Nuclear winter is a hypothetical event, the result of a large number of massive wildfires that spout soot into the atmosphere.With enough soot, the sun would be effectively blocked out, causing a worldwide winter.
The term "nuclear winter" came about because when it was first conceptualized, the idea was linked with the amount of soot generated in a nuclear explosion. Simulations suggested that one hundred megatons of nuclear payload, detonated over major urban areas, would bring about a minor version of the above scenario. Further detonations would worsen the situation, eventually leading to the irrecoverable nuclear winter scenario [1]. The term became irrevocably tied to nuclear weaponry in modern vernacular over the years, as the idea stuck with people.
However, nuclear warfare isn't the only (or even most likely) cause of nuclear winter. Hypothetically, any event that causes massive amounts of materials to be injected into the atmosphere would contribute to a nuclear winter scenario. For example, volcanic eruptions, a meteor strike or simply enough large-scale firestorms worldwide could have a similar effect.
Ironically, the nuclear winter effect has been suggested as a a potential method to reduce global warming through injection of sulfur compounds into the atmosphere, enough to bring temperatures down slightly [2]
[1] http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/Teaching/ATS421-521/2015/papers/turco83sci.pdf
[2] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9101-y?LI=true#page-1
It makes sense that anything relating to a nuclear disaster would stick around. It's pretty frustrating when I tell people I'm studying nuclear and the first thing they bring up is Chernobyl. The sulfur injection is interesting, but brings up questions like: what if nations disagree...who has the right to control the global temperature?
ReplyDeleteGood observation, and the main sticking point. Before any progress would be made, a majority of the population, or at least those in power, would have to recognize a problem and agree that action had to be taken.
DeleteNuclear Winter is not something I've ever really heard much about before. Why do you think most people tie that idea to nuclear? Is it maybe because that would be something man-made and not natural like a volcanic eruption? Nick's question is also very interesting about who has the right to start a man-made winter.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, the first time an event like this was hypothesized, it was tied to the testing of nuclear weapons. Despite findings suggesting that nuclear weapons dissipate only a fraction of the material that a severe volcanic eruption would, the idea of a nuclear holocaust took hold of the imaginations of the cold-war era public and manifested in the idea of nuclear winter as an inevitable result of nuclear warfare.
DeleteI wonder how many bombs would have to go off in order to cause a nuclear winter. And thus who would have to go into war with whom, accounting for their nuclear stockpile? I'm guessing the bombs don't only have to be detonated over major urban areas. Those would just be the likely targets in war. Also what country or person posed nuclear weapons testing as a possible solution to global warming. Seems very ironic. I can only imagine the effects being slight unless done on massive scale
ReplyDelete