"An Inconvenient Question"?

Question

Hey when Isreal throws a nuke at Lebanon and then Iran and Syria get involved and so does the US, will that increase global warming?

Answer 1

A few bombs will not really be much of a factor.

CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years
Look at the 'hockeystick'.
(see links below)

There has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Yes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up.

HI CO2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467...
HOCKEY STICK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109...
General climate stuff: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897...

Answer 2

All out nuclear war is predicted to cool the Earth. So, no worries about that pesky global warming thing!

And, yeah, that's the weapon of choice against terrorists hiding in a hole in the ground...nuke 50,000 innocent people!! *sarcasm* Then again, nuking Iran is a distinct possibility should they (Iran) be stupid enough to make the first strike on Israel.

Beyond that, it must suck to have such a pessimistic existence. Is Al Gore your hero?

Answer 3

Nuclear weapons are thought to contribute to cooling due to releasing particulates into the atmosphere. However, it's unlikely that the scope you're talking about would have much effect.

I've NEVER seen a statement with the word NEVER in it that was completely correct. Sherwood B. Idso published a paper in Climate Research Vol 10: 69-82 questioning the human influence on global warming.

Answer 4

It would actually reduce it. Nuclear winter is a hypothetical global climate condition that is predicted to be a possible outcome of a large-scale nuclear war. It is thought that severely cold weather can be caused by detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons, especially over flammable targets such as cities, where large amounts of smoke and soot would be injected into the Earth's stratosphere.

This layer of particles would significantly reduce the amount of sunlight that reached the surface, and could potentially remain in the stratosphere for weeks or even years (smoke and soot arising from the burning petroleum fuels and plastics would absorb sunlight much more effectively than would smoke from burning wood). The ash would be carried by the midlatitude west-to-east winds, forming a uniform belt of particles encircling the northern hemisphere from 30° to 60° latitude. These thick black clouds could block out much of the sun's light for a period as long as several weeks, causing surface temperatures to drop by as much as 30°C during the occlusion. It is another reason why the use of nuclear weapons would be a disaster.

Answer 5

Taking the "conventional" theory that the earth has been getting warmer for a period of decades, and that CO2 emissions have contributed to that warming:

Nukes (whether weapons or power plants or submarines) do not contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Conventional weapons do generate CO2 (as do conventional coal- and oil-fired powerplants, and conventional vehicles).

So nuclear weapons are not a consideration in global warming, but conventional bombs and the burning of fuel stores could contribute to the effect that CO2 has on the warming trend. (But remember that it is not yet known how significant that effect is relative to the natural factors at work.)

Still, as another responder noted, global tensions and "inconveniences" to the affected populations are more important than the insignificant effect on global temperatures.

Answer 6

Its more of a matter of global freezing actually, once the ice caps melt, the currents will go away and thus the freezing process will begin, so correct on saying global warming but the end result is global freezing.

(Until if possible there are more volcanos to explode and rain to wash the acidic air to restart the earth again.)

Answer 7

Well it depends... If they drop a multitude of bombs it will casue global warming... and with multitude i mean thousands! For the world to warm up there needs to be a constant source of additional heat, which in this case will be the nuclear fallout which generates a very small amount of heat per particle.

But if you have tons ans tons of particles each giving of heat for thousands of years it will triger heating of the world.

But that will be the least of our worries then... if we are alive still.

Answer 8

If they raise enough dust it will act as a heat shield and cause nuclear winter, so global warming problem solved, but only two headed mutants will be left to enjoy it.

Answer 9

Not sure about the global warming factor, how about global tension? Strange times we are living in my friend.

Answer 10

The point being, if this somehow stupidly escalates into world war, no one's going to care about global warming.