regional cooling.70 Despite short-term cooling, the CO2 emissions would cause long-term warming, as they do with biomass burning.62 The CO2 emissions from such a conflict are estimated here from the fuel burn rate and the carbon content of fuels. Materials have the following carbon contents: plastics, 38–92%; tires and other rubbers, 59–91%; synthetic fibers, 63–86%;71 woody biomass, 41–45%; charcoal, 71%;72 asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.05–2%. We approximate roughly the carbon content of all combustible material in a city as 40–60%. Applying these percentages to the fuel burn gives CO2 emissions during an exchange as 92–690 Tg CO2. The annual electricity production due to nuclear energy in 2005 was 2768 TWh yr-1. If one nuclear exchange as described above occurs over the next 30 yr, the net carbon emissions due to nuclear weapons prolif- eration caused by the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide would be 1.1–4.1 g CO2 kWh-1, where the energy generation assumed is the annual 2005 generation for nuclear power multiplied by the number of yr being considered. This emission rate depends on the probability of a nuclear exchange over a given period and the strengths of nuclear devices used. Here, we bound the probability of the event occurring over 30 yr as between 0 and 1 to give the range of possible emissions for one such event as 0 to 4.1 g CO2 kWh-1.
pg 158

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
Mark Z. Jacobson

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

FBaggins

(26,754 posts)

3. So which is it?

Reply to kristopher (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:54 AM

Mar 2012

The exchange would cause long-term global cooling or long-term warming?

Why don't you and Bananas get together and let us know?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

5. That's the kind of "reading for comprehension" we've come to expect from climate deniers.

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:13 AM

Mar 2012

No wonder you support nuclear power.

Tell you what, why don't you quote specific sections of text where you see a conflict between the OP and the quote from Jacobson's paper.

There isn't one, of course, but if you think there is just be specific and someone will be happy to patiently explain what you've misunderstood.

FBaggins

(26,754 posts)

11. And that's the kind of Ad hominem we've come to expect from you.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 01:49 PM

Mar 2012

Tell you what, why don't you quote specific sections of text where you see a conflict between the OP and the quote from Jacobson's paper.

Jacobsen is the one who came up with the idea that drivers that other climate scientists believed had a cooling effect, would actually have long-term warming impacts. For some reason, you seem to assume that scientists who currently agree with the original position must necessarily also agree with Jacobsen's future-warming theory. There's certainly no evidence in the OP that indicates this is the case.

See if you can't struggle through an entire day without accusing another DU member of being like limbaugh or nazis or the right-wing. It may not be beneath you, but it should be.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

12. Are you saying you are not a die-hard nuclear promoter?

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 02:51 PM

Mar 2012

There is no conflict between the OP and Jacobson's paper. I again invite you to quote the specific verbiage that you allege is in conflict.

Your exploitation of the imprecise temporal references like near-term, short-term, medium-term and long-term is exactly the type of discusson that climate deniers engage in. Your constant unwillingness to use precise quotes and specific references to support your claims is a dead give-a-way that you know they will not withstand scrutiny.

.

FBaggins

(26,754 posts)

13. By your definition? Yes, I'm saying that.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 02:59 PM

Mar 2012

There is no conflict between the OP and Jacobson's paper.

Of course there is. Try reading the citations they make to other works. None of them talk about long-term warming following the cooling impact. That's Jacobsen's addition to the science.

Note - I'm not saying he's right or wrong... only that the two positions are not the same.

Your exploitation of the imprecise temporal references like near-term, short-term, medium-term and long-term is exactly the type of discusson that climate deniers engage in.

Wrong. This is not merely assuming that anything after "near-term" must be the same as "long-term"... this is one theory that describes only the cooling impact of an event vs. another theory that talks about short-term cooling followed by long-term warming.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

14. Specific references Baggins.

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 03:04 PM

Mar 2012

Otherwise you've proven that your claims must be assumed to be fabricated.

FBaggins

(26,754 posts)

15. Once again with that fallacy?

Reply to kristopher (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 03:30 PM

Mar 2012

I pointed out that the OP says nothing about future warming after their theorized period of global cooling. There is no way to give a "specific reference" that something isn't in there... the burden of proof is on you. If they did agree that warming would follow, that would be easy to point out.

I can point you to some of the work they're citing:

Climate Consequences of Regional Nuclear Conflicts

Climate and Health Effect of Regional Nuclear War

I can't give you a specific paragraph in those ten pages where they fail to predict long-term warming following their predicted cooling. Calling for such a citation is just silly.

Have you read Jacobsen's "The Short-Term Cooling but Long-Term Global Warming Due to Biomass Burning" ?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

16. The only thing false is your claim about what you said

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 03:48 PM

Mar 2012

Now you write: "I pointed out that the OP says nothing about future warming after their theorized period of global cooling."

No, you clearly asserted that the content of the OP and Jacobson were mutually exclusive.

FBaggins Post 3.
So which is it? The exchange would cause long-term global cooling or long-term warming?
Why don't you and Bananas get together and let us know?

The OP and Jacobson do not contradict one another.

bananas

(27,509 posts)

6. The article clearly states "Despite short-term cooling, the CO2 emissions would cause long-term warm

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:18 AM

Mar 2012

"Despite short-term cooling, the CO2 emissions would cause long-term warming, as they do with biomass burning."

FBaggins

(26,754 posts)

10. Kris' article says that... yours doesn't.

Reply to bananas (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 01:43 PM

Mar 2012

The OP talks about short-term impacts and then moves on to talk about "a period of dramatic global cooling". It nowhere mentions a following period of enhanced warming.

PamW

(1,825 posts)

7. As usual, Jacobson is out of date

Reply to kristopher (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:35 AM

Mar 2012

As per usual, Jacobson is out of date. The original proponents of the "nuclear winter" scenario, the TTAPS group have mollified their predictions:

Nuclear Winter Theorists Pull Back

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

SINCE 1983, scientists have been bitterly divided over whether a nuclear war is likely to result in a catastrophic global chilling. But the five scientists who introduced the term ''nuclear winter'' now acknowledge that they overestimated its severity, and their concession appears to have moderated the longstanding debate.

How come Jacobson never seems to get anything correct. He's always giving us this "warmed over" nonsense.

Stanford and its students are not getting their money's worth; regardless of what they are paying him.

PamW

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

8. Sources

Reply to PamW (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 11:51 AM

Mar 2012

68 O. B. Toon, R. P. Turco, A. Robock, C. Bardeen, L. Oman and G. L. Stenchikov, Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2007, 7, 1973–2002.

69 National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Monitoring nuclear weapons and nuclear-explosive materials, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2005, 250 pp.

70 A. Robock, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B. Toon, C. Bardeen and R. P. Turco, Climate consequences of regional nuclear conflicts, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2007, 7, 2003–2012.

71 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from municipal solid waste combustion, 2003, http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/ globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/LHOD5MJT9U/$File/2003- final-inventory_annex_i.pdf.

72 M. O. Andreae and P. Merlet, Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 2001, 15, 955– 966.

PamW

(1,825 posts)

17. Just proved my case for me!!! THANKS

Reply to kristopher (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:51 AM

Mar 2012

Kris,

Look at the very first name you reference; O.B Toon.

Toon is one of the TTAPS group that the New York Times article is about. The name of the group is an acronym of their names.

Toon is the first T. Carl Sagan is the S.

If you actually read those papers, you will find that the group has pulled back from the "nuclear winter" theme. There will be some cooling, oft called a "nuclear autumn"; but not a "nuclear winter".

Again, go READ those papers. You do have a background in science don't you?? ( Sarcasm )

PamW

bananas

(27,509 posts)

9. ROFL - No, that 1990 NYT article is out of date

Reply to PamW (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:12 PM

Mar 2012

Alan Robock has the current science on his web page http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/
including a recent presentation:

PowerPoint Presentation, January, 2012:

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/NuclearWinter36ForDistribution6.ppt

Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict (38 Mb) (by Alan Robock) presented multiple times - includes quotes from Mikhail Gorbachev on how important nuclear winter was in his decision to end the nuclear arms race (e.g., see answer to first question in his interview at http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2000/09/07/gorbachev/)

PamW

(1,825 posts)

18. Timeline???

Reply to bananas (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 11:53 AM

Mar 2012

Mikhail Gorbachev on how important nuclear winter was in his decision to end the nuclear arms race

When Gorbachev was making that decision; it was BEFORE the 1990 article when the TTAPS group was preaching "nuclear winter" gloom and doom.

So you claim that the 1990 article is out of date, because of what happened in 1988.

Figures.

PamW

bananas

(27,509 posts)

4. Wrong on several points

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:58 AM

Mar 2012

Israel by itself has enough to have that effect,
the other Middle east countries can acquire enough in a fairly short time frame,
above-ground nuclear tests are very different (from an environmental-impact measure) than bombs dropped on citiies.

Reply to this discussion