Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Tuesday July 12 2022, @08:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the be-patient-we'll-see-we'll-see dept.

Computer simulations provide startling data on the global impact of nuclear war:

The threat of nuclear warfare is back to the forefront following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But how would modern nuclear weapon detonations impact the world today? A new research study published today (July 7, 2022) provides startling information on the global impact of nuclear war.

[...] In all of the scientists' simulated scenarios, nuclear firestorms would release soot and smoke into the upper atmosphere that would block out the Sun resulting in crop failure around the world. In the first month following nuclear detonation, average global temperatures would plunge by about 13 degrees (7 degrees ), a larger temperature drop than in the last Ice Age.

"It doesn't matter who is bombing whom. It can be India and Pakistan or NATO and Russia. Once the smoke is released into the upper atmosphere, it spreads globally and affects everyone," said Harrison, who has a joint appointment at the LSU Center for Computation & Technology.

Even after the smoke clears, ocean temperatures would drop quickly and would not return to their pre-war state. As the planet gets colder, sea ice expands by more than 6 million square miles and 6 feet deep in some basins blocking major ports including Beijing's Port of Tianjin, Copenhagen, and St. Petersburg. The sea ice would spread into normally ice-free coastal regions blocking shipping across the Northern Hemisphere making it difficult to get food and supplies into some cities such as Shanghai, where ships are not prepared to face sea ice.

The sudden drop in light and ocean temperatures, especially from the Arctic to the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans, would kill the marine algae, which is the foundation of the marine food web, essentially creating a famine in the ocean. This would halt most fishing and aquaculture.

[...] This study shows the global interconnectedness of Earth's systems, especially in the face of perturbations whether they are caused by volcanic eruptions, massive wildfires or war.

"The current war in Ukraine with Russia and how it has affected gas prices, really shows us how fragile our global economy and our supply chains are to what may seem like regional conflicts and perturbations," Harrison said.

Journal Reference:
Cheryl S. Harrison, Tyler Rohr, Alice DuVivier, et al., A New Ocean State After Nuclear War, AGU Adv, 2022. (DOI: 10.1029/2021AV000610)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 13 2022, @02:11AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 13 2022, @02:11AM (#1260365) Journal
    And yet, there it is. All those models running hot [drroyspencer.com], remember?

    Today’s example comes from global-average sea surface temperatures. The oceans provide our best gauge of how fast extra energy is accumulating in the climate system. Since John Christy and I are working on a project that explains global ocean temperatures since the late 1800s with a 1D climate model, I thought I would show you just how the observations are comparing to climate models simulations.

    The plot below (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average ocean surface temperature variations since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have.

    This comes from predictions of warming versus amount of CO2 equivalent emitted. It usually gets dodged [nasa.gov] in the literature:

    To successfully match new observational data, climate model projections have to encapsulate the physics of the climate and also make accurate predictions about future carbon dioxide emission levels and other factors that affect climate, such as solar variability, volcanoes, other human-produced and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. This study’s accounting for differences between the projected and actual emissions and other factors allowed a more focused evaluation of the models’ representation of Earth’s climate system.

    In other words, when we look at predicted warming from a set level of CO2 equivalent emissions, the models run too hot. They hide that by look at predicted warming from a set level of CO2 equivalent concentration in the atmosphere. That hides that the models are greatly understating CO2 sinks.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 13 2022, @08:58AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday July 13 2022, @08:58AM (#1260437) Homepage
    Spencer's an unreliable source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjhhFj3Vua0
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 13 2022, @11:47AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 13 2022, @11:47AM (#1260457) Journal

      Spencer's an unreliable source

      He's not the only one.