• Zron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Source?

    Seems pretty likely that all those fires would cause a lot of soot that blocks out some of the sunlight, thus causing a global temperature drop

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      sagan et al overstated amount of soot from full nuclear exchange from targets most susceptible to large scale fires by 10x-ish and this is the only way they could come up with actual nuclear winter

      when counterexample happened during gulf war they dropped it, but when people forgot this was a thing they brought it up again. this is not how you do science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Not off hand but the idea is the amount needed to cause one is not as low as previously stated (the 3 large scale bombs being enough was likely off by an order of magnitude).

      The fear of instant nuclear winter was likely more cold war scare then sound science, but the chance of nuclear winter is still there. We just don’t know exactly how many nukes and where would kick one off.