you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IronRectangle 3 points4 points  (0 children)


Basically: it would suck.

Here's what Robock et al. found using modern climate models. There are three different cases, each outputting a different amount of particulate matter into the atmosphere (measured in Tg, or trillions of grams) based on the detonation size (estimated in Mt, or millions of tons):

  1. 1-5 Tg: 50-100 Hiroshima-sized nukes (1.5 Mt)
  2. 50 Tg:1/3 of the global arsenal (~7,000 nukes, 1,666 Mt)
  3. 150 Tg: 100% of the global arsenal (~21,000 nukes, 5,000 Mt)

  1. Under ~5 Tg, effects could last for as little as a few months to a few years. Global surface temps could dip ~1.5 degrees C compared to baseline: (Robock et al., 2007a)

  2. At 50 Tg, you see sharper, longer-lasting effects from cooling and lack of precipitation. Temps could decrease ~4 degrees C compared to baseline: (Robock et al., 2007b; shows all three cases).

  3. When you blow the whole arsenal, you start to see some asymptotic effects kick in. The amplitude is less than double for precipitation loss over the 50 Tg case, and slightly more than double for temp decreases over the 50 Tg case. Here's a neat map from the same paper, showing surface air temp changes for Year 0 summer (the detonation year) and the next summer: (ibid.)

Overall, any case would suck. But the longevity and severity of global climate change starts off at a comparatively small amount of nuclear/thermonuclear detonation.

Finally, this graph shows the global average temperature changes over a decade, tacked onto the end of a 130 year global temperature trend: (ibid.)