Is Nuclear Winter a Myth or Fact?

[Alpha1]

I believe most of you would have heard this term
Many people and studies suggest that as a result of a nuclear war where some dozen Nuclear detonations and the resulting firestorms will throw enough smoke and soot into the Earth's stratosphere that It could have a profound and severe effect on the climate causing cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months and years.
This study suggests that even in the case of a small regional nuclear war with nuclear weapons of trivial yeilds (50kt) the effect on the climate will still be devastating
Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate
on the contrary there have been over 2000 nuclear detonations since 1945. In 1958 alone there were 140 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, with a total yield of around 750,000 kt, The Tsar bomba alone, the largest bomb ever detonated, was of about 50 Mt yeild.

I want some input from the members, Is it Myth or fact?
and also state why do you think so ..

@jaibi @Secur @Dillinger @F.O.X @fatman17 @S.U.R.B. @Slav Defence @Aeronaut @nuclearpak @Aether @hellfire @ @levina @Aamna14 @halupridol @Jessica_L

 

[Juice]

Just points to ponder. We won't really know until we have a real event to study.

 

[Alpha1]

I believe it is greatly exaggerated , After so many nuclear Detonations i see no nuclear winter

 

[HunterKiller]

I believe it is greatly exaggerated , After so many nuclear Detonations i see no nuclear winter

I believe, in these tests, the outcome was restricted.. But in case of a real such war, nuclear winter is possible...

 

[kṣamā]

Well all these test where made with ample time gaps. In a war that will not be the situation. If not hundreds, tens of those will explode at close proximity at about the same time.

 

[faisal6309]

Maybe because they were tests and there was no real war and the bomb dropped in Japan was weak to effect climate.

 

[Alpha1]

I believe, in these tests, the outcome was restricted.. But in case of a real such war, nuclear winter is possible...

Hmm .. How so? I am not saying you are wrong but can you elaborate?
What if i tell you , they are not so diffrent?

Maybe because they were tests and there was no real war and the bomb dropped in Japan was weak to effect climate.

they were tests but stll detonations were real

Well all these test where made with ample time gaps. In a war that will not be the situation. If not hundreds, tens of those will explode at close proximity at about the same time.

please elaborate the last line .
............................................................
what if i tell you guys that a real nuclear exchange will be more similar to these tests as compared to these simulations which predict a ''nuclear winter'' as a result of even a regional nuclear war
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
yeah you may heard about these studies, one link i gave in my OP where they claim soot , dust , will be be blown up into the atmosphere and will cover up the earth causing a nuclear winter....
well most of these simulations and studies assume that every detonation will

• be a ground burst
• will produce firestorm

and greatly exaggerate
If we look into the facts , the fact is that countervalue targets (cities) are targetted by airbursts , the hieght of the detonation is set to maximise 5-10 PSi overpresure the Optimum hieght depends upon the yeild........
at that hieght the fireball doesn't touches the ground even and the ''Local fallout'' is negligble
what is local fallout?

We were talking about a tactical nuclear explosions (air bursts) 1-5kt of TnT inside pakistani territory
Oh here i go again, will have to give you guys a lecture on this
ok listen, we classify fallout like this:
Local Fallout.
Incase of a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the initial fireball and drawn up into the radioactive mushroom cloud. all this material will become radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants or if it has become neutron-activated. There will be large amounts of particles of less than 0.1 um to several millimeters in diameter generated in a surface burst (Do note that I am saying that in the discussed scenario is that the detonations will be air burst)
The larger/heaviour particles will not rise into the stratosphere and consequently will settle to earth within about 24 hours called local fallout. Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield (multi-magaton) surface detonations.
People in the radiologically contaminated area, will have radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard due to inhalation and ingestion of many radiocontaminants.
Some radiation would contaminante large amounts of land and drinking water causing formal mutations throughout animal and human life.
In cases of water surface (and shallow underwater) bursts, the particles tend to be rather lighter and smaller and so produce (less local fallout but will extend over a greater area.) The particles contain mostly sea salts with some water; these can have a cloud seeding affect causing local rainout and areas of high local fallout.
BUT Incase of an airburst it produces minimal local fallout if the fireball does not touch the ground. and there is a certain hieght at which an airburst of a particular yield and fission fraction will produce negligble LOCAL FALLOUT.
Worldwide Fallout.
After an air burst the 1. fission products, 2. unfissioned nuclear material, and the residue of the warhead which will be vaporized by the fireball and will condense into a fine suspension ofparticles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere especially if the explosive yield exceeds 10 Kt of TnT (remember we are taking about An airburst of 1-5 kt of TnT range and that too at considerable hieght to maximise Blast effects). The particles will then be dispersed by the winds in the atmosphere and will slowly settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout. The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, in the human or animal body as a result of eating of foods which had incorporated these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than that of local fallout's
And yes winds do matter a lot but an airburst of this trivial yeild will result in negligble local and little Worldwide fallout.
@Secur @Slav Defence

Secondly , Volcanic eruptions e.g. the Tambora eruption (equivalent to 800 megatons) did not produce a nuclear winter,
which actually throw out billions of tons of ash and smoke at once.
and these studies want us to believe that even regional nuclear wars will cause a nuclear winter.. pfft
thirdly not every detonation causes firestorms The only nuclear detonation ever to produce a firestorm was the one over ( yeah airburst to maximise destruction and reduce fallout) Hiroshima, and the soot sucked into the air rained down immediately afterwards. Yet for a nuclear winter to take place, every single detonation would have to produce a firestorm, and the dust and ash and other particles would have to stay in the athmosphere for years. so Nuclear winter depends upon a string of assumption that are not found in reality
i can explain every point in detail, so feel free to ask anything


@RescueRanger @Abingdonboy @Donatello @jaibi @Slav Defence

 

[faisal6309]

they were tests but stll detonations were real

No one live there where Tsar bomb was dropped. In operation Mike, the bomb was detonated on island. That island is still not in position to be lived on. What else do you want?

Maybe this didn't happen because they put less material in it.

 

[Hellfire]

My two paise worth: I agree with Alpha1. The myths about even a limited regional war being catastrophic for earth as a whole is totally nonsensical. Without going into India vs Pakistan taking a perceived nuke exchange, and allowing for a limited nuclear strike at tactical level, if we look at the present capabilities of either side, the smallest weapons we are looking at is say about 11 Kt on Pakistani side (@ Pakistani members : My apologies if info is incorrect but as far as I know PA has not gone for sub-kiloton I think;correct me over here) and 0.3 - 0.5 Kt on Indian side. If we just take a look at what Alpha1 and Secur have been saying in the thread The Son Of Cold Start, assessing for an airburst deployment of say a 10kt (hypothetically without getting into a slugfest at an armored formation) the area covered is about 3 - 3.5 kms or about 2 x squadrons of armor worth. Regional conflict can be fought theoretically (lets negate the geographical distribution here as we both know neither Islamabad-Lahore nor Delhi-Mumbai are worth targets) without causing any significant changes to climate. In addition, air burst will ensure low yield radioactivity spread albeit on a larger area, yet severely degraded in its Lethal Dose. I think its bullcr@p if they say even a few nukes will cause catastrophic changes. The history is replete with instances of all the above mentioned tests being conducted in atmospheric, sub-atmospheric and under water test zones. As of yet, the only significant contributor to weather change is being identified as CO, Freon etc

 

[Alpha1]

No one live there where Tsar bomb was dropped. In operation Mike, the bomb was detonated on island. That island is still not in position to be lived on. What else do you want?

what you are talking about is called residual radiation
Residual radiation comes from radionuclides, radioactive isotopes either generated by the explosion or else induced in soil, building materials, bodies, etc,
But incase of an airburst , (detonations against a countervalue targets are airbursts) , The residual radiation is minimised.
e.g. Hiroshima

American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity.

 

[Levina]

Well alphee I think it will depend on the targets....
Like most of the huge US and Russian nuclear warheads are aimed in a first strike at missile silos in wilderness or suburban military installations. There is not much to burn and after the first warhead hits ..the subsequent explosions would not release much additional smoke.
But au contraire a regional exchange say between India and Pakistan where both the adversaries would target each others megacities ...would ignite huge urban firestorms. The smoke released per kilotonne of explosive yield would be 100 times greater than in the Cold War scenarios.
And it'll last longer. The scientists earlier had not believed that the effect could extend into the upper atmosphere far enough.
But now the scientific community knows that the soot from fires is black and absorbs solar radiation.And as it begins to fall ,it 'll be constantly heated and lofted. Such particles may then rise to the upper atmosphere and stay for more than six years.
Now we already know particulates from a volcanic eruptions stay only in the lower atmosphere and last only about a year...but have nevertheless cooled the planet enough to cause famine.isnt it???
Soooo my bet is a 60-40 scenario,with more likely chances of a nuclear winter happening.

And who is that sweet looking kid in ur profile pic???She's so adorable.

 

[banvanaxl]

Well alphee I think it will depend on the targets....
Like most of the huge US and Russian nuclear warheads are aimed in a first strike at missile silos in wilderness or suburban military installations. There is not much to burn and after the first warhead hits ..the subsequent explosions would not release much additional smoke.
But au contraire a regional exchange say between India and Pakistan where both the adversaries would target each others megacities ...would ignite huge urban firestorms. The smoke released per kilotonne of explosive yield would be 100 times greater than in the Cold War scenarios.
And it'll last longer. The scientists earlier had not believed that the effect could extend into the upper atmosphere far enough.
But now the scientific community knows that the soot from fires is black and absorbs solar radiation.And as it begins to fall ,it 'll be constantly heated and lofted. Such particles may then rise to the upper atmosphere and stay for more than six years.
Now we already know particulates from a volcanic eruptions stay only in the lower atmosphere and last only about a year...but have nevertheless cooled the planet enough to cause famine.isnt it???
Soooo my bet is a 60-40 scenario,with more likely chances of a nuclear winter happening.

Would disagree with the 60-40 scenario. IMHO for a nuclear winter/nuclear winter like conditions to occur we are looking at

a)Hundreds of cities simultaneously getting hit by warheads of high MT class/fusion devices.
b)If and when such a eventuality comes to pass, ensuring that there are no monsoon like climatic conditions ( a good shower would effectively end a firestorm and clear away any particulate matter in the atmosphere.
c)Relying on a yet untested/unverified hypothesis that particulate matter could actually stay aloft in the atmosphere for years or a period long enough to ensure global cooling.

Why the above seems extremely improbable as nuclear war itself as notion died with the cold war era.Even when we have rogue states that have managed to overcome the non proliferation restrictions to create atomic bombs and countries like India and Pakistan who at times seem to be at the brink of nuclear exchange the scenario of a nuclear winter like condition coming to pass seems ludicrous at best.

In the remotest of possibilities of an atomic weapon being actually used in future i see two scenarios..
a) Detonation of a single device by a rogue state or non-state actors.
b) A tactical warhead being used against a military/strategic target.
Both of the above scenarios are way below the threshold of what might cause a nuclear winter.

Cheers

 

[Skull and Bones]

Chal wo sab chor, ye larki kaun hai be? @Alpha1

 

[Levina]

Chal wo sab chor, ye larki kaun hai be? @Alpha1

Arfa Randhawa....she was MCP at the age of 9.
Am i right alphee??

 

[Alpha1]

Chal wo sab chor, ye larki kaun hai be? @Alpha1

Arfa Karim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia