it can't come soon enough

>>16554188
Good enough for the Sauropods.
Good enough for us.

>>16554188
Patrolling the Mojave makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

>>16554188
Can't be disproven when it hasn't been tried yet.
To me it's silly to think that a large scale nuclear exchange wouldn't put huge amounts of soot in the atmosphere, or that the soot somehow wouldn't do anything

>>16554377
Except for the fact that we *did* test hundreds of nuclear weapons, found out how much dust they put in the atmosphere, and found that even using the entire arsenel would put around 1% of the dust of volcanic eruptions which only had small climate effects.

>>16554377
>t huge amounts of soot in the atmosphere,
wow like 1 ton of soot?

>>16554380
Most of them tested over the ocean or in the middle of empty deserts, not blowing up cities or forests

>>16554385
and deserts are different from cities and forests in terms of dust emission because?

>>16554388
You can't set a desert on fire

>>16554390
nigga, the temperatures involved turn sand into glass. At this extreme it doesn't matter if it's a desert or a lush jungle.

>>16554421
It's thought that most nuclear blasts in a real exchange would be airburst high above cities, not wasting a huge portion of their energy on digging a big hole in the ground.
So yes it would be a concern that massive areas are being burned

>>16554453
>t massive areas are being burned
wow just a wildfire. Imagine if million of trees burned, its unimaginable

New York City is less than 300 square miles.
Right now alone, the forest fires so far IN THE WINTER have burned more than five times that.
How much are we pretending that is affecting earth's temperature?
And how many New York Cities are we pretending there are on earth?
Because it seems like there would need to be at least 1000 such cities burning down to even make a small blip in the climate.

>>16554188
not even in the top ten of problems resulting from full scale nuclear war. popularized by famous jew pothead astronomer carl sagan and you have to assume 100% of nuclear arsenal is detonated at ground level (likelihood of this is 0) before you even start to begin imagining nuclear winter scenarios.

Fake and gay

Also the nuclear stockpile is in shitty condition

Also ballistic missiles are countered by various stuff they wont release to the public.

The future is hypersonics and DEWs.

>>16554188
>What is /sci/'s position on nuclear winter?
Real and true. Volcanic winter exists. When krakatoa erupted in the 1880s there was a 2 degree drop in temps worldwide. Seems insignificant, but that can really fuck things up. If the assumption is that nuclear winter would follow global nuclear warfare, then its not wrong to think the effects of thousands of nukes detonating worldwide would be the equivalent of one volcano in the south pacific.

fake

>>16555895
>When krakatoa erupted in the 1880s
>the effects of thousands of nukes detonating worldwide would be the equivalent
I don't think most nukes would be detonated in a way that ejects great plumes of volcanic ash

>>16555915
I never said they would be. The cumulative effect would probably be similar thoughsoever

the kuwait oil fires caused a drop of temperatures of 2 degrees in the local region and it all corrected as soon as the fires were put out. Turns out common smoke from a fire cant rise to the stratosphere

>>16554188
ted postol gave a detailed explanation about the difference between conventional and nuclear explosions and how many large nuclear explosions will result in many firestorms and atmospheric affects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGsBLDwhHg

>>16555993
Very nice, thank you.

yanno they always did their nuclear tests one at a time like one big bomb one day then another a couple days later or whatever
but all of the war scenarios have multiple bombs blowing up essentially right next to each other
i wonder if some weird and funky physics could come from blowing up like 5 big megaton sized bombs in the same area at the same time

>>16554388
>Concrete turns into microscopic dust/powder, much easier to be blown into the stratosphere.
Personally I don't think the nukes will cause winter because they're supposedly much smaller now than in the 70's and 80's (although I certainly wouldn't want to be downwind of any ground bursts).

But setting off any near a fault line in the ring of fire or Yosemite Park or Siberia flats could have interesting results.

>>16554188
The closest we have are the eruption of Mt Pinatubo (about one year with cool weather) and the massive oil well fires in Kuwait after Saddam's troops got out (unclear effect).

>>16554188
Patrolling the Mohave,....

>>16554188
It's been disproven over and over again.
Carl Sagan is a proven hack for pushing it.
However, the myth refuses to die.

it's bs. the heat from a nuclear blast would vaporize any possible soot, preventing any greenhouse effect from forming.

>>16554188
I don't know, but the people having said several times now that I would be drowned and dead decades ago because of climate change probably aren't reliable when it comes to this topic.

>>16554188
>nuclear war?
Yellowstone would probably manage it.

>>16557607
I'm gonna fill a FOAB with Sarin and then drop it on your house.

>>16560176
hurt a feeling eh ? you need nukes to be real to construct your personality around them

>>16554421
So do lightning strikes on the beach.