Even a “small” nuclear war could have a catastrophic effect on environmental wellness. This is according to a new study, published in the March issue of the journal Earth’s Future, which has found that a regional nuclear conflict could cause global temperatures to drop for 25 years, contributing to decreases in rainfall and agricultural yields.
‘Even a relatively small regional nuclear war could trigger global cooling, damage the ozone layer and cause droughts for more than a decade,’ says wellness expert Charles Q. Choi. ‘These findings should further spur the elimination of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that exist today. During the Cold War, a nuclear exchange between superpowers was feared for years. One potential consequence of such a global nuclear war was “nuclear winter,” wherein nuclear explosions sparked huge fires whose smoke, dust and ash blotted out the sun, resulting in a “twilight at noon” for weeks. Much of humanity might eventually die from the resulting crop failures and starvation.’
Choi details, ‘Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter might seem a distant threat. Still, nuclear war remains a very real threat; for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan. To see what effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have on climate, scientists modelled a war between India and Pakistan involving 100 Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT — just a small fraction of the world’s current nuclear arsenal. They simulated interactions within and between the atmosphere, ocean, land and sea ice components of the Earth’s climate system. Scientists found the effects of such a war could be catastrophic.’ According to study lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, ‘Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe out the ozone layer for a decade.’
‘The researchers predicted the resulting firestorms would kick up about 5.5 million tons (5 million metric tons) of black carbon high into the atmosphere,’ Choi outlines. ‘This ash would absorb incoming solar heat, cooling the surface below. The simulations hint that after such a war, global average surface temperatures would drop suddenly by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), their lowest levels in more than 1,000 years. In some places, temperatures would get significantly colder — most of North America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East would experience winters that are 4.5 to 10.8 degrees F (2.5 to 6 degrees C) colder, and summers 1.8 to 7.2 degrees F (1 to 4 degrees C) cooler. The colder temperatures would lead to lethal frosts worldwide that would reduce growing seasons by 10 to 40 days annually for several years.’
Choi adds, ‘The ash that absorbed heat up in the atmosphere would also intensely heat the stratosphere, accelerating chemical reactions that destroy ozone. This would allow much greater amounts of ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth’s surface, with a summertime ultraviolet increase of 30 to 80% in the mid-latitudes, posing a threat to human health, agriculture and ecosystems on both land and sea. The models also suggest colder temperatures would reduce global rainfall and other forms of precipitation by up to about 10%. This would likely trigger widespread fires in regions such as the Amazon, and it would pump even more smoke into the atmosphere.’ But what does this mean to you and me? Mills explains, ‘All in all, these effects would be very detrimental to food production and to ecosystems.’
Comments are closed.