Is nuclear war really the answer to climate change?

A social media thread is gaining momentum as it portrays nuclear war as a hero who could be the answer to climate change.

Newsweek fact-checked the validity of this claim.

International nuclear tensions have recently gained more attention due to Vladimir Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine. The possibility of a mini-nuclear war leading to global cooling has been discussed.

Now the question arises if these claims are of any value.

tweets

On October 6, World of Engineering, a popular Twitter account with 2.4 million followers focused on science and engineering, tweeted about the potential consequences of a mini-nuclear war.

The tweet goes on to say that the Earth is covered in a layer of soot that the sun’s rays cannot reach due to the smog rising into the atmosphere from burning cities.

After the war, global temperatures dropped by 2.25 degrees Fahrenheit in two to three years. In more tropical regions, temperatures could drop from 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

Over a thousand people like a particular thread.

Former U.S. Attorney Ron Philipkowski tweeted a video of Donald Trump Jr., the son of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

In it, Trump Jr. is seen speaking to the camera about nuclear war and claims to have read a news article last week discussing how a mini-nuclear conflict could contribute to global warming or the climate crisis.

Trump Jr. did not mention the references he claimed to make such a statement, nor did he provide any specific citations.

Technical details and fact checking

The terms “climate change” and “global warming” are neither equivalent nor interchangeable.

The scientific consensus has phased out climate change in favor of global warming, which is considered more accurate and comprehensive in describing seismic changes that occur in Earth’s weather and temperature patterns.

It is crucial to keep this in mind before analyzing some of these narratives.

Newsweek Fact Check surveyed the scientific consensus on the topic to see if any studies supported the underlying claims.

There’s plenty of evidence that nuclear war would temporarily lower global temperatures, likely just on land, but it won’t solve the problem of global warming or the wider climate crisis.

support research

In a study published in the journal Nature Food in August, researchers from various institutions around the world proposed that nuclear war would eject a large amount of soot into Earth’s upper atmosphere.

This would then spread around the world and “rapidly cool the planet”.

The severity of the impact will depend on the scale of the nuclear war.

The study suggests that a hypothetical nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India could release between 5 and 47 Tg of soot into space, while a more severe conflict between the United States, its allies and Russia could release more than 150 Tg of soot.

One of the study’s co-authors is Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor of Climate Science in Rutgers’ Department of Environmental Science.

He claims that the engineering world’s estimate of 2.25 degrees Fahrenheit for 2 to 3 years is “wrong” and that the impact on climate depends only on the amount of smoke present.

The duration of possible effects does not depend on the amount of smoke to address how long they will last, he added.

The maximum impact of each scenario will last five years.

as opposed to “solution”

Robock said the impact of increased ultraviolet (UV) light on crop varieties, people and ecosystems is an area that has not been thoroughly studied.

Heating destroys ozone in the stratosphere, allowing more ultraviolet radiation to reach the surface.

However, with even the smallest amount of smoke, the effects can be felt immediately.

The excess UV rays will be absorbed by the massive stratospheric smog that has accumulated over the years, before the effects are felt at the surface.

According to Robbock, a nuclear war would cause temperatures to drop because the soot would indeed rise high enough in the atmosphere to prevent rain from washing it away.

The soot then absorbs sunlight, making the Earth’s surface dark and cold.

The idea that a mini-nuclear war can stop global warming is incorrect, as these effects will only last for a short period of time.

Also read: Nuclear explosions send soot into the atmosphere, causing global famine, study warns

warning, not recommended

Accurate or not, it’s worth noting that the Engineering World thread warns of the dire consequences of such an event, rather than suggesting that the predicted precipitous drop in global temperatures would be very beneficial to humanity.

In the context of climate change, nuclear war would actually make the situation worse by triggering an entirely new climate crisis.

For example, significant crop differences in major exporters such as the United States and Russia will lead to export restrictions and have implications for countries that rely heavily on imports.

according to studya war between the US and Russia could kill more than 5 billion people worldwide, while a war between Pakistan and India could kill more than 2 billion people globally.

other research Potential indirect impacts of this conflict, such as severe ocean damage, which could have further negative and unpredictable impacts on the environment, were also highlighted.

Verdict: wrong.

While it is true that a small nuclear war could have a temporary global cooling effect, it would be incorrect to say that it would end the climate crisis, according to Newsweek’s FACT CHECK.

Partly because the cooling effect will only last for a short time, and partly because a nuclear winter itself would cause a climate crisis, lead to a global food crisis, and possibly even kill billions of people, Weekly newspaper report.

related articles: Advocates claim nuclear power could help cut global emissions in half