Would Nuclear Winter Cancel Out Global Warming?

Nuclear war was very much a front-of-mind issue during the fraught political climate of the Cold War era. Since then, atomic sabre rattling has been less frequent, though has never quite disappeared entirely.

Outside of the direct annihilation caused by nuclear war, however, is the threat of nuclear winter. The basic concept is simple: in the aftermath of a major nuclear war, the resulting atmospheric effects could lead to a rapid cooling in global temperatures.

Some say it couldn’t ever happen, while others – including Futurama – suggest with varying degrees of humor that it could help cancel out the effects of global warming. But what is the truth?

Hard data is isn’t really available, as thus far there have been  no large-scale nuclear wars for scientists to measure. Several studies have explored the concept of nuclear winter, however, and explored its potential effects.

How Does It Work, Anyway?

Hundreds of large firestorms triggered by nuclear weapons could loft soot into the upper atmosphere, serving as the causative mechanism of the “nuclear winter” theory. The nuclear aspect is only as an ignition source; any other cause of widespread firestorms could do the same. Image Credit: Public Domain, Jim Peaco

The basic concept of nuclear winter is simple. In a large nuclear conflict, where nuclear weapons are used in strategic strikes against urban and industrial areas, large-scale fires would rage out of control. These fires would then loft large amounts of black carbon soot into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Once there, the smoke particles might then be lofted further up into the stratosphere as they absorb heat from the sun, up to a point where the particles are too high to be quickly “rained out” of the air by precipitation. These particles would then essentially shade the surface, creating a cooling effect.

Papers published as recently as 2007 suggests that a full-scale nuclear war between superpowers could cause a drop in global average temperatures by as much as 8 °C . If that doesn’t sound dramatic, to put it into perspective the average temperature was 5 °C lower during the last ice age 18,000 years ago.

Modelling from researchers on the topic suggests that the major knock on effect on agriculture would be crippling to humanity around the globe. Temperatures in critical growing regions in Ukraine and Iowa, for example, could see daily minimum temperatures reach below freezing for several years, making growing food crops near-impossible. Global famine would be the result.

This photo is often mistaken for being a shot of the mushroom cloud created by the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. However, it is in fact an image of the pyrocumulus cloud created in the firestorm that happened in the aftermath of the attack. Image credit: Public domain, US Military

Running simulations with newer climate models has continued to turn up similar results, even in recent studies. Those studies are run with similar base numbers that suggest an all-out nuclear war using up most of the stockpiles of major superpowers would loft around 150 teragrams of soot into the atmopshere. However, that value remains an assumption that has drawn criticism from some sectors.

The basic underpinning assumption of the nuclear winter theory is that nuclear detonations will cause major city-sized firestorms capable of lofting significant amounts of smoke into the upper atmosphere. On the one hand, the oil rig fires of Kuwait failed to generate a major cooling effect in the wake of the Gulf War. On the other hand, studies have borne out the transmission of smoke to high altitudes from things like forest fires.

Either way, whether real-world nuclear strikes would cause guaranteed firestorms that can loft large amounts of smoke into the stratosphere remains a difficult question to answer. Data is in short supply; while the tragic nuclear strike on Hiroshima saw a firestorm develop, the following strike on Nagasaki did not.

The other major point of contention surrounds the longevity of aerosolized smoke particles in the upper atmosphere. If the particles all disappear in a matter of weeks, any cooling effect, no matter how drastic, would be relatively short-lived, rather than the multi-year disaster fortold of in some papers on the topic.

In that regard, studying existing high-altitude aerosols will be key. Volcanic eruptions are another way that large amounts of smoke, ash, and aerosolized material gets lofted into the sky, as per the recent tragic eruptions in Tonga that were the most violent eruptions the Earth has seen in 30 years. An ash cloud was lofted as high as 39 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, well into the stratosphere. However in this case, cooling is limited because only around 400,000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide was sent up in to the air. The time that this material spends lingering in the atmosphere could serve as a useful guide to scientists attempting to model the expected results of widespread nuclear-induced firestorms. In any case, past volcano aerosols have only lasted in the atmosphere for a couple of years at most.

Normally, science is at its best when we can run a real experiment and measure the results, rather than simply relying on models. In the words of Grace Hopper, “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions.” Unfortunately, short of creating gigantic firestorms with nuclear weapons, such experimentation is out of the question.

But Could It Stop Global Warming?

If the worst modelling is true, agriculture would become impossible in much of the world as daily temperatures regularly hit below freezing, potentially for years on end. Image credit: Evelyn Simak, CC BY-SA 2.0

If nuclear winter is indeed possible, as per the modelling shown in several research papers, then in a way, nuclear winter could indeed counteract global warming. In the most shocking results of a full-scale conflict between superpowers, modelling run in 2007 suggests average global temperatures could fall by as much as 8 °C, levelling out to 4 °C after a decade or so. Global warming, on the other hand, is expected to reach a level of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial averages within the next decade or so.

Thus, a smaller-scale implementation of nuclear-sparked city-sized firestorms could theoretically help reverse global warming entirely. However, it would come at a insurmountable cost. The nuclear weapons cannot simply be detonated in bare unpopulated areas like the ocean; the entire effect of nuclear winter is created by resulting firestorms after detonation. Attempting to recreate the effect using areas of forest or other land would come with its own negative effects to the environment, and these areas may not have enough density of flammable material to create true firestorms anyway.

The effect would not last forever, either. Following the models, within a decade or two, any cooling effect from lofted soot would likely have passed, while humanity would be left with huge swathes of burned-out areas for its trouble and likely a not-negligible contribution to CO2 levels from the multiple firestorms. Along the way, if the effect was overdone, excess cooling would still cause trouble for agriculture which could lead to widespread starvation. The answer to the question of which catastrophe would win out is: short term, nuclear winter; long term, global warming.

Other methods of generating high-altitude aerosols are being explored to these ends, all of which would prove far less destructive and more maintainable than the idea of a nuclear winter.

Humanity’s current problems need more complex solutions than simply blowing everything up. It was ever thus! Regardless, it is important to understand the science, in order to know how we may best preserve our lifestyles today, and into the future beyond.

78 thoughts on “Would Nuclear Winter Cancel Out Global Warming?

    1. There definitely will be an ice age, it’s maybe 10k-12k years away. If everything lines up the way we think then we might have a weak ice age.
      The problem with explaining climate change through orbital variance is that the numbers don’t add up for the last 200 years of temperature data and especially not for the last 20 years of ocean data. Thus it seems that orbital variance theory has poor predictive power, and is scientifically useless for explaining climate change.

    1. How many nukes are required to cause significant cooling?

      If India and Pakistan got into a nuclear exchange, I kind of doubt anyone else would get involved to the extent of using nuclear weapons. So it would probably be survivable for other parts of the world.

    2. “modern weapons”. our nuclear arenol was designed in the 50s and 60s. they are practically antiques.

      a nuke is like trying to kill a germ with a hammer. true modern weapons is like using nanites.

      1. Even in the nuclear realm, nuclear fission is just the detonator now.

        If you seriously believe that the best (worst) we have now is 60 year old technology then you seriously believe your government which is seriously naive and frankly, stupid.

        1. Actually, VERY close to the highest efficiency believed possible, the Taylor limit of maximum practical efficiency (6 kt per kg of the weapon’s total mass), was achieved by the US back in the 50s:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield#/media/File:US_nuclear_weapons_yield-to-weight_comparison.svg

          I suspect the only thing that could be added by the undoubtedly huge amount of data and the ability to simulate nukes on modern supercomputers using that data gleaned from the huge US “stockpile stewardship” program used to keep the nukes reliably refurbished and even modified (like the B61-12) without testing would be things like directed energy nukes and extremely small nukes. The late, great Theodore Taylor mentioned those although he didn’t tie them in with stockpile stewardship specifically. Read the book about him, “The Curve of Binding Energy.”

    1. With that kind of scientific hubris… one is sure to make tenure. ;-)

      After studying this politically charged subject with some rather impartial academics… actual data has shown the following:

      1. if the rate of petroleum being burned was lower, than the planetary energy retention model would have stabilized in a few hundred years. It hasn’t diminished, and we are now in the worst case model heading for extinction in less than 50 years.

      2. no geoengineering solution is possible beyond a 5 year delay, as the scale of the issue is several orders of magnitude larger than all landmass combined. Ocean acidification is very real, and will continue on well after the humans die off.

      3. Stay optimistic, global solar energy retention percentages will normalize again in a few thousand years after the humans are dead. Note the earth will be fine without humans, as it was before our species came into being.

      4. Don’t expect political groups or corporations to help solve anything… There is a projected macroeconomic benefit to natural disasters, but the quality of life will continue to fall.

      5. All credible studies have reached a consensus that humans are the cause of climate change. The petrochemical suppliers also agree to this rationally evidenced conclusion. The question of who is liable for damages is another issue.

      6. The future is wifi enabled goat drawn carriages. Your silly notions of radioactive mutant goats is inefficient.

      1. We are human beings. Saying that the Earth will be fine even if all humans have been killed is irrelevant. Humans need solutions for human problems, and that takes priority over all other possible considerations.

        Claims of irreversible climate disaster come from people who are well paid to scare people into sacrificing the benefits of an industrial civilization. A prime example is Al Gore, who has put much of his money into a pollution-heavy lifestyle.

        1. Be serious,
          Goat carts are the future, and Al Gore could at most only pull 1 cart at a time.
          Or did you mean your goats are named Al Gore?

          Did you know goats are an autonomous cart technology, and rarely collide unless intentional.

          1. Yah no thanks weve already been promised flying cars and i dont care nuclear apocalypse or not i want my flying damn car! And if all we have are goat drawn carts then they had better be mutated radioactive flying winged goats cuz i want what was promised to me no go backs or lame excuses like nuclear holocaust or environmental catastrophe will be accepted.

      2. Yes! That is the spirit! I’ll go with option 3!! 50 years, a 100, 1K, 1M, – we – will be gone at some point. It is good to realize that mostly everything that has a beginning has an end.

  1. I mean atleast its thermodynamically possible/valid to do this compared to just dropping a giant ice cube in the artic. But neither solves the problem forever.

    “An ounce of preventative equals a pound of cure”

  2. It might be a lot easier [and less radioactive] to set off an explosion at Yellowstone and use the volcano to put dust into the atmosphere.
    But what goes up must come down. The resulting algal bloom would kill a large proportion of marin life. There is always an unforeseen knock on effect.

  3. This is a good example of why unrestrained panic shouldn’t drive policy.

    UN estimates show that the effects of global warming will peak around 2100, then abate due to mitigation effects. This is supported by noticing over the last 20 years we’ve got *lots* of things that will combat the problem: solar farms, electric vehicles, wind farms, and so on. Those weren’t a thing in 2000, and we’ve got lots of new things in development as well.

    Looking into ways you can help because you’re panicked over global warming is fine, but frantically grasping at any possible action to take, without calm analysis of the actual results, will lead to disaster.

    I see this all the time in the news: we have to do *something* now! Let’s do *this*!

    No.

    We only noticed that we’re the stewards of the planet about 50 years ago. The best estimates we have show that we’ll conquer the problem well before wrecking the planet, and without destroying our civilization.

        1. I doubt anyone was thrown in a volcano. But sure, human sacrifice is a part of most human cultures. We know from the ancient Greek, Romans, and Egyptians from their own written records that human sacrifice was a thing.

          The point I failed to communicate clearly is that the idea that we have a responsibly to the Earth is nothing new. The idea is older than any of us, and wouldn’t have been new even to the first Europeans to enter the Americas. At the time the stewards of the Earth idea is just fanciful, inconvenient, and ultimately unprofitable. There are plenty of passenger pigeon to eat. Plenty of trees in the forest. The natural resources are essentially limitless. … or so people of the time assumed.

          I suggest we stop thinking like people from 500 years ago. They entered this world under very different circumstances than we now face. Even so, they knew of fields going fallow and crop rotations and irrigation and storage of seasonable floods.
          Pretending that we’re not intimately attached to the waxing and waning of our natural resources is so backwards that even our forefathers would find it a bit childish and greedy.

    1. > UN estimates show that the effects of global warming will peak around 2100, then abate due to mitigation effects.

      No worries then, but how much of a high average +temp are you comfortable with? 1, 2, 3 or 5?

      1. Temperature isn’t the problem. It’s simple thing like it’s not going to rain where we built the dams any more.

        Oh and that elephant – the real problem is consumption.

    2. Solar electric farms, electric vehicles, wind turbines… these all cause more emissions than they “cure”. Mining, shipping across the world, manufacturing, rare earth. It’s all unviable. Furthermore, it’s still more expensive than to keep extracting oil, so oil it is and will be. The capitalism system doesn’t have an ecological drive.

  4. I disagree here with the lack of vision. Short term, you’ll have nuclear cooling & a lot of dead people & animals. Mid terms: fight for the remaining resources => less people & animals. Long term, temperature rises again, but since the population will be divided by a large number, cattle will have disappeared, economy collapsed would have probably killed also all those people that allow industrial world to run (think: gasoline refinement plant, electronics, chemistry, etc…) we’ll get back to 1700 or so, but with half a brain since likely internet will be down too.

    In the end, global warning will not happen again, because of not enough CO2 to send up (and at the same time, CO2 will be absorbed like crazy in all those places that will be growing trees and plant again). If humanity can recover in less than 50 years, maybe it’ll be an issue again, but I’m not optimistic.

    1. According to ourworldindata.org, 71% of land area is habitable, 10% glacier, and 19% barren.
      Of the habitable land, 50% is agriculture, 37% forest, 11% shrub, 1% urban or built-up, and 1% freshwater.
      In the event of a massive reduction of humanity, argricultural land becomes forest and shrub, which does not change dynamic CO2 activity. Only urban land may change with respect to CO2, and that’s only 1% of habitable land.
      Where does the great change in CO2 absorption come from?

      1. If you have a nuclear winter, the plant will die because without sunlight, there’s no way for them to live. So most forest will die. Which, from the point of view of heating back the planet, is a positive effect, since their organic material will still be degraded by bugs and bacteria, releasing CH4 and CO2 in the atmosphere. So after the ashes and the atmosphere clears up, long term seeds in soil will likely hatch again and the trees & plant will regrow. This will suck the CO2 from the atmosphere for their life cycle. And since agriculture will likely not happen as strong as before (remember: less humans, less need), then these lands will be given back to young forest, suck CO2 a lot better than an ancient forest. It’s only temporary (let’s say 30 or 50 years), but everything combined will likely be enough to readjust CO2 to reasonable level.

      2. That’s my naive view, because, if the Amazon dies completely, there’s no reason the forest would grow again when the atmosphere clears up. The Sahara desert was a forest millennia ago, the Amazon could become a desert too. In that case, the CO2 will not decrease (even worst, since all dead organic material will have released tons of CH4 and CO2 in the air).

  5. > preserve our lifestyles today
    ALL energy source for earth were created in stars, there is a fixed limited amount of energy in the earth.
    We have been burning through fossil fuel from the carboniferous period, that lasted for 60 million years (During that time nothing existed that could breakdown high concentrations of lignin – a cell wall polymer that helps give plant tissues their rigidity). So the all fossil fuel was low density energy that was collected from the sun over 60 million years, we have used up in a few centuries, before then it was mostly a local resource that was never moved very far.

    Nuclear fuel, there is a limited amount of that and we can easily burn through it all in a century or two at current energy levels. It was created in the death of stars (all elements above iron are currently thought to be created by the death of stars).

    Eventually and ultimately we need to change society to live off the energy that is available from our current primary source the local star. So solar, wind (which is strongly influenced by solar effects as well being sourced from the earths rotation), tide (which is generated by gravitational effects from the moon – which is slowly moving away from earth at a rate of 3.78cm (1.48in) per year), geothermal (although the long term effects of cooling the core of our planet could make global warming look like the good old days, when life has much simpler problems to deal with). Every other source of energy (excluding fusion which has been perpetually 10 years away from being ready for the last three quarters of a century) has a limited supply and even local fusion has a limited fuel supply but there is just so much more compared to most other energy sources.

    1. I guess what I am saying is that we need to move off the ball of rock, search for better access to more resources before it is too late. Eventually with the amount of junk that we as a spices have been dumping around our planet (To be fair it has been mostly one country up until now http://stuffin.space/ – select “Iridium 33 Collision Debris” for the Group to see a large amount of debris that was produced by just one collision with a dead Russian satellite.) we will eventually find it difficult to access space safely.

        1. a century. At minimum. Just on uranium with currently fielded tech. Fast reactors, fuel reprocessing and/or whatever can burn thorium would give you several more centuries.
          That should be damn enough to get fusion going along with a way to keep it fueled, which should be really hard to exhaust…

        2. If you only use Uranium as nuclear fuel you may have a case, but Thorium is much more abundant and safer. All the thorium mined can be used as fuel, unlike the tiny percentage of the Uranium mined.

    2. Far too pessimistic for the middle term. For instance, fracking makes available most of the 90% of petroleum in known reserves that was never brought out of the ground. There’s no reason to believe we’ve located all petroleum deposits. “So all the fossil fuel … used up” is just wrong. Radioactives are good for many centuries.

      Of course we’ll have to rely upon fusion and solar eventually. Just not in this millenium.

      1. Fracking also takes people and machinery, both of which require energy. Energy to work, energy to transport, create and maintain. At a certain point you’re putting in more than you’re getting out. We’ve already used about 90% of the fossil fuels we’ll ever use, hope you guys had fun.

  6. “UN estimates show that the effects of global warming will peak around 2100, then abate due to mitigation effects.”

    Please link the sources, I guess we will then understand that you did not get the total picture or looked at an “ideal reduction scenario”.

    And guess I have a Link for you: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15871

    Jump to “2 CLIMATE PROJECTIONS AND VEGETATION BEYOND 2100”

    The relevant sentence: “.. for example, continues to increase after 2100 under all but the low-emission RCP2.6 scenario.” (Representative Concentration Pathways)

    In short, the only scenario predicting a temperature peak around 2100, is exactly based on the total opposite scenario actions you are proposing – in short RCP2.6 is the scenario with “net CO2 zero” (sinks vs. sources) in 2080 and a path with a prediction of a global temperature below “2°C”.

    On the current path, all social, economic, and political indicators – yes subject to change by policy makers – would lead to overshooting the 2°C target.

    When you just take an over the thumb estimate (no-worse-no-best case just the average) of the range of predictions (just the middle) you will see that in 2100 aim for 2.5 – 3°C with the A1B (IPCC) (temperature) scenario (~2.8°C) with even then increasing temperatures.

    -> https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#current-climate-policies-will-reduce-emissions-but-not-quickly-enough-to-reach-international-targets

    prediction for 2100: 2.7-3.1°C With even more stringent(“non-calm”) policies you had in mind, I guess.

    Also take a lock at Figure 4 – the 2100 projection – global warming leads to a decrease of land area suitable to grow basic food crops mostly, also the increasing lateral north shift of the “global” “wheat belt” will lead to farmers having no farm land anymore.

    Conclusion:
    So you are bringing up an argument and contradicting everything that it is based upon, also neglecting to mention that an increase in global temperature is not just that but has negative consequences where humanity can grow food

    Yeah, keep calm, lie to yourself and perhaps just tell yourself that those are just “predictions” based on some wild computer models

    Hint: IPCC, I think its chapter 6, look into the annexes: graphics showing predictions overlayed with past and current measurement data, clear to understand. You can make out the outliers by the naked eye and see where the matching predictions lead to and it is > than 2°C.

  7. Uh. I think the last thing you need to worry about if we have a nuclear war is Global warming ot cooling or dramatic weather, or inflation, or Covid, or practically anything else. Yes, I think a nice, all encompassing nuclear war would solve all our problems.

  8. Nuclear winter? No need. Just put up a sunshade.
    We already have a working proof of a reflector at a Lagrange point. (the Webb Telescope, at L2, in case it’s not obvious).
    Just make one a bit bigger, and put it at L1.
    OK, a *lot* bigger.
    SpaceX would love to get the contract.

    While you’re at it, cover the sun side of the shade with solar cells, and the backside a microwave transmitter array, and beam the electricity to Earth. Or the Moon, where you’ll likely be getting and smelting all that aluminum anyway.

    1. A couple mods for SpaceX satellites.. an umbrella and a laser for power relay or defense.. w thousands of satellites.. who knew Musk would become ruler of galactic empire. :)

  9. Climate change is based selely on expert opinion. We don’t have hard data on past ice age, or interglacials. We have proxy and analog data, computer modes, and opinion. Mostly, it’s political hype and hysteria, intended to get folks on the same page, with a one government world. We don’t no if it’s CO2, or just natural recovery from the ice age, convient coincident. But why take a chance, when we can destroy all that we built. And make a new world government Utopia?

    1. That one plays with the idea of using harmless particles for a cooling effect.

      (Santarella?!?!?!! Where is the EDIT button I DID put on the wishlist for yeaaaars?!?!?!)

      1. The most promising plugin that we could find — that still allowed anonymous comments, and editing of comments with a timeout, and really nice comment folding as a bonus — died in a security review. It was _full_ of XSS vulnerabilities.

        It would be a lot easier to:
        a) use a privacy-catastrophic and otherwise-horrible external service like Disqus
        or
        b) enforce logins and kill off anonymous comments

        But we’re still not convinced that your privacy and the ability for folks to comment freely is worth the trade.

        And if you think that’s complicated, and full of unforseen consequences, let me introduce you to adding reflective particles to the stratosphere on a global scale… :)

  10. The adaptability to change,climactict or just technicolgical,is going to be the defing charcteristic of the society that emerges from our times.History is repeating itself in many horribly tedious ways.Hubristic,bombastic statememts that are litteraly verbatum
    to those issued in other change times from millenium ago.
    Policies and laws recreated from failing empires of the past.
    The big difference this time is that all of humamity is aware and
    involved to some degree.
    The society/group/culture/nation that is best positioned for the
    tipping points,just ahead,”wins”*

    *offer also applies to individuals

  11. The current nukes are lower yield than in the 50s or even the 80s.
    I recall in the very late 80s or perhaps even 90-91 they changed policy on how fire prevention was done along with changes in how wood was harvested and did some massive clearing burns specifically designed to also estimate the environmental change of a nuclear winter.
    I am not sure where to even look now as I am not in the Air Force anymore but the conclusion was even a full exchange would have little effect. It seemed like that and the fall of the USSR caused the topic to disappear for about a decade and when the topic returned everyone had forgotten the study.
    Even a full exchange would be 10Ks of missiles fired mostly at remote missile fields with a few hitting sometimes shared civ/mil ports(submarine) and airfields.
    A nuclear war would suck but the US & Russian arsenals are designed for counter-force assuming Russia can still maintain it’s deterrence forces in sufficient numbers. It is the small nuclear nations with small arsenals like France and especially Israel that have to resort to anti-value threats as they will be genocided in any nuclear war against USSR/Russia so they had to deter by making any war too expensive to fight.

  12. Its somewhat like putting ice on your burned hand, while keeping it in a flame. Yes the temperature itself gets reduced but that ignores the long term problems with a short term solution that isn’t fixing the underlying operation.

  13. I will leave the CO2 Critiquing to you experts out there. But where is the talk about radio active iodine-131, or , and cesium-137 ??? Strontium-90 which has a half- life of 29 years, while iodine-131 has a half life of 8 days and physical half-life of cesium-137 is 30.19 years. That does not mean it goes away in a half-life, it just means half of the element changes into something else. This does not just go away two days or even 8 days later. Lets not forget Plutonium-239 which has a half life of 24,100 years, and in another 24,100 years half-life of that changes into something else. It just does not go away. Talk about shoot yourself in the foot despite your face. So mean while part of humanity dies because of starvation and radiation. I call this Stupid.

  14. We don’t need nukes to test this. Just look at the 2019-2020 bushfire season here in Australia. We had plenty of firestorms during that time. We also have had some of the craziest lightning seasons over the past few years. The Currowan fire that destroyed much of the Southeast coast was caused by a lightning strike. The Pyrocumulus clouds that formed were immense. Quite often I have noticed a large bushfire event happens every 10 years with very high fuel loads in forest areas. The smoke and ash formed caused the air quality to drop to levels equivalent to being a pack a day smoker. You could taste it in the air. After looking out the production of our home PV array, the average power produced per day during that time was well below that of the same time in other years. So it did seem to have an effect of blocking a lot of sunlight from reaching the surface.

  15. Current Nuclear Winter theory posits that the fires caused by 100 cities burning from nuclear attack would cause a Nuclear Winter. That’s the theory that is based on specific climate modeling.
    I believe in climate modeling, however I also believe the Nuclear Winter theorists are using flawed inputs and assumptions. We actually DID a real life experiment, where we quite literally BURNED over 70 cities with firestorms – the kind nuclear weapons are feared to start. That was besides the numerous wildfire events that happened in the same time span globally. We called this great experiment “World War 2”, and the cities that burned were in Japan and Europe.
    Do you recall the Decade of Darkness and Famine of 1945-1955? Me neither. Nothing even close to this happened.

    Global Warming caused by humans is real. Nuclear Winter caused by burning cities is not.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.