posted March 29, 2014 05:24 PM            

These findings should further spur the elimination of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that exist today, scientists added.

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.

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 modeled 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.

"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," study lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, told Live Science.

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. 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. [The Top 10 Largest Explosions Ever]

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 percent 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 percent. This would likely trigger widespread fires in regions such as the Amazon, and it would pump even more smoke into the atmosphere.

"All in all, these effects would be very detrimental to food production and to ecosystems," Mills said.

Previous studies had estimated that global temperatures would recover after about a decade. However, this latest work projected that cooling would persist for more than 25 years, which is about as far into the future as the simulations went. Two major factors caused this prolonged cooling — an expansion of sea ice that reflected more solar heat into space, and a significant cooling in the upper 330 feet (100 meters) of the oceans, which would warm back up only gradually.

"This is the third independent model examining the effects a regional nuclear conflict on the atmosphere and the ocean and the land, and their conclusions all support each other," Mills said. "It's interesting that every time we've approached this same question with more sophisticated models, the effects seem to be more pronounced."

These findings "show that one could produce a global nuclear famine using just 100 of the smallest nuclear weapons," Mills said. "There are about 17,000 nuclear weapons on the planet right now, most of which are much more powerful than the 100 we looked at in this study. This raises the questions of why so many of these weapons still exist, and whether they serve any purpose."

posted March 29, 2014 11:59 PM            

Yet, no matter how absurd the subject, they continue to be funded by demoscat and republican administrations alike.

posted March 30, 2014 12:57 PM            

Scientists may not be perfect and science its to often seen as definitive (a opposed to an ongoing study) but your contempt for the search for knowledge explains a lot about your point of view.

I Agree that politics all over the world need digging under and replanting. And not just the Dems or this particular crop in Washington.

posted March 31, 2014 08:05 PM            

So why don't you post the news story about John Boehner handing out lobbyist checks on the House floor??

Don't make me laugh. O'Bomber was nothing but a whining, wheezing, screeching, shrieking protestor against the United States, our form of government and our economic system, i.e., a community organizer.

It's irrational to call the general crop of presidential candidate..."community organizers". Utter trash.

posted March 31, 2014 10:46 PM            

Politicians make deals. You like to pretend that only Dems suffer from corruption, let's see if Obama comes out of his term as rich as Cheney, shall we?

posted April 02, 2014 08:49 AM            

"John oehner was handing out lobbyists checks to members of the House IN the house before Obama took on the Presidency"...Catalina/katatonic

So why don't you post the news story about John Boehner handing out lobbyist checks on the House floor?...jwhop

Let it be noted you provided no news story from a credible source or otherwise to back up your allegation.

You're just flapping your lips as usual.

"Politicians make deals"...Catalina/katatonic

Define "deals".

"let's see if Obama comes out of his term as rich as Cheney"...Catalina/katatonic

Dick Cheney was rich long before he became Vice President.

"Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $19 million and $86 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Private_sector_career

posted April 02, 2014 12:56 PM            

And much much more available to those who don't swallow party lines and evasions. The fact that the government (taxpayers) paid all their expenses and received none of the profits...coincidence?

But you are right, Cheney hooked them into preferential govt contracts - many without any bidding competition - as early as 1995. My bad, I had forgotten his long tenure in position to enrich his "parent" company, despite major conflict of interest issues.

The fact that Halliburton profited handsomely also from the destruction of the Gulf and many peoples lives and livelihoods, also coincidence, right?

posted April 03, 2014 09:19 AM            

Are you absolutely nuts?

First, taxpayers received taxes on Haliburton's profits. That's the split business pays government. Are you an unhappy little Socialist that Haliburton didn't work for free and give it all to government to redistribute to you and others you deem worthy of being paid to do nothing?

Second, taxpayers received the benefit of Haliburton fronting all the expense of supplying and transporting all the materials for fighting the war in Iraq..including even the food and water...and billing the government after the fact.

Third, taxpayers received the benefit of Haliburton refurbishing the oil fields in Iraq, including the equipment in the oil fields.

Fourth, taxpayers received the benefit of Haliburton refurbishing the infrastructure on Iraq.

posted April 04, 2014 12:42 PM            

And which of "my" elected reps voted for the war? More than half of the Dem side of the House voted No, and several Dem Senators tried to alter the bill before it passed (and were stonewalled by others)...

I grant you Feinstein voted for it. Since she is in CA you have reason to consider her "my" rep though I didn't vote for her and yet I still think she is better than those women who thought they could buy senate seats last time round. Boxer did NOT vote for it. I was actually in my "don't vote it only encourages them" phase before the war...

posted April 05, 2014 09:03 AM            

Why the ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading? Why the obfuscation?

A simple declarative sentence would have sufficed...if it were true.

"I will not vote for Hillary Clinton."

See how easy that was?

posted April 05, 2014 12:08 PM            

A simple declarative sentence would clear that up...if it's a true statement.