NEW YORK (Washington Insider Magazine)- When it comes to the potential for nuclear war to impact global climate change, the question is not so much whether it could “reverse” the warming trend, but whether it could significantly alter the climate in a way that would be perceptible to human beings.
Before digging more down into whether nuclear war can potentially reverse globle warming for a long term, we need to first understand how greenhouse effect is and why is has become a world-wide concern.
What is the GreenHouse Effect and How It Is Related To Global Warming?
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that helps to regulate the Earth’s temperature. The Earth’s atmosphere trapping some of the sun’s radiation, causing the Earth’s average temperature to be about 33°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone absorb some of this infrared radiation, making the Earth’s atmosphere even better at trapping heat. This is the greenhouse effect and it is what makes Earth a habitable planet.
Some substances like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have been shown to have an even greater effect on the greenhouse effect. CFCs are man-made chemicals that were once used in a variety of applications like refrigeration, but have since been banned due to their damage to the Earth’s ozone layer. Despite the ban, CFCs can still be found in the atmosphere, where they act as powerful greenhouse gases.
So, what happens when the greenhouse effect is amplified? The Earth’s average temperature will rise, causing a number of consequences like more extreme weather, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels. This process has been accelerated by human activity, which has created more greenhouse gases and caused the Earth’s average temperature to rise by about 1°C since the Industrial Revolution.
However, some people have suggested that nuclear war could be a way to reverse global warming.Let’s find out if nuclear war can help us lower down the temperature?
Can Nuclear War Really Reverse Global Warming?
A 2009 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that even a “limited” nuclear war could loft enough soot into the upper atmosphere to cause a drop in global temperatures of up to 2°C. But whether that decrease would be noticeable, or last long enough to offset the effects of emissions from human activities, is another question.
Read More: USA Tanks Brigades & Number Of Tanks US Military Has (2022)
Nuclear explosions release large amounts of heat, light, and radioactivity into the environment. The heat can cause fires that loft soot (also called “black carbon”) and other particulates into the atmosphere, where they can spread around the world and intercept sunlight, causing cooling at the surface. The light emitted can also create ozone, a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms. Though ozone in the upper atmosphere protects life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, at lower altitudes it is a pollutant that can cause respiratory problems.
Radioactive particles can also enter the atmosphere, where they can be transported long distances by winds and eventually settle to the ground, contaminating soil and water. Some of these particulates, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, have half-lives of less than 10 years and would quickly decay in the environment. Others, like plutonium-239, have half-lives of 24,000 years and would remain hazardous essentially indefinitely.
The impact of a nuclear war on global climate would likely be short-lived, however, compared to the long-term effects of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. In the absence of nuclear war, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that global temperatures will increase by an average of 1.5°C by the end of the century. A study published in 2018 in the journal Nature found that, even if all 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world were detonated, the resulting soot would only offset the warming trend for about two years.
In addition to the short-term impact, nuclear war would also have devastating effects on human populations and ecosystems that would far outweigh any potential benefit to the climate. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, using just 0.5% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, could kill up to 2 billion people and cause $60 trillion in damage. The world’s food supply would be disrupted, and water supplies contaminated by radiation. The resulting economic and social chaos would likely lead to the collapse of human civilization.
For these reasons, it is hard to imagine any scenario in which nuclear war could be considered a desirable solution to the problem of climate change. Even if it were effective in cooling the planet, the cost would be far too high.