Nuclear war is often thought of as catastrophic, but the reasons go beyond the immediate destruction. Hi, I’m Cameron from MinuteEarth. When a nuclear weapon detonates, everything within the blast zone is obliterated. In the days, weeks, and years that follow, radiation poisoning leads to death and severe illnesses for those nearby. However, this is just the beginning of the devastation. Radioactive fallout, mass displacement of people, looting, and widespread infrastructure damage are significant issues. Yet, the most far-reaching and deadly consequence is the smoke.
When a large amount of smoke enters the atmosphere, it absorbs sunlight and can alter the climate. For instance, the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo released an ash cloud that temporarily reduced global temperatures by about one degree Celsius. Similarly, smoke from massive wildfires can have local cooling effects. However, the smoke from burning cities is a much larger threat. As cities burn, they release smoke filled with carbon particles known as “black carbon,” which plays a crucial role in the potential outcomes of nuclear conflict.
These dark particles absorb sunlight, warming the air around them, which makes the smoke rise into the stratosphere. While smoke from wildfires and volcanoes can also reach high altitudes, they don’t produce much black carbon. Their lighter-colored smoke doesn’t absorb as much sunlight and doesn’t stay aloft for long. In contrast, smoke rich in black carbon can remain suspended for up to a decade, riding air currents and cooling the planet by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface.
Recent scientific calculations suggest that just 15 nuclear bombs could generate around five million tons of black carbon, enough to cool the planet by an average of 2 degrees Celsius. So why haven’t we seen this cooling effect yet, despite over 2,000 nuclear detonations? Most of these tests occurred high in the atmosphere, in remote areas, or deep underground to minimize damage, including the release of black carbon soot.
Only two nuclear bombs have been used in warfare, and they were relatively small compared to today’s weapons. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful, and there are more of them now than in the past, though fewer than during the Cold War. A nuclear conflict could potentially release up to 150 million tons of black carbon, enough to lower global temperatures by an average of 16 degrees. For context, during the last ice age, global temperatures were only 7 degrees colder than today.
If a nuclear-triggered mini ice age were to occur, it could devastate global food production. Survivors of the initial blasts and radiation would face severe food shortages, with up to 5 billion people potentially starving in the first year—nearly two-thirds of the world’s population. In northern regions, the situation could be even more dire, with up to 99% of people at risk of starvation.
A nuclear war could leave the entire world in a state of extreme cold and hunger. This video was sponsored by the Future of Life Institute to honor recipients of the Future of Life Award. This award is given annually to individuals who have helped steer history away from disaster without much public recognition at the time. The 2022 Award was given to John Birks, Paul Crutzen, Jeannie Peterson, Alan Robock, Carl Sagan, Georgiy Stenchikov, Brian Toon, and Richard Turco for their contributions to understanding and publicizing the science of nuclear winter.
Investigate a historical nuclear event, such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the Chernobyl disaster. Prepare a presentation that discusses the immediate and long-term effects of the event, focusing on the environmental and human impacts. Highlight how these events relate to the concepts of nuclear war and its potential consequences discussed in the article.
Participate in a computer-based simulation that models the climate impact of black carbon released from nuclear detonations. Analyze the data to understand how black carbon affects global temperatures and weather patterns. Discuss your findings with classmates and consider the implications for global food security and human survival.
Engage in a structured debate on the topic of nuclear disarmament. Form teams to argue for and against the reduction of nuclear arsenals worldwide. Use evidence from the article to support your arguments, considering the potential consequences of nuclear conflict and the role of international policy in preventing such outcomes.
Write a short story or essay that imagines life during a nuclear-triggered mini ice age. Incorporate scientific concepts from the article, such as the effects of black carbon on climate and the resulting food shortages. Share your work with peers to explore different perspectives on the human experience in such a scenario.
Conduct an interview with a climate scientist or historian who specializes in nuclear conflict. Prepare questions that explore the scientific and historical aspects of nuclear war, focusing on the potential for a nuclear-triggered mini ice age. Present your findings to the class, highlighting key insights and expert opinions.
Nuclear war would be catastrophic – but maybe not just for the reasons you think. Hi, I’m Cameron, and this is MinuteEarth. Yes, it’s true that immediately following the detonation of a nuclear weapon, everything – and everyone – inside the blast zone is incinerated. And yes, over the following days, weeks, and years, radiation poisoning causes death and debilitating disease in those just a little farther away. But that’s just the first domino of devastation: radioactive fallout, refugees, looting, and large-scale damage to infrastructure will all be serious issues, but the smoke is what has the farthest-reaching – and deadliest – effects.
When a large amount of smoke enters the atmosphere at once, it absorbs sunlight, which can affect the climate. After Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, the resulting ash cloud temporarily dropped global temperatures by an average of one degree Celsius. Smoke from mega-wildfires can have similar local effects. However, smoke from a burning city poses an even greater problem. As cities, with all of their buildings, plastics, asphalt, etc., burn, they create smoke with significant amounts of free-floating carbon particles known as “black carbon,” which is a critical factor in the potential consequences of nuclear conflict.
These dark particles absorb sunlight and warm the surrounding air, making it buoyant and allowing the smoke to rise into the stratosphere. While smoke from wildfires and volcanoes can also reach high altitudes, these sources don’t produce much black carbon. Consequently, their lighter-colored smoke doesn’t absorb as much sunlight and doesn’t remain aloft for as long. In contrast, smoke primarily composed of black carbon can stay suspended for up to a decade, riding air currents and cooling the planet by absorbing sunlight in the upper atmosphere, preventing heat from reaching the surface below.
Scientists have recently calculated that just 15 nuclear bombs could produce as much as five million tons of black carbon – enough to cool the planet by an average of 2 degrees Celsius. But why haven’t we experienced this cooling already, given that we have detonated more than 2,000 nuclear bombs? The majority of these detonations have occurred either high in the atmosphere, in remote locations, or deep underground to minimize potential damage, including the release of large amounts of black carbon soot.
Only two nuclear bombs have been used to their full – and devastating – potential, and those were relatively small compared to modern weapons. Today, not only are nuclear weapons significantly more powerful, but there are also more of them than in the past, although not as many as during the Cold War. A conflict between nuclear powers could potentially produce as much as 150 million tons of black carbon, enough to lower global temperatures by an average of 16 degrees. For context, during the most recent ice age – when glaciers covered much of the Earth – global temperatures were just 7 degrees colder than they are now.
If a nuclear-triggered mini ice age were to occur, it could devastate food production worldwide. Many of those who survive the bombs and radiation would face severe global food shortages; as many as 5 billion people might starve in the first year – nearly two-thirds of the global population. In northern latitudes, the situation could be even more dire, with up to 99% of people potentially facing starvation.
A conflict that escalates to nuclear war could leave everyone in the cold. This video was brought to you by the Future of Life Institute to celebrate recipients of the Future of Life Award. This award is given annually to individuals who have steered the course of history away from disaster without receiving much public recognition at the time. The 2022 Award went to John Birks, Paul Crutzen, Jeannie Peterson, Alan Robock, Carl Sagan, Georgiy Stenchikov, Brian Toon, and Richard Turco for their roles in discovering and popularizing the science of nuclear winter.
Nuclear – Relating to the nucleus of an atom, often used in the context of energy produced by nuclear reactions, such as fission or fusion. – Nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon power source, which is why it is often discussed in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
War – A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country, which can have significant environmental impacts. – The environmental consequences of war can include habitat destruction and pollution, which can alter local ecosystems and climate patterns.
Smoke – A visible suspension of carbon or other particles in the air, typically one emitted from a burning substance, which can affect air quality and climate. – The smoke from wildfires can contribute to atmospheric pollution and has been linked to short-term climate changes.
Climate – The long-term pattern of weather conditions in a region, including temperature, precipitation, and other atmospheric factors. – Climate models are essential tools for predicting future changes in global temperatures and weather patterns.
Carbon – A chemical element that is the primary component of fossil fuels and a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions when burned. – Reducing carbon emissions is crucial for mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Temperatures – The degree of heat present in a substance or object, often measured in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit, which is a critical factor in climate studies. – Rising global temperatures are a clear indicator of climate change and have widespread environmental impacts.
Conflict – A serious disagreement or argument, often a protracted one, which can arise over resource allocation and environmental issues. – Water scarcity has been a source of conflict in many regions, highlighting the need for sustainable management of natural resources.
Ice – Frozen water, a solid state of H2O, which plays a crucial role in Earth’s climate system, particularly in polar regions. – The melting of polar ice caps is a significant indicator of global warming and has implications for sea-level rise.
Food – Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink to maintain life and growth, which can be affected by environmental changes. – Climate change poses a threat to global food security by altering growing seasons and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events.
Radiation – The emission of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, especially high-energy particles that can have environmental and health impacts. – Understanding the effects of radiation from the sun is essential for studying Earth’s climate and protecting living organisms from harmful exposure.
