Re:Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf]
by sandworm101 on Thursday September 21, 2017 @05:36PM
(#15307573)
Because those were most all carefully controlled to prevent such damage. Top of the list: those that were above ground were tested above empty terrain. The bomb doesn't create most of the ash. The burning city under the bomb is where the bulk of sun-blocking ash comes from. No city, no ash, no nuclear winter issues.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf]
by cloakandswagger on Thursday September 21, 2017 @05:42PM
(#15307618)
I would expect that some of the predicted effects of a "nuclear winter" would start to appear after a series of forest fires--albeit smaller in scope and intensity--but AFAIK this is not the case. What gives?
Re:Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf]
by robotresearcher on Thursday September 21, 2017 @06:02PM
(#15307733)
They aren't usually big enough to get the particulates high enough. But big events can do it:
Re:Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf]
by Smudge on Thursday September 21, 2017 @05:57PM
(#15307695)
Most forest fires don't create strong enough firestorms (if they do at all) to funnel material high enough to have an effect -- most of the ash falls back down in a matter of weeks (even sooner if it gets rained out of the atmosphere). I'd compare nuclear blast firestorms with volcanic eruptions -- we do have a record of eruptions funneling material high enough into the troposphere and stratosphere to have a noticeable, longer-term effect on the climate (over the subsequent months and years).