{"id":191607,"date":"2022-03-14T20:29:49","date_gmt":"2022-03-14T19:29:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=191607"},"modified":"2022-03-14T20:29:50","modified_gmt":"2022-03-14T19:29:50","slug":"the-atlantic-even-a-minor-nuclear-war-would-be-a-climate-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=191607","title":{"rendered":"The Atlantic: Even a Minor Nuclear War would be a Climate Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Left: The Atlantic’s climate genius\u00a0Robinson Meyer<\/a>. Fair Use, Low Resolution Image to Identify the Subject. Right: 23Kt\u00a0Badger Test Shot<\/a>\u00a0detonated April 18, 1953, in Nevada<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest essay by Eric Worrall<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

h\/t Breitbart<\/a>; Atlantic contributor Robinson Meyer mentions all the dead people and wrecked cities, before progressing on to discussing important climate consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Top of Everything Else, Nuclear War Would Be a Climate Problem<\/strong><\/p>

Even a \u201cminor\u201d skirmish would wreck the planet.<\/p>

By Robinson Meyer<\/a>
MARCH 10, 2022<\/p>

When we talk about what causes climate change, we usually talk about oil and gas, coal and cars, and\u2014just generally\u2014energy policy. There\u2019s a good reason for this. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which enters the atmosphere, warms the climate, and \u2026 you know the drill. The more fossil fuels you burn, the worse climate change gets. That\u2019s why, a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time<\/a> covering the Trump administration\u2019s attempt to weaken the country\u2019s fuel-economy standards. It was an awful policy, one that would have led to more oil consumption for decades to come. If pressed, I would have said that it had a single-digit-percentage chance of creating an uninhabitable <\/em>climate system.<\/p>

But energy is not the only domain that has a direct bearing on whether we have a livable climate or not. So does foreign policy\u2014specifically, nuclear war.<\/p>

\u2026<\/p>

Consider a one-megaton nuke<\/a>, reportedly the size of a warhead on a modern Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. (Warheads on U.S. ICBMs can be even larger.) A detonation of a bomb that size would, within about a four-mile radius, produce winds equal to those in a Category 5 hurricane<\/strong>, immediately flattening buildings, knocking down power lines, and triggering gas leaks. Anyone within seven miles of the detonation would suffer third-degree burns<\/a>, the kind that sear and blister flesh. These conditions\u2014and note that I have left out the organ-destroying effects of radiation\u2014would rapidly turn an eight-mile blast radius into a zone of total human misery. But only at this moment of the war do the climate consequences truly begin.<\/strong><\/p>

\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is not the first time WUWT has commented on Robinson Meyer\u2019s work<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Babylon Bee was quick to respond (h\/t\u00a0Breitbart<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Atlantic is going to put my @TheBabylonBee<\/a> writers out of a job pretty quick here. We just can't compete with satire this good. pic.twitter.com\/cWG39SdxAr<\/a><\/p>— Kyle Mann (@The_Kyle_Mann) March 12, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote>