In the case of a limited exchange I’m quite sceptical of the study that suggested the ash would cause significant global cooling for a prolonged period of time (5 years+). I think they overestimate both the amount of ash and particulates generated and the amount of time it would remain in the upper atmosphere, alongside the extent of the resulting fires.
The eruption that caused the year without summer had hundreds of times the explosive force of the entire Indian and Pakistani arsenal combined and threw almost 200 cubic kilometres of ash and tephra very high into the atmosphere. It was an event on an entirely different scale.
Oh i think i see where the misunderstanding is. So with nukes the ash they say will cause the cooling isnt from the explosions. What they think will happen is the bombs act as a spark which causes massive wildfires that engulf the entire region. Thats the ash they are concerned with not the ash from the initial explosions.
So rather than thinking of it in terms of explosions think of it in terms of the entire subcontinent burning for weeks.
No, I do get that, but the emissions from extensive fires across the region are still substantially different from what you’d see in the kind of event we have seen produce actual global cooling events like the 1815 eruption.
I’m willing to believe that it’s possible, but I think the initial study suggesting it could happen makes some overly broad assumptions and I’ve seen subsequent studies fail to reach the same conclusion with similar analysis.
In the case of a limited exchange I’m quite sceptical of the study that suggested the ash would cause significant global cooling for a prolonged period of time (5 years+). I think they overestimate both the amount of ash and particulates generated and the amount of time it would remain in the upper atmosphere, alongside the extent of the resulting fires.
Thing is we already have examples of this happening from volcanoes. Look up the year without a summer, 1816.
The eruption that caused the year without summer had hundreds of times the explosive force of the entire Indian and Pakistani arsenal combined and threw almost 200 cubic kilometres of ash and tephra very high into the atmosphere. It was an event on an entirely different scale.
Oh i think i see where the misunderstanding is. So with nukes the ash they say will cause the cooling isnt from the explosions. What they think will happen is the bombs act as a spark which causes massive wildfires that engulf the entire region. Thats the ash they are concerned with not the ash from the initial explosions.
So rather than thinking of it in terms of explosions think of it in terms of the entire subcontinent burning for weeks.
No, I do get that, but the emissions from extensive fires across the region are still substantially different from what you’d see in the kind of event we have seen produce actual global cooling events like the 1815 eruption.
I’m willing to believe that it’s possible, but I think the initial study suggesting it could happen makes some overly broad assumptions and I’ve seen subsequent studies fail to reach the same conclusion with similar analysis.