Thanks for watching! You can find out more about RAND’s research on Truth Decay here: www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/why-cant-we-agree-on-the-facts.html You can read RAND's tips for how to tackle Truth Decay here: www.rand.org/blog/2022/03/truth-decay-is-a-threat-to-democracy-heres-what-you.html And if you really want to dig in, RAND’s full report is here: www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html
HERE is The Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Great VIdeo! One thing that seems to often get missed when discussing COVID statistics is the number of people who have varioius longterm symptoms. Most COVID statistics seem to only consider death as a data point but that seems to be ignoring a large fraction of people who get life altering effects of covid such as asthma (and all the other things I'm sure we will discover over the years). I tend to be on the side that we are spreading too much fear regarding COVID but in the theme of being intellectually honest I figured this point can't be omitted.
Truth above all with so much disinformation we need the truth more now than ever those willing to look upon themselves and check their work to see if it's truly right or wrongly should be done more often, the factual truth is better for humanity so we can understand what we can do about it.
I remember back in the 1980s there were several scientists who were quoted anonymously as saying that Sagan's nuclear winter was was totally wrong. Out of frustration, one journalist asked one such scientist, if he was so sure why didn't he state it on the record. He said, I don't want to sound like I'm arguing for nuclear war.
I have never heard of this . If you could tell even a single source I would greatly appreciate it. I love hearing things that confirm my thoughts but then I get skeptical on how much of it is true. If so , thank you in advance.
@@mickieg1994 problem was that it becoming a common belief meant that there was massive underinvestment in civil defence measures with the logic that it was pointless. This would have resulted in many millions more unnecessary deaths due to a false belief being pushed by people with an agenda.
One of the largest reasons to not over report or dramatize the facts is because once skeptics or even unsure moderates see the ones who we've been told to trust are caught doing such, it creates even more uncertainty than there usually would have been compared to if those same authorities simply told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even if you gain more sympathy and support because of fear mongering the most extreme case, you lose the same amount of support from those who are genuinely trying to find the truth and were instead lied to. Great video!
@@hejalll this definitely isn't a republican issue. It's extremely bi partisan. This can be represented by the fact that in the beginning of the COVID pandemic Trump and other Republicans claimed it came from a lab. Democrats were extremely against this narrative and called them all racist for thinking so. As we know today, according to the best leading evidence, it did indeed leak from a lab in Wuhan. Both parties are extremely flawed and flip flop on every issue as long as it supports their own party in the moment.
@@PresAlexWhit There's a lot of issues with this. 1. It is by no means consensus that it was leaked, it is however not ruled out entirely either. What cooporation has deemed it more probable than not, that it was leaked? And don't give me individuals. 2. Even if it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, in 2022, that corona was made in a lab. By no means did they have the necessary information to start spreading such a conspiracy by the beginning of corona.
The problem with overstating dangers is that once enough overstated dangers are recognized people are going to start believing that every danger is exaggerated, which you can already see happening in the world. Being dishonest about dangers leads to people nolonger believing in the stated danger.
This made me remember something my grandma recently told me due to certain anxieties from watching the news, “Honey, I’ve lived through so many supposed disasters than never happened, so many things that were supposed to kill us all that never did, I think we’re fine”. Even if this isn’t exactly an optimistic view, and a bit apathetic, it shows clearly one thing: the media can only be so dramatic and fearmongering for so long before people start tuning it out.
After the Soviet Union (Nukes), bird flu, swine flu, ebola, aids, overpopulation, the dissapearing ozone layer supposed to burn everyones retinas out, the recent c19 flue...I agree with your grandmother.
@@Joe-wy2bn Those are all things we did something about though. The nations of the world took the ozone seriously and regulated CFCs. Education and treatment brought AIDS under control. Governments took bird and swine flu seriously and squashed it. This dismissive attitude is what stopped them reacting ro Covid19 until too late, or climate change for that matter.
The humanity won't go extinct from it, not even close. But I am not reassured by it, a very significant part of the population will die and I might be among them. That will never be not terrifying.
@@BigPimp238 Yeah, both overreacting and underreacting serve a purpose as long as the balance ends up doing something about it. Everything is fear mongering until shit gets real, then you're either too late or owe your life to those that did too much just in case.
As someone who lived through the cold war I can assure you we were thinking about this scenario on the daily. Looking back on it were insane to think that was normal.
Or maybe it was totally rational to be on alarm mode and that saved us, maybe nuclear winter is overdramatic, but potential 100million dead people is worth being dramatic, isn't it?
@krazykarl Ever heard of Nagasaki? Perhaps you have seen how it went wuth the inhabitants of Hiroshima? Chernobil? The people living downwind of tests in the western states of the US and aborigines on the plains of Australia, not to mention the folks in the Pacific islands in the 1950's and how they got cancer, leukemia and birth defects? Pretty terrifying.
The thing is, you don't even need nuclear winter to feel nuclear exchange is a bad idea. We've already seen how a global pandemic and the ensuing economic slowdown has already impacted the world at large. Imagine how wiping some of the world's largest economic centers would fuck up our current way of life
Exactly. The war drums are certainly being beat by US military industrial "think tanks" like RAND. The only sensible thing is negotiations, everything else is war profiteering. Every single life lost in war matters and we need to stop these conflicts at their root!
@@cowfat8547 The planet is certain to succumb to space (Death) eventually without human intervention... and full nuclear war would decimate society... killing off the 50% of remaining struggling humans... There is nothing good about Nuclear War...
The amount of personal integrity and decency in this video is staggering. The guy admits to things he has been wrong about,, and even admits that he doesn’t like to acknowledge the truth because it is at odds with his political identity, and as a result I now trust information coming from his channel even more, and I suspect I’m not alone. Other commentators and news outlets should take notes. This is how trust in news media can be restored. It may hurt to admit when the facts don’t support your political views, but on the other hand, so does cognitive dissonance, and the only way to get rid of both sources of pain is to change your mind. So, just rip that bandaid off, when you discover that you are wrong about something.
The title of the video is a question which never was answered in the video. This is quite strange... Half of the video is simply a major deviation from the topic instead at least discussing about the results. Because some scientist used current climate modeling software in the last 10 years. Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic. The result was even worse using the current knowledge. The some RL "validation" example of the video is simply meaningless. Compared to a full scale nuclear war the effect of the oil well fire of Kuwait is meaningless. It would be far better analogy that imagine lots of Pinatubo volcano activity in the same time for weeks. Not a single one.
@@militavia-air-defense-aircraft "Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic" Sorry, but that's just wrong. The original study talked about a 20K colling of global average temperatures, 70% reduction of solar light and a possible extinction of our species. Modern studies DON'T support those values. The most modern climate projection on the subject find a reduction of 9.5K in global temperatures and 30-40% in solar light reaching the surface in the northern hemisphere [1]. And that's if we accept the premises adopted in the study that, one, the nuclear exchange would occur at the end of summer (maximizing the cooling effect); two, that cities would be specifically targeted; three, that 150 Tg of soot would reach the stratosphere (which is questioned by other recent models [2]). So, again, your statement is just plainly wrong. [1] agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD030509 [2] agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331
@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences" Do you have any question?
I want to express my deep respect for your approach in handling this sensitive subject. Your method of finding common ground on polarizing topics is impressive, and I admire it. I plan on sharing this video as an example of the importance of prioritizing facts over feelings, especially to those who hold conflicting beliefs. Thank you for setting a positive precedent that we can all learn from.
I can't say thank you enough for making this, it is so refreshing to hear someone admit that they made a mistake. We all do it. But we need each other to be honest so we can really get to what the truth might be.
Thank you Neil Halloran and RAND Corporation, its refreshing to realize that the strategic use of nuclear weaponry will not cause the calamitous effects previously claimed. This knowledge could not have come at a more apposite time, especially given Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's aggression towards Ukraine and the rest of the free world. So many political and military options (including pre-emptive first strikes among others) were for so long incorrectly thought of as 'unthinkable' due to unfounded apocalyptic 'consequences'....now we know better an can make better, more informed calculations and decisions. The timing of this study and film and the knowledge conveyed therein could not have come at a better time given our geopolitical stresses and threats....thank you.
As a nuclear physicist (neutron/proton structure research), I applaud you for taking this step to clarify the nuclear winter threat. I have long questioned the underlying assumptions that have gone into the early models for nuclear winter but didn't have the resources or connections to perform my own calculations. I even had a brief conversation several years ago with Dr. Robock about his work on even a limited war between Pakistan and India resulting in climate catastrophe. Again, I was ill equipped to argue the points so let it lay as is. I am reminded of a quote from George E.P. Box. "All models are wrong. Some are useful." Now, nearly 25 years after starting my career in physics, I have come to a disturbing conclusion. Scientists are absolutely capable of biased thinking and reporting and will bend the ear to anyone willing to listen. I suppose that is part of being human.
Haha. Questioning the Science makes you a Nutjob. Even this Pandemic showed the danger of Overstating everything. Lost of precious Trust. Made worst when those in power like Fauci refuse to admit they are wrong and just say the correct data acting like that's what they've been saying all along.
I wrote this to Neil 2 days ago, I'm still waiting for a response: @Neil Halloran Thanks for your thought proving video. However, I have a few concerns and questions. Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites you based you claim that the threat of a nuclear winter is overstated. The reason I ask is that the recent scientific consensus (last 5 years) still appears to conclude that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia ("...involving numbers of weapons allowed under current treaties.") would cause a variety of catastrophic effects - cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler than today), a loss of 65% of the Ozone layer, and a 40% decrease in photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find any scientific studies that support your updated optimistic position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects, that originally claimed in 1983. If it is based on personal research you should make this clear in your video or notes, so people can assess your assertions. I know of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that now claims the climate effects would be relatively minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke they modelled, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper by Robock et al., (2007) that claimed that even a small nuclear war (India V Pakistan) could cause severe global cooling and food shortages. However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account other effects, the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone later, coupled with reduced global temperatures: Photosynthesis: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) Ozone: "Several modeling studies have shown that stratospheric temperatures would increase by more than 50 K and stratospheric ozone would undergo global destruction, even for a scenario where 5 Tg of soot is injected into the stratosphere (Mills et al., 2014; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007; Toon et al., 2007)." - (Coupe et al., 2019) Ozone: "For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" - (Bardeen et al., 2021) I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages: " We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply." Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012. Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., 2007, claming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
@@Diamonddavej Interactive comment on “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism” by O. B. Toon et al. M. MacCracken Received and published: 22 January 2007 "All models are wrong, but some are useful" -George Box
@@ogzombieblunt4626 Yes, that paper is out of date, subsequent research denies that small regional nuclear wars e.g. between Pakistan and India (involving 100 x 15 kton atomic bombs) or individual terrorists attacks with a single or few atomic bombs, would have a serious effect on climate. It appears that Neil took this new research, that applies strictly to very small nuclear exchanges, and inappropriately extrapolated it to a global nuclear war, WIII (1000s of warheads up to 1 megaton). I explained this in my previous comment: "However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer."
Yeah makes his Lies sound like Fact! See how calmly he tells you Vx die at 48x Unvaccinated??? When in the last 2 years the Majority of deaths have been Vaxed and Boosted! Also Fails to mention the Onslaught of Young Men Dropping dead pf heart attacks on the Putch! Heart attacks are up 200% ages 18-43!!!!! That from England!!! Just imagine the Actual Numbers!! He is Dangerous! And should be held accountable when someone gives that Poi’s to their Child and their Heart explode!!
A good example of how overstated risks can lead to adverse outcomes is nuclear energy. The hysterical overstatement of the risks associated with nuclear energy has led to a situation where climate change is now a lot worse than it would otherwise have been.
@@entrusted2387 I don't think so. Nobody died at 3 mile Island. In fact nobody had died from nuclear energy in the US to date. Very few people died at Fukushima, and most of the deaths were caused by the evacuation. Some people did die at Chernobyl, but it was the absolute worst case of what could happen. Even then, a lot fewer people have died than the number who die from coal pollution every year. People also die every year while installing solar and wind energy modules. When it comes to baseline electricity production, the kind of stable electricity that needs to run 24/7, our options are usually coal or nuclear in most parts of the world. Battery storage costs more than twice as much as nuclear. So if we have to choose betweeen coal and nuclear for baseline electricity in most parts of the world, then lets choose the safer, cleaner option.
I disagree somewhat N power is super dangerous and like with all human bullshit is made more dangerous because of intellectual property rights and MONEY..One of the key issues re climate is countries like India burning loads of Coal because the safest reactor designs are all protected by Intellectual rights and these Co's will NOT share..the same happened in the Pandemic, did the drug Co's Open Source their knowledge to make the best solution or did they all squabble over market share and the same intellectual rights?
@@musicilike69 statistically Nuclear is about as safe as wind and solar. The most dangerous is coal, which kills tens of thousands of people each year through air pollution. Nuclear is the only viable alternative to coal for baseload electricity production at this point.
It definitely does, and it doesn't need to be clickbaity. I _almost_ didn't click on this video until I checked the channel for a reminder of who this guy was. Once I realized, I clicked immediately of course, but not everyone will do that.
@@NeilHalloran -Kurzgezagt brachiosaurus with a huge text bubble reading “not really”- Well, the idea first comes to my mind is the dust covered earth model in _The Shadow Peace Pt. 1_ (may some viewers still recognize this?), with large text “Famine? No. I was wrong”. I think simpler would be better, hope my input helps…!
Thank you for covering this topic! It really botheres me, that extinction level nuclear winter is something so generally accepted that normal discussion about this is very hard. In my opinion it only slightly reduces the fear of a nuclear war, since an all out nuclear war would still be incredibly devastating, that noone can even think about risking it. But its important to know what to talk about. Also thank you for poiting out forest fires, which are a good example for what we could might expect in case of widespread fires due to a all out nuclear war.
no. its everyone you meet. you will be starving mad and will kill for food at no cost. you think this is just daisy's and gumdrops. its not. its fucking hell; and living through that will make you do things you would never have done in normal society. you ready?
yeah true, there's too much cash incentive to shock and awe in professional news nowadays, there used to be a greater divide between news and tabloids, now it's all getting mixed together for the sake of clicks and views :p
Jesus is the light, leading people to heaven! If you are with God, no matter what happens on this Earth you will know that you will be going to be with your Creator for eternity!
16:31 Unpopular opinion: if I had to nitpick about this subject, it's the fact that I had first hand experience in seeing relatives and/or closed ones having very bad reactions after taking it. Luckily for me, their case wasn't nearly as bad as some others who told me their relatives died shortly after. What I mean to say is: it's probably harmless for many people, but the doctors should help their patients into making an educated choice, because it's not harmless for everyone. My partner, because of a very specific disability, chose not to take it, because it didn't go so well for people who had the same pathology a her who took it. She's fully aware that she's more at risk if she got sick, but taking it was not an option either. I don't envy her, because both are going to be bad for her. So we did all we could to avoid her getting sick.
The evolution of "news" and "facts" due to the internet's abundance of readily available information has had horrific consequences on us as a society. The fact that you had the courage to make this video, challenge mob rule, and potentially put your credibility at risk has given me the utmost respect for you as a content creator. I hope in the future that others may follow your lead and have the same capacity to admit their own biases and understand the consequences of overstating dangers and truth decay. Thank you.
Couldn't agree more, there's too much cash incentive to shock and awe in professional news nowadays, there used to be a greater divide between news and tabloids, now it's all getting mixed together for the sake of clicks and views :p
@@Ekstrax It's wild to me how much people still try and blame and bash 'mainstream news' when most of y'all dont actually follow mainstream news at all and get pretty much all your views from social media posts these days.
@@maynardburger lol also true, i for one still follow the mainstream news in my country but thats because its pretty good imo, if you know the preferred biases
The question isn't "will humans cease to exist", the question is "how miserable could life on earth become." The issue isn't "would we survive" but "would we want to." That's true whether you're talking about nuclear war or climate change. So when looking at the answers people are coming to, it's also important to look at the questions being asked. Doomsday questions are often being asked by those seeking clicks - the scientists themselves haven't framed things that way.
Those who’d survive the longest would be the ones who pressed the button in the first place. They’d be whisked away to their XYZ bunkers to drink champaign and eat like kings while the rest of us die due to their actions.
if such thing happens i would wish to be the in the first group to go, those post apocalyptic movies/books are not a joke, society would collapse in days, or weeks. If life is hard right now imagine how worse it would become to fight for your life every single day, not being able to trust anyone...
Guys, HERE is Our Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
"Would we want to," survive? Same for climate change as it is for nuclear war? Well got news for you the climate has already changed so you should just ask yourself now, do you still want to survive/live? Hopefully the answer is positive but if not at least we won't be troubled by your stupid analogies anymore. By the way approximately 520 nuclear bombs have been set off in the atmosphere since 1945 and we are all mostly fine.
@@theluftwaffle1 for how long? What sort of kings would get rid of their slaves? Without us the foundation they can do none of that, for long. If they ever went through with this I guess it would show how very very stupid we all are. For not changing this world even though nothing was stopping us (even our leaders obviously didn’t care, since they destroyed the very foundation keeping them able to eat and do things like kings) and for electing such stupidity.
This might be one of my favorite videos I've ever watched. Thank you for your frankness, Neil! Factual arguments vs. Moral arguments. I'll have to readjust my perspective to understand which of my beliefs are moral reactions and therefore overstated opinions. In fact, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that many, if not most, overstated opinions are simply a result of our fear that they have been understated.
It's odd to pit facts vs morals, as if they are opposites. In order to apply morals, facts must be the starting point. In order to interpret facts, morals must be used. They work hand in hand. Facts without morals is a road to dark ideas
I posted this and I hope to hear a response from him. Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers you base this on? The reason I ask this is that the recent peer review papers I could find, all concluded that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia would cause catastrophic effects e.g. cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a catastrophic loss of the Ozone, massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find scientific studies that support your updated position regarding global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other effects. If it is based on personal unqualified research you should make this clear in your video, or cite the studies that support your views. I know only of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that claimed that the climate effects would be minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. However, this is updated research does not appear applicable to global nuclear exchanges between, e.g. NATO and Russia. That scenario would involve 1000 or more >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke (soot and other small particles) into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight, that can last a decade or so: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) And the destruction of the Ozone Layer, an Ozone reduction of 75% globally and 65% at the topics lasting 15 years (Bardeen et al., 2021). Interestingly, they find a small regional war (India and Pakistan) could cause Ozone levels to decrease by 25%, with recovery taking 12 years. "Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Papers that concluded that a small regional nuclear war (e.g. Pakistan and India) involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
@@Diamonddavej Literally everything you said was discussed already. The studies mentioned, etc. This WAS the RAND corporation whom helped research this video, literally "Research and Development"
@@D-Vinko After 2 days spent looking for this mythical RAND study, I see that the first RAND Coperation study, into nuclear war and climate, was published in 1966 by E. S. Batten. The study was updated a couple of times, last in 1974, as far as I know. Batten concluded that a global nuclear war would cause severe global cooling of 2-3 Celsius: Batten, E.S., 1966. The Effects of Nuclear War on the weather and climate, The RAND Corporation. RM-4989-TAB. Batten, E.S., 1974. The atmospheric response to a stratospheric dust cloud as simulated by a general circulation model. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA. I cannot find a more recent, last few years, updated analysis by the RAND Coperation. The 1974 analysis is extremely out of date. Also, they are a think tank, and if such a study existes, it likely a syntesis of peer reviewed studies, the studies I read, which consistently conclude that a nuclear war between the US and Russia, with current stockpiles, would cause catastrophic climate and other effects. If you know of a more recent RAND Coperation study, let me know. That said, it's unlikely they published the study in peer review literature, I can't find it there. The RAND Coperation, funded by the US government, they developed US policy on nuclear weapons. The RAND Cooperation and their leading expert, Herman Kahn, were the inspiration for the BLAND Coperation and Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. A RAND study on nuclear weapons is a bit like asking a US weapons manufacturer to write an essay on cluster bombs effects on civilians.
@@ThomasBomb45 They are opposites, because morality is rooted in sentimentality & empathy; it states "this must be so, because it *feels* right" and is inherently disconnected from an objective viewpoint, as opposed to empiricism or factuality which states "this must be so, because it *is* so". There are numerous times in which what was factually necessary to achieve a goal was not morally justified, and vice versa. Morals are really just imagined guidelines that most people agreed upon in order to protect themselves in a society, it's not some existential constant and they certainly hold no weight in the face of facts.
I have been scared of a nuclear holocaust since I was 4 years old and I approve this message. I also approve the general intellectual honesty displayed.
@@picklechin2716 I was born in Sweden in 78 and lived in fear of and was depressed by the prospect of nuclear war all my childhood. But I have to ask, did you listen to what he said?
I went on a similar journey to this about 5 years ago when I started realising more and more risks where overstated once I had dug into them. It's a pattern in that "bad news" tends to propagate faster and further than "good news", even here it seems like you felt you couldn't make a video without the prompt of the "bad news" story of truth decay. I really want to thank you for this video and I'll be trying to share it widely.
This reminds me of the whole “Ozone hole” debacle that happened a while ago. If you’ve ever wondered why you don’t hear about it anymore, it’s because we actually took action against it, set policies in order, and the ozone layer is by and large back to normal! Notice there wasnt a lot of reporting about how we actually solved an issue, the reporting was only done when the issue was there and could be made into a world ending disaster.
@@ksmi9109 “It’s like AIDS from the sky.” “It’s going to end live on earth as we know it.” That’s how the OZONE HOLE pseudo-apocalypse was sold to us . Your revisionist history is merely more myth creation . Here is some actual truth : These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon. We are told that the Montreal Protocol saved us from Ozone Depletion ( this is the myth which you are promulgating ) . But in actual truth , China ( which was by far the biggest CFC offender ) actually did very little post-Montreal Protocol . It seems the Ozone Hole magically self-corrected. And whatever happened to Acid Rain? Acid Rain was supposed to kill all the plants and things , and subsequently devastate the food cycle and lead to mass extinction too . Funny how that problem , TOO , just disappeared without anyone noticing 🤷♂️
@@ksmi9109 Well, it's not back to normal, but it is unequivocably headed that way. And as someone who was starting as an undergrad at the time and followed the topic, I can say there was lots of coverage of how the Montreal protocol addressed the problem: of the gradual phase out of CFC's in rough order of how bad they were for ozone. We are still in the phase out. The gradual approach angered some environmentalists who didn't think it was fast enough and would still lead to disaster. Predicting doom on the other end were some corporate stakeholders saying that we we would loose food refrigeration leading to d starvation and epidemics of food borne disease.. Some still tried to claim that CFC were not the cause or that the ozone hole was a natural phenomena. Sounds familiar. They had less capacity for people to try to ihave their own facts, and they had Margret Thacher. A chemist by training she understood the reality of the science and brought other conservatives in, including Ronald Reagan along.
This was like a breath of fresh air after nearly drowning. Truth decay is worse than most people could even dream and it’s not tearing the country apart - it’s already done it. It’s impossible to have fact based discussions with people anymore because literally any discussion with someone from the “other side” becomes a debate that you have to win. Instead of a conversation on the facts and reality. Thank you for this video. I wish more people were like you.
What’s worse is when you disengage because you feel the only way to win is by doing something morally wrong like screaming a racial slur and, even when you know it’s wrong, those intrusive thoughts keep going in and for the sake of yourself and others you have to let the other side win.
@@bigbadlara5304 exactly. That’s why I’ve been trying to distance myself from such extremist rhetoric. I used to consider myself a communist, but after interacting with actual communists who called me everything from the F slur to “Hitler’s strongest soldier” I have since distanced myself from them and the idea of communism and stateless society as a whole.
@@bigbadlara5304 This is hilarious, because this is EXACTLY part of the problem of what truth decay is - thinking your opinion holds some inherent value. We are not talking about personal preferences like what sort of pizza toppings you like, something that is 100% subjective and personal. We are talking about the determination of what is true or not. Opinions can straight up be WRONG and when they are, it needs to be called out. If you cant handle this, then you are not ready for actual mature discussion and are a prime example of the worsening problem we're facing where people think what they 'feel' takes priority over what is real.
@@maynardburger no, my opinions have changed tons of times. Above I am talking about people who force their opinion on me. They don't want to change their mind and don't accept that I have a different opinion even though I accept they have a different opinion.
This has to be the most beautiful Video I have ever watched….. How you explain and see the other point of view even if it differed from your own and recognize where you might have gone wrong with different videos is astounding….. Amazing work
The quality of these videos are on a level unseen on this platform, and anywhere else for that matter. That you make these brilliant videos and share them for free is amazing. Your content deserves A LOT more recognition. Keep up the great work!
Great video man! This debate needs to happen more. I graduated from journalism school a few weeks ago and misinformation is by far the biggest threat and challenge that we face. This video for sure has given me different views on how to operate around facts and overstatements, and the media needs this even though we still have good journalists out there.
Great video. While nuclear winter and climate change by themselves may not be world-ending events, civilization as we know it, seems pretty fragile. The compounding of things like these, along with conventional wars, terrorism, culture wars, natural catastrophes, and truth decay, may be enough to disrupt civilization to the point that life will become as uncertain as it was in the Dark Ages.
I think you are one of one of the most wholesome youtubers I've stumbled upon, your honesty and desire help us understand facts and have a common ground is inspiring, keep up the good work!
This is easily the best video I've seen in years. Thanks. FWIW I am sure I'm in the minority of your viewers, in that I was already aware of Rand's 'Truth Decay' study, and had read some of the higher level summaries. I know and respect several folks at Rand. I find the polarization of US society perhaps one of the most horrific trends of my lifetime, in that it so severely limits all of the progress we could make as a nation, and as a global leader. I support any legitimate effort to mitigate and reduce it, and this video is one of the more heartening things I've seen. Again, thanks.
I can’t say I agree with you on all your opinions, but I can respect you’re willingness to be as open as you are and looking into the facts. That’s how discourse should be, we might not agree with everything but we can still talk about things and try and come up with solutions to problems to make a better tomorrow, for everyone.
Oh my GOD! the king has returned (I know you didn't really leave), thank you so much for the insanely good uploads, overall quality, and effort you put into your videos .Seriously one of the best (and somehow still underrated) content creators I have ever seen
I have a lot of respect that you made this video, and I think it's a very important point to make. I'm very much convinced of the reality of climate change and other forms of environmental destruction, but I am a staunch opponent of preaching nothing but doom and gloom. I've noticed that a number of people in my generation will say things like "what's the point in even trying? Even if we somehow survive climate disaster we'll just get hit by an asteroid or the Yellowstone volcano will explode. Humanity sucks and we deserve what's coming our way." Besides being an extremely fatalistic view of the future, and one that I've found to be alarmingly common, I think it is a self fulfilling prophecy if we let it perpetuate. People are desperate to believe things are worse than they are. We need to properly frame the magnitude of such potential disasters we might face (and asteroids and the Yellowstone volcano are far down the list by the way) but we face a great danger but playing up the danger. Some think this will be a "scare em' straight" strategy where we convince the people in power that everything will go to hell if they don't do something. In reality these people haven't done nearly as much, and all we've done is succeeded in terrifying the general public, who has less power to incite change. I argue then that this fear has led many to paralysis. They have become so convinced the situation is awful that they give up wanting to try. It is a harrowing outcome, and it is I think, a coping mechanism that removes from our species the responsibility of having to clean up our mess. But I am slowly seeing more positive climate reporting. We need to continue to show an accurate depiction of what can happen, and what problems need to be addressed, but having the caveat "but we can figure this out" I think is sorely needed. I think there is hope. Nothing will change unless we believe it will. We need to have hope that we have the power to create change, and have greater faith in humanity that others will choose to join in the fight.
I whole heartedly agree with every single word and sentence that was said in this comments. Finally someone isn't having such a hopeless misanthropic view like this.
Let’s just hope the nuclear war is quick and swift… and starts in the mid Atlantic, East Coast, US… right at about the border between Virginia and North Carolina.
Guys, HERE is The Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Wasatch Wind ("@Wasatch Wind") I've looked at 100 years temperatures data across the U.S. and it shows a definite cooling trend. So be careful of what you wish, earth could turn into an ice ball by reducing CO2 levels.
The biggest problem for Nuclear weapons are in their EMP and Neutron Flash variants. One eliminates logistics completely, potentially killing millions of civilians due to congestion and supply not reaching urban centers. The other *kills* anything organic in the blast zone almost immediately, particularly if the flash can be made with high energy particles (gamma rays essentially) that penetrate meters upon meters of blockage essencially allowing the killzone to increase beyond the visible blast, while leaving machines intact. Nuclear weapons may not be the end all be all destructive force if we contrast it with fictional tellings, but they remain the death of societies. Actually destroying the planet is a level of destruction no military would bother to even research given the pointlessness of such a weapon. How would you like to fire a double barrel shotgun where the second barrel always backfires in your face? Yeah, didn't think so.
As someone who is skeptical about many of these things, I appreciate the honesty. I’ll admit that when I push back, at times I go too far. I appreciate the reality check. I’ve been guilty of cherry picking data too. Thank you, and e need more people like you.
Calling this video “honest” is dishonest. He called the Rand corporation “a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization” not “the largest and most influential think tank in the US, and the largest spreader of propaganda” which sets off major alarm bells. Also that trying to disprove nuclear winter is one of the main goals of the RAND corporation And i just really don’t see how someone can compare a nuclear explosion to forest fires; they’re fundamentally different because nuclear fission is incredibly energy dense. In fact, a nuclear explosion would probably cause MORE cooling than a volcano eruption. Sure, overall there is more energy distributed by a volcano eruption, but thats because its spread out over a much larger area
@@Caffeine_Addict_2020 Well a volcano is underground. Most nuclear blasts will be air bursts that don't generate much fallout or the kind of dust a volcano would.
@@charliedontsurf334 This is true, but certainly a nuclear blast will push what particles it can far higher right? I'm definitely not speaking from any advanced knowledge or expertise, but I don't really see how we can compare the two situations
@@Caffeine_Addict_2020 Well as a military veteran I was taught how air burst nukes throw up a less more fallout than a ground burst. Underground is the best as it shouldn't kick up any. My comment on a volcano is just a guess based on that. I'm no volcanologist.
I was recently introduced to your channel by a friend, and I have to say, your content is phenomenal. From your ability to make numbers tell a compelling story, to your candor in admitting when you were wrong or if you simply don't know the answer. As a scientist that constantly finds myself frustrated with misrepresentations of data, and the ever-growing presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this video is a refreshing and positive take on an ongoing problem with our society. Keep up the great work, man. And I will look forward to watching future videos.
Over time I have learned that the reality, truth; is more often than not more complicated than it seems. Once that is understood you can begin the process of learning.
Collaboration with Rand Corporation should tell you everything you need to know about this video, before you watch. There seem to be a new wave of slick, well produced, "level headed takes" on certain subjects very similar to this video that have recently been getting attention on youtube....all, self-admittedly, created by corporate think tanks....this vid fits the archetype
Truly grand (and unfortunately also rare), this combination of knowledge and integrity. I am glad I found this channel. Truth is the most valuable and cherished thing in my life.
Nuclear winter may be unlikely as shown by the presented evidence. Still, I'm convinced that the full exchange would either way severely damage global and local infrastructure meaning no public services (including medical and safety measures), import of food and medical supplies, etc. Radiation would also pose long-term problems even for those who think they could fend for themselves by producing their own food. Also, almost entire northern hemisphere hovers around cold or freezing temperatures throughout the year even without nuclear winter. People would die off like flies with severed heat, electricity, and freshwater production (not all, but huge percentage).
But if you're honest and say "Nuclear war would really, really suck!" they'll treat it like it's not a threat. We can't sacrifice integrity and exaggerate either... It's a lose lose... They want to hide int heir rooms and tell themselves we're drama-queens and it will never happen. Even if we told them it had a 100% chance of ending humanity, they'd just question our credibility. You can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved.
Yea the majority of these comments under this delusional ass video are so far gone from reality it’s fucking hilarious. WW3 is death for 99.9999% of the human race Lmfao.
Agree. Nuclear winter was just one of many horrors facing post-nuclear-war people. Debunking it is useful but doesn’t lessen the terrible consequences of nuclear war.
This makes me feel good about the future human race. I don't think anything could ever justify using nuclear bombs, but it's reassuring to know that we could carry on if it happened. I honestly think this truth is a real inspiration to everyone who is scared about nukes and is worth sharing with others, thank you.
He is sponsored by the psychopaths in the US government who are lobbying for a nuclear war, the prospect is horrifying as they try to spur money on normalizing the end of time. They stopped hiding for awhile now... Its getting harder and harder to end all life as we know it and it make the few in power tremble. History will ask us soon enough why didn't we just take those narcissist out of their castles and end it all when the first fire an nuclear weapon in so called "limited exchange of nuclear warhead".
@@Bee.Holder No, nuclear stockpiles have decreased to the point that it’s no longer a threat to global civilization. Too the point some countries and even continents, would be pretty much untouched.
@@Barabel22 Nuclear arsenals are smaller than they were in the time of the Cold War era, but there are still about 13.000 nuclear warheads in the world today. Considering all the possible effects of full scale nuclear war, I personally wouldn't like to survive it though there are some delusional people who think that nuclear war can be won.
The current situation in Ukraine is showing us the catastrophic effects of large scale modern war even for those who are not in the war zone. If even a few big cities were nuked, the impact of the damage on infrastructure would be devastating, food, water, electricity at least regionally stopped, perhaps for a long time. The freeze that killed the TX power grid got fixed just in time to avoid mass deaths. If enough places get nuked, help is not coming. We could lose billions of people over the fertilizer/water/energy/food/supply chain problems that are not even covid or Ukraine related, they were already happening. A nuclear war could end modern life without radiation or nuclear winter.
A fantastic video about a very concerning topic that I've observed in action over at least the last 20 years. I really respect your honesty and commitment to the truth. I think there is inherent value in the truth, and now more than ever it's important that we commit ourselves to it.
This is such a great video, thank you for making and sharing it. If more people were open to critiquing their own biases this world would be an almost infinitely better place. I really wish the average person could do this.
Have you noticed the fact that he put in little white glitches in the scenes that illustrated clouds in nuclear winter, to show radiation? That was incredible! Loved it!
The main problem I have with the way climate change is addressed is the blame that is seemingly laid upon all people, rather than the governments, companies or groups who contribute the most. I think they do overstate things to galvanize support and manipulate emotions, I don't deny we have an impact on the planet. Transparency from the government would be nice, we know they cover stuff up and lie about how bad situations can actually be. Or they outright admit to manipulating weather patterns like they did in Vietnam(as if they stopped) or make "owning the weather as a force multiplier by 2025" as a military operation Again its portrayed as if we as the people are responsible and must change our lives, while we know they hold themselves to a different standard.
@aeAble, isnt it interesting that some of the prominent promoters of the "man made global warming/'climate change'" theories continue to own, develop, &/or buy properties on coastlines? They supposedly sincerely believe - they "know" - that the oceans are on the cusp of swamping + devouring the coastlines, yet, they're often going out their way to heavily invest & even live in the areas they "know" are basically momentarily about to be totally destroyed??? Right. Sure. The idea the ruling class - who unleashed practices like "one time use plastics" & who created the "obesity epidemic" - are responsible environmentalists &/or honorable wise leaders deeply concerned with & committed to the well being of the masses would be laughable were it not so tragically untrue. Yeah y'all, they care about our health & want us to thrive in all ways. Sure. That's why they have allowed highly "addictive" toxic obesity causing "products" like "diet" soda's to be sold & marketed as weight loss products for decades. And "forever chemicals." And "birth control" drugs/hormones that contaminate something like 56% of America's drinking water supply. And soy. And the sale of organs from "aborted" fetuses. And a whole lot more.
I love all of your videos! I'm currently a college student, and I love learning new information your videos are incrediblely informative. Whenever I think of an outstanding TH-cam channel I think of the content you create! I'm glad that you clarified this concept!
ummm... it was never my understanding that it was the subsequent fires that would cause the nuclear winter. First up, I want to applaud your commitment to the truth, even if telling it feels counter productive. Truth matters more than ever right now.. but on to my point.. Now to be fair, i will admit there is debate about what the effect of nuclear war would be, and projections are based on computer models, so depending on the parameters used you can get quite different results... but... There are a number of factors that contribute to nukes having a much stronger propensity for creating a significant global cooling event than forest fires, even if a comparable amount of energy is released.... and it's all about physics.. specifically thermodynamics... On the simplest level, It comes down to how much particulate matter is propelled into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) for the amount of energy released, AND the physical properties of that material (particle size, mass, emissivity, absorbance window, etc..)... and the biggest factors determining this are temperature and the material being combusted... Forest fires burn at 800°C (1472° F) to 1200°C (2192° F).. While quite hot, it is not even hot enough to melt iron let alone hot enough to vapourize most minerals, so the vast majority of particles from a forest fire are big, heavy complex multi carbon molecules which can have a cooling effect, but typically can't stay aloft for long, or things like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide (still heavier than "air" btw) which would not have a cooling effect ... Additionally the rising column of hot air from a forest fire cools quite quickly, with temperatures dropping from around 800 degrees to around between 50 to 100 degrees by the time you get just 50-60 meters or so above the top of the flames, let alone the full 20,000m to the bottom of the stratosphere .... So overall, even if a forest fire burns long enough to release the same total amount of energy as is released from a nuke, most of the burned material remains on the ground, or in the lower atmosphere and very little gets carried all the way up to the stratosphere as there is simply not enough energy available to carry this material that high. On the other hand, the temperatures at ground zero for a nuclear blast can reach 100,000,000°C... yes.. that's a 1 followed by 8 zeros! It's literally hotter than the sun... At this temperature nearly everything vaporizes and turns into a big burning ball of plasma, even metals! The heat is so intense and so concentrated it is EXTREMELY efficient at propelling (what will be) particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, easily carrying literal tonnes of material into the stratosphere with a single (large) blast. As the ball of plasma cools all that matter that was converted into a plasma condenses back into a gas, and then particles of solid matter. Many will act as nucleation sites for rain, or will quickly accumulate enough mass to rain back to earth, but a large amount of metallic nano particles will remain aloft for months to years! These type of particles have a disproportionate effect acting like sunscreen (think zinc oxide) for the planet! So as you can see it's not just a question of burning x amount of stuff, or releasing x amount of energy, it's about mechanisms and the insane physics that accompany a nuclear blast. While a single or even several nuclear blasts are unlikely to have a measurable difference on climate (beyond perhaps a short term local effect), once you start looking at anything more than a handful in short succession, the effect becomes more and more noticable, and if there was an all out nuclear war, chances are pretty good we really would be looking at a potentially extinction level event. Cheers!
A number of flaws in your argument here, I'm not going to point all of them out but here's the two big ones: 1. The extremely high temperatures you refer to reached in a nuclear blast last an extremely brief period of time, it's not going to continuously send particulate in the air the way a fire does. 2. You disregarded the fact most nukes would be air burst detonations. In such cases a lot more of any vaporized ground matter would be directed sideways, not straight into the stratosphere (some will still move up through the mushroom cloud). The amount has always been relatively little compared to the fires it would produce. For these reasons, when calculating nuclear winter scenarios it has always been mostly about the fires afterwards, which as you stated aren't so good at sending stuff high up and keeping it there. Because all the "serious" nuclear winter scenarios have been extremely reliant on the fires afterwards sending particulate high in the atmosphere and it lingering there for substantial periods of time to cause cooling, it is extremely likely that the effects predicted in those models are highly overblown.
@@SuperG4M3R45 Flaws there too. Though those extremely high temperatures are reach for an extremely small period of time, it is still sufficient to melt and boil most substances close to instantly, still making this plasma. Also, heat dissipates over time, so there will still be massive amounts of heat in these melted and boiled materials near the cities CBDs, most likely to be targeted with an air burst, still super-heated within the hours after the attack. The boiled materials made into gases would still rise, and in CBDs, where there are many materials, like plastics, that could boil after the hours of intense heat and the moment of infuriatingly high amounts of heat, would rise into the atmosphere. Also, though directed sideways in your second point, the blast *is* limited, and would most likely be directed sideways only within a radius of the blast that carries a higher air-pressure*, with a 400kt blast being around 9nm as a radius, within minutes of the attack. It would still be very, very hot and the gas would be very hard pressed* to dissipate enough heat to prevent rising very quickly. *hard pressed as in the phrase, not like being made denser. *for ‘higher air-pressure’, I mean higher than 0.5-1PSI
I'm sorry, but association with Rand Corp doesn't necessarily lend credence to the unusually timed U-turn. Particularly not on this subject. Let's not forget that Rand has in the past been responsible for an escalation I the arms race. Previously two of its members played a large part in making the H bomb a reality and several more invented the heat shield making ICBM's possible. Not for profit does not mean impartial. To date, 80% of their funding still comes from the Air Force.
This, it is fucking hilarious. The second I saw "Rand Corp" it's like oh, so it's bullshit. Like MEMRI do you know what Middle East Media Research Institute gets its funding from and where it is located? Washington D.C. It is bankrolled by a neocon think tank and Israeli military and intelligence. MEMRI is literally Israeli propaganda that has, rather ironically, done far more to humanize the Arab world to a Western audience in an unwittingly funny way than anyone else. No like literally, MEMRI has probably done more to make a good number of people like me sympathetic toward the Islamic world than any other singular source ever could have. I likewise find it absolutely fucking horrifying that USAF is apparently training people to simply believe atomic weapons are not a big deal. Which what this lends me to believe is when there was all those accusations of small tactical nukes being used on airfields in Iraq, that those might not even have been MOABs, it makes me wonder if the leaked videos from Iraq in the late 2000s and early 2010s with people talking about seeing the biggest explosion they'd ever seen and thinking it was nukes being used, what if that really is what's going on, and as part of their new military doctrine as usual narcissist/psychopath tactics, accuse the enemy of what you are yourself doing (deploying WMDs). I mean either way I've seen people on YT posting nonsense such as "we don't use nuclear weapons that big anymore, they're really not a big deal, using nuclear weapons is overblown as a threat, it's not gonna end the world." In other words like everything else in this scumfuck society, follow the money. Somebody, somewhere, is about to make a fuckton of money off of building new nuclear weapon systems. This is likely partly in response or having something to do with Russia's hypersonic missile systems. It should be added, that supposedly the Russians have been working on everything from detonating Yellowstone to flooding the Eastern seaboard with tsunamis. Regardless, I can assure every single American reading this, that virtually every single last one of every person you've ever loved is going to die, HORRIBLY if they are living in the suburbs or rural areas. Near none of the people you cared about will make it out or live more than five years after the nuclear war. You also will not have any America left. It'd be extremely difficult to even organize and maintain regional FEMA government zones, of which there are, I forget what it is now but there's something like 11 different FEMA zones for Continuity of Government operations last time I checked, maybe 7, idk what it is now. I mean either way, if you are not in Congress, you are not going to live. Think about that: the only people that may survive longer term, is Congress and the Senate. At least a good amount of them. Unless, God willing, Russian nuclear penatrators can justly punish them at Mount Weather and Ravenrock even as we punish Putin and his Boyars in their bunkers.
Honest mistakes are fine. Today the far bigger problem with the world is deliberate lies. Such as the ones from your sponsor of this video, which landed us here today.
I really appreciate this video. I tend to be pretty scientifically minded, but when I see exaggerated claims that don't pan out, it makes me REALLY skeptical about the intentions and scientific ability about the people making the claims. The whole point of science is to question everything, and to be able to disprove skeptical questions with facts and evidence. When scientists forget this, and start dismissing people's honest questions with insults instead of data, people of my temperament become really jaded and distrustful.
You've done it again! These videos are great and they use tonnes of data and sources which really backs up you points, the graphs are just mind blowing.
I simply do not get this comment. The title of the video is a question which never was answered in the video. This is quite strange... It simply did not citied any modeling result for any study which is about the topic. While half of the video is simply a major deviation from the topic instead at least discussing about the results. Because some scientist used current climate modeling software in the last 10 years. Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic. The result was even worse using the current knowledge. The some RL "validation" example of the video is simply meaningless. Compared to a full scale nuclear war the effect of the oil well fire of Kuwait is meaningless. It would be far better analogy that imagine lots of Pinatubo volcano activity in the same time for weeks. Not a single one.
Less than half of this video is about nuclear winter, and the actual scientific content amounts to a few minutes. Most of it boils down to 'calm down' about nukes, climate and covid. The nuclear winter argument largely consists of irrelevant comparisons. Australian wildfires burned a much larger area than Hiroshima, but wildfires burn in patches and lines that move across the landscape. High-yield airbursts over cities would ignite fires simultaneously over large areas, producing conflagrations that loft smoke to higher altitudes. The Kuwait oil fires also were not such conflagrations. On climate, you pull one quote that the melting of permafrost, releasing methane, isn't by itself enough to cause runaway global heating which humans would be unable to stop. But there are multiple positive feedback mechanisms that are accelerating climate change. The IPCC does not say that a runaway scenario has been ruled out. Human extinction is unlikely because it's a big planet with diffferent local circumstances and we are an adaptive, willful species. But a deep die-off of humanity is not unlikely and collapse of global civilization, a new Dark Age, can't be ruled out.
You're entitled to your opinions, but the truth of any particular issue isn't really the point of the video. The point is "consider your own bias" when seeking truth.
Hi Mark. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I can say that my own attitudes about nuclear winter, for most of my life, were closely in line with the way the threat was communicated to the public in 1983 - based on reading the famous Parade Magazine article and watching television programs at the time. Volcanic eruptions and asteroids were referenced a lot in these explanations, and such comparisons were central into my own understanding. That's why I feel it was natural to discuss them.
@@NeilHalloran Thanks for your thought proving video. However, I have a few concerns and questions. Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites you based this on? The reason I ask is that the recent scientific consensus (last 5 years) still appears to conclude that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia ("...involving numbers of weapons allowed under current treaties.") would cause a variety of catastrophic effects - cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a loss of over half of the Ozone layer, and a massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find scientific studies that support your updated optimistic position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects. If it is based on personal unqualified research you should make this clear in your video or notes, so people can assess your assertion. I know of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that claims that the climate effects would be minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper by Robock et al., (2007) that claimed that even a small nuclear war could cause severe global cooling and food shortages. However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone later, coupled with reduced global temperatures: Photosynthesis: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) Ozone: "Several modeling studies have shown that stratospheric temperatures would increase by more than 50 K and stratospheric ozone would undergo global destruction, even for a scenario where 5 Tg of soot is injected into the stratosphere (Mills et al., 2014; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007; Toon et al., 2007)." - (Coupe et al., 2019) Ozone: "For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" - (Bardeen et al., 2021) I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages: " We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply." Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012. Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., 2007, claming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
@@NeilHalloran Thanks for your reply. I would be as wary of optimistic epiphanies as of pessimistic assumptions. From a scientific standpoint, how severe a threat nuclear winter is has no bearing on how severe the climate crisis is and neither has any implications for the severity of covid-19. I think this is a very pointed criticism of this video, because its scientific content is very little, I have already pointed out some of its flaws, and the major part of the film is devoted to precisely this message of an optimism that somehow connects these topics.
Even without a nuclear winter; the overwhelming majority of industrial fertilizer, artificial non pollinating seeds and agricultural equipment manufacturing that is responsible for the consequential increase in crop yields of the past century, is located within the potential belligerent countries territories. Studies estimating planetary carrying capacity using preindustrial agricultural practices provide a range of 600-800 million as being sustainable in terms of a global population. Unfortunately released data from declassified belligerent parties war plans cite the destruction of fertile agricultural regions as a priority. Primarily using ground impact detonations. Which create a longer lasting radiation impact. And with the majority of global arable farmland located within the targeted northern hemisphere, planetary carrying capacity would be significantly reduced. With some modeling predicting a meager 200-300 million as being sustainable afterwards. Additionally the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing for both antivirals and antibiotics, along with medical equipment is produced by the belligerent countries. Loss of these facilities would compound the spread of disease along with subsequent conditions.
Sagan’s nuclear winter scenarios were primitive and he mainly focused on the atmospheric effects - it was closest to his own scientific discipline. Modern cities contain huge amounts of toxic combustibles that the Iraqi oil fires, volcanoes, and forest fires can’t match. Obviously energy infrastructure will be a prime target so no fuel and no fertilizer. You can add radiation from the deliberate targeting of nuclear plants and nuclear waste repositories, increased UV radiation, which will cause large amounts of flora and fauna death on its own, and ecosystem collapse. There’s easily available information from DoE (and some DoD think tanks) that makes Sagan’s nuclear winter scenario look like the soft option.
@@dongately2817 I think that's the problem with your argument, you'd think that the think tanks are the ones who really have all the true information, the thing is, the great part of them are fearmongers, who usually put political pressure, exactly like Sagan did, LOW and many, MANY official documents (Russian and American) state that those structures are civilian, and targeting civilian cities or infrastructure is considered illegal, it's a war against an enemy, not against humanity or the world, this sounds cynical, I know, but there's people who actually work on this stuff, and who make the rules when it comes to nuclear war. You've heard it before and now, it's just fear mongering. Also the UV radiation and depletion of the ozone layer it's bad science, doesn't have supporting arguments.
Actually nuclear weapons produce little long term radiation. Fallout radiation declines 90% every 36 hours. People started to rebuild in Japanese cities hit in a few days.
This is the first video I’ve ever watched from your channel. It’s truly amazing the points that you made and the level-headedness you showed when talking about these hot button issues. Will absolutely come back for more
A huge issue with overstating a risk is that it legitimizes the taking of more radical actions and reactions. We’re seeing a lot of that from both sides right now. Oversell the risk in order to sell people extreme “solutions”.
I'm not sure I've ever seen this channel before now. This guy is practically the Todd Grande of pop-science. Great video, great channel, and thanks for the content.
Former meteorologist here. I figured this out about a year ago and it shocked me to my core to the point that I only told a few people the truth. "A game where both sides lose." Perhaps so, but it isn't 'a game where ALL sides lose' as has been the general consensus. Mutually Assured Destruction, on a planetary level, is completely wrong and that's been the only thing keeping us from having at each other. I can certainly see why the misconception would be best kept circulating.
It's not quite that simple. MAD still comes into play in that any counter value exchange where adversaries target each other's population centers (or in counter force strategies where certain cities include targets of strategic value). So no, there might not be a massive nuclear winter. However, the economic and social impacts on both sides is likely to be sufficiently disastrous to act as an effective deterrent. It is also likely that the rest of the world will not be hurrying to the aid of the aggressor in such a situation. Any country involved in an exchange of sufficient size (which will likely be smaller than you think) would likely reduce a first world power to second world status for decades, and would likely ensure that country's economy would ever catch back up to it's competitors However, it is my understanding as a layperson with an interest in such things, that opinions are somewhat divided. Although the models from the 1990s that simplied that even a moderately small exchange could lead to global dimming and a major famine, more recent models implied that the impact on climate might be, as OP indicates but does not detail, less of a big deal. However, it is my understanding that climatologists where awaiting the next generation of numerical models before this question could be answered more definitively. I haven't seen any recently published papers to make me think otherwise. Is my thinking out of date?
Also, MAD was never supposed to mean "the end of humanity" but to the effectively guaranteed total destruction of your opponent in the event they decided to strike against you first. The concept of a global post war disaster may likely have had an additionally chilling (sorry) effect on planning around strategic nuclear war fighting, but it has never really slowed planning down. The only thing to (maybe) do that was the peace dividend for about nine years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Then it was back to business as usual.
Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites changed you opinions? The reason I ask is that the recent peer review papers (last 5 years) concluded that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia would cause catastrophic cooling and other catastrophic effects (modelled using current nuclear stockpiles). I cannot find any new research that provokes optimism. The current scientific consensus indicates a cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a catastrophic loss of over half the Ozone layer, and massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight. I am not able to find any scientific studies that supports an updated position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects than previously assessed. Rather, II see that the experts are all in agreement. A large scale Nuclear war would be catastrophic. That said, see there is some new research into small regional nuclear conflicts, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt each between India and Pakistan, that claims climate effects would be rather minimal, as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke lofted by smaller nuclear weapons would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper that claimed that a small nuclear war would cause severe global cooling and a global famine (Robock et al., 2007). However, this updated research does not appear to be applicable to large scale global nuclear exchanges between, e.g. NATO and Russia. That scenario would involve >1,000 >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke (soot and other small particles) into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer. Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think the video alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot can loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere. You have to also take into account other effects, asside from a decrease in temperature, the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone Layer:L "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019) And the destruction of the Ozone Layer, an Ozone reduction of 75% globally and 65% at the topics lasting 15 years (Bardeen et al., 2021). Interestingly, they find a small regional war (India and Pakistan) could cause Ozone levels to decrease by 25%, with recovery taking 12 years. "Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" I think over I think Neil's assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused only on temperature. References: Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange: Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079. Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543. Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056. Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13). Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590. Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages: " We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply." Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012. Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., (2007), claiming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling: Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772 Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
We are not overpopulated and we are not warming anymore than if we weren't here is my view. Awesome sir. Good addressing. Thanks for respecting opinions.
This video has more character, humility, and wisdom in it as I could ever ask for. There’s so much to take away from it I don’t even know where to start. Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
You can find out more about RAND’s research on Truth Decay here:
www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay/why-cant-we-agree-on-the-facts.html
You can read RAND's tips for how to tackle Truth Decay here:
www.rand.org/blog/2022/03/truth-decay-is-a-threat-to-democracy-heres-what-you.html
And if you really want to dig in, RAND’s full report is here:
www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html
HERE is The Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Really wish you could upload more your videos are so well done and explained really well 🙂
Amazing
Great VIdeo!
One thing that seems to often get missed when discussing COVID statistics is the number of people who have varioius longterm symptoms. Most COVID statistics seem to only consider death as a data point but that seems to be ignoring a large fraction of people who get life altering effects of covid such as asthma (and all the other things I'm sure we will discover over the years).
I tend to be on the side that we are spreading too much fear regarding COVID but in the theme of being intellectually honest I figured this point can't be omitted.
Truth above all with so much disinformation we need the truth more now than ever those willing to look upon themselves and check their work to see if it's truly right or wrongly should be done more often, the factual truth is better for humanity so we can understand what we can do about it.
I remember back in the 1980s there were several scientists who were quoted anonymously as saying that Sagan's nuclear winter was was totally wrong. Out of frustration, one journalist asked one such scientist, if he was so sure why didn't he state it on the record. He said, I don't want to sound like I'm arguing for nuclear war.
I have never heard of this . If you could tell even a single source I would greatly appreciate it. I love hearing things that confirm my thoughts but then I get skeptical on how much of it is true. If so , thank you in advance.
Yea I guess nobody wants to be the guy that goes " ahhh it's not that bad, it will be fine, really"
@@jimjimmy3131 it's been 4 months not everyone is terminally on line bro💀💀💀💀
@@mickieg1994 problem was that it becoming a common belief meant that there was massive underinvestment in civil defence measures with the logic that it was pointless. This would have resulted in many millions more unnecessary deaths due to a false belief being pushed by people with an agenda.
@@mickieg1994 yeah. Gotta go by your emotions instead of being logical bro
One of the largest reasons to not over report or dramatize the facts is because once skeptics or even unsure moderates see the ones who we've been told to trust are caught doing such, it creates even more uncertainty than there usually would have been compared to if those same authorities simply told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even if you gain more sympathy and support because of fear mongering the most extreme case, you lose the same amount of support from those who are genuinely trying to find the truth and were instead lied to. Great video!
This exactly. It's never a good policy to exaggerate even if you think the reasons are justified.
If only republicans treated their own stances with the same scrutiny as they do with people like Neil.
@@hejalll this definitely isn't a republican issue. It's extremely bi partisan. This can be represented by the fact that in the beginning of the COVID pandemic Trump and other Republicans claimed it came from a lab. Democrats were extremely against this narrative and called them all racist for thinking so. As we know today, according to the best leading evidence, it did indeed leak from a lab in Wuhan. Both parties are extremely flawed and flip flop on every issue as long as it supports their own party in the moment.
@@PresAlexWhit There's a lot of issues with this.
1. It is by no means consensus that it was leaked, it is however not ruled out entirely either. What cooporation has deemed it more probable than not, that it was leaked? And don't give me individuals.
2. Even if it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, in 2022, that corona was made in a lab. By no means did they have the necessary information to start spreading such a conspiracy by the beginning of corona.
@@Praise___YaH ok
The problem with overstating dangers is that once enough overstated dangers are recognized people are going to start believing that every danger is exaggerated, which you can already see happening in the world. Being dishonest about dangers leads to people nolonger believing in the stated danger.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf ;)
Being honest is more important than being right. Great job, Neil.
Thanks Zig
Actually he's still right, just more right because he can change his opinion with more information
I couldn't agree more, it takes a real man to admit when he is wrong, good on this guy.
Truth is more important than honesty
How tf does that makes sense?
This made me remember something my grandma recently told me due to certain anxieties from watching the news, “Honey, I’ve lived through so many supposed disasters than never happened, so many things that were supposed to kill us all that never did, I think we’re fine”. Even if this isn’t exactly an optimistic view, and a bit apathetic, it shows clearly one thing: the media can only be so dramatic and fearmongering for so long before people start tuning it out.
After the Soviet Union (Nukes), bird flu, swine flu, ebola, aids, overpopulation, the dissapearing ozone layer supposed to burn everyones retinas out, the recent c19 flue...I agree with your grandmother.
@@Joe-wy2bn Those are all things we did something about though.
The nations of the world took the ozone seriously and regulated CFCs.
Education and treatment brought AIDS under control.
Governments took bird and swine flu seriously and squashed it.
This dismissive attitude is what stopped them reacting ro Covid19 until too late, or climate change for that matter.
The humanity won't go extinct from it, not even close. But I am not reassured by it, a very significant part of the population will die and I might be among them. That will never be not terrifying.
@@BigPimp238 Yeah, both overreacting and underreacting serve a purpose as long as the balance ends up doing something about it. Everything is fear mongering until shit gets real, then you're either too late or owe your life to those that did too much just in case.
In such situation I claim that I already live in post-apo world and mention all the prior overhyped threats.
As someone who lived through the cold war I can assure you we were thinking about this scenario on the daily. Looking back on it were insane to think that was normal.
Or maybe it was totally rational to be on alarm mode and that saved us, maybe nuclear winter is overdramatic, but potential 100million dead people is worth being dramatic, isn't it?
Complete psy-op. Keep the people just a little terrified at all times and they will be easier to control.
@krazykarl Ever heard of Nagasaki? Perhaps you have seen how it went wuth the inhabitants of Hiroshima? Chernobil? The people living downwind of tests in the western states of the US and aborigines on the plains of Australia, not to mention the folks in the Pacific islands in the 1950's and how they got cancer, leukemia and birth defects? Pretty terrifying.
@@SofaKingShitthis dude would probably consider a bullet going through his skull as "psyop"
@@l.3626100 million? 8 billion is a closer answer.
The thing is, you don't even need nuclear winter to feel nuclear exchange is a bad idea. We've already seen how a global pandemic and the ensuing economic slowdown has already impacted the world at large. Imagine how wiping some of the world's largest economic centers would fuck up our current way of life
Idk, for me nuclear war seems less like a bad idea now
Exactly. The war drums are certainly being beat by US military industrial "think tanks" like RAND. The only sensible thing is negotiations, everything else is war profiteering. Every single life lost in war matters and we need to stop these conflicts at their root!
@@cowfat8547 That is imposing unfathomable pain onto others...
@@babalonkie for the good of the planet and the human race as a whole
@@cowfat8547 The planet is certain to succumb to space (Death) eventually without human intervention... and full nuclear war would decimate society... killing off the 50% of remaining struggling humans...
There is nothing good about Nuclear War...
The amount of personal integrity and decency in this video is staggering. The guy admits to things he has been wrong about,, and even admits that he doesn’t like to acknowledge the truth because it is at odds with his political identity, and as a result I now trust information coming from his channel even more, and I suspect I’m not alone. Other commentators and news outlets should take notes. This is how trust in news media can be restored.
It may hurt to admit when the facts don’t support your political views, but on the other hand, so does cognitive dissonance, and the only way to get rid of both sources of pain is to change your mind. So, just rip that bandaid off, when you discover that you are wrong about something.
The title of the video is a question which never was answered in the video. This is quite strange...
Half of the video is simply a major deviation from the topic instead at least discussing about the results.
Because some scientist used current climate modeling software in the last 10 years. Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic. The result was even worse using the current knowledge.
The some RL "validation" example of the video is simply meaningless. Compared to a full scale nuclear war the effect of the oil well fire of Kuwait is meaningless.
It would be far better analogy that imagine lots of Pinatubo volcano activity in the same time for weeks. Not a single one.
@@militavia-air-defense-aircraft yes and was down right lie. And Click bait-ite.
@@militavia-air-defense-aircraft
"Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic"
Sorry, but that's just wrong. The original study talked about a 20K colling of global average temperatures, 70% reduction of solar light and a possible extinction of our species. Modern studies DON'T support those values. The most modern climate projection on the subject find a reduction of 9.5K in global temperatures and 30-40% in solar light reaching the surface in the northern hemisphere [1]. And that's if we accept the premises adopted in the study that, one, the nuclear exchange would occur at the end of summer (maximizing the cooling effect); two, that cities would be specifically targeted; three, that 150 Tg of soot would reach the stratosphere (which is questioned by other recent models [2]). So, again, your statement is just plainly wrong.
[1] agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019JD030509
[2] agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331
Well said!
@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini
climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf
"Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences"
Do you have any question?
I want to express my deep respect for your approach in handling this sensitive subject. Your method of finding common ground on polarizing topics is impressive, and I admire it. I plan on sharing this video as an example of the importance of prioritizing facts over feelings, especially to those who hold conflicting beliefs. Thank you for setting a positive precedent that we can all learn from.
I can't say thank you enough for making this, it is so refreshing to hear someone admit that they made a mistake. We all do it. But we need each other to be honest so we can really get to what the truth might be.
Thanks so much! I agree.
Thank you Neil Halloran and RAND Corporation, its refreshing to realize that the strategic use of nuclear weaponry will not cause the calamitous effects previously claimed. This knowledge could not have come at a more apposite time, especially given Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's aggression towards Ukraine and the rest of the free world. So many political and military options (including pre-emptive first strikes among others) were for so long incorrectly thought of as 'unthinkable' due to unfounded apocalyptic 'consequences'....now we know better an can make better, more informed calculations and decisions. The timing of this study and film and the knowledge conveyed therein could not have come at a better time given our geopolitical stresses and threats....thank you.
As a nuclear physicist (neutron/proton structure research), I applaud you for taking this step to clarify the nuclear winter threat. I have long questioned the underlying assumptions that have gone into the early models for nuclear winter but didn't have the resources or connections to perform my own calculations. I even had a brief conversation several years ago with Dr. Robock about his work on even a limited war between Pakistan and India resulting in climate catastrophe. Again, I was ill equipped to argue the points so let it lay as is.
I am reminded of a quote from George E.P. Box. "All models are wrong. Some are useful."
Now, nearly 25 years after starting my career in physics, I have come to a disturbing conclusion. Scientists are absolutely capable of biased thinking and reporting and will bend the ear to anyone willing to listen. I suppose that is part of being human.
Haha. Questioning the Science makes you a Nutjob.
Even this Pandemic showed the danger of Overstating everything. Lost of precious Trust. Made worst when those in power like Fauci refuse to admit they are wrong and just say the correct data acting like that's what they've been saying all along.
I wrote this to Neil 2 days ago, I'm still waiting for a response:
@Neil Halloran Thanks for your thought proving video. However, I have a few concerns and questions.
Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites you based you claim that the threat of a nuclear winter is overstated.
The reason I ask is that the recent scientific consensus (last 5 years) still appears to conclude that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia ("...involving numbers of weapons allowed under current treaties.") would cause a variety of catastrophic effects - cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler than today), a loss of 65% of the Ozone layer, and a 40% decrease in photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight.
I am not able to find any scientific studies that support your updated optimistic position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects, that originally claimed in 1983. If it is based on personal research you should make this clear in your video or notes, so people can assess your assertions.
I know of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that now claims the climate effects would be relatively minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke they modelled, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper by Robock et al., (2007) that claimed that even a small nuclear war (India V Pakistan) could cause severe global cooling and food shortages.
However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer.
Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere.
You have to also take into account other effects, the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone later, coupled with reduced global temperatures:
Photosynthesis: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019)
Ozone: "Several modeling studies have shown that stratospheric temperatures would increase by more than 50 K and stratospheric ozone would undergo global destruction, even for a scenario where 5 Tg of soot is injected into the stratosphere (Mills et al., 2014; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007; Toon et al., 2007)." - (Coupe et al., 2019)
Ozone: "For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" - (Bardeen et al., 2021)
I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature.
References:
Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange:
Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079.
Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543.
Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13).
Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590.
Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages:
" We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply."
Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012.
Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., 2007, claming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling:
Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772
Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
@@Diamonddavej
Interactive comment on “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism”
by O. B. Toon et al.
M. MacCracken
Received and published: 22 January 2007
"All models are wrong, but some are useful" -George Box
The concept of "Nuclear Winter" was a clever disinformation ruse ordered up by Yuri Andropov, then head of the KGB. It has fooled the entire world.
@@ogzombieblunt4626 Yes, that paper is out of date, subsequent research denies that small regional nuclear wars e.g. between Pakistan and India (involving 100 x 15 kton atomic bombs) or individual terrorists attacks with a single or few atomic bombs, would have a serious effect on climate.
It appears that Neil took this new research, that applies strictly to very small nuclear exchanges, and inappropriately extrapolated it to a global nuclear war, WIII (1000s of warheads up to 1 megaton).
I explained this in my previous comment:
"However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer."
The calm and truthful way of explining these subjects is very good.
Hopefully you shed some light on radiation scares as well
Yeah makes his Lies sound like Fact! See how calmly he tells you Vx die at 48x Unvaccinated??? When in the last 2 years the Majority of deaths have been Vaxed and Boosted! Also Fails to mention the Onslaught of Young Men Dropping dead pf heart attacks on the Putch! Heart attacks are up 200% ages 18-43!!!!! That from England!!! Just imagine the Actual Numbers!! He is Dangerous! And should be held accountable when someone gives that Poi’s to their Child and their Heart explode!!
A good example of how overstated risks can lead to adverse outcomes is nuclear energy. The hysterical overstatement of the risks associated with nuclear energy has led to a situation where climate change is now a lot worse than it would otherwise have been.
Nuclear weapons are not nuclear energy, you fool.
How many more 3 Mile Islands, Chernobyls or Fukushimas would we have? Two evils
@@entrusted2387 I don't think so. Nobody died at 3 mile Island. In fact nobody had died from nuclear energy in the US to date. Very few people died at Fukushima, and most of the deaths were caused by the evacuation. Some people did die at Chernobyl, but it was the absolute worst case of what could happen. Even then, a lot fewer people have died than the number who die from coal pollution every year. People also die every year while installing solar and wind energy modules. When it comes to baseline electricity production, the kind of stable electricity that needs to run 24/7, our options are usually coal or nuclear in most parts of the world. Battery storage costs more than twice as much as nuclear. So if we have to choose betweeen coal and nuclear for baseline electricity in most parts of the world, then lets choose the safer, cleaner option.
I disagree somewhat N power is super dangerous and like with all human bullshit is made more dangerous because of intellectual property rights and MONEY..One of the key issues re climate is countries like India burning loads of Coal because the safest reactor designs are all protected by Intellectual rights and these Co's will NOT share..the same happened in the Pandemic, did the drug Co's Open Source their knowledge to make the best solution or did they all squabble over market share and the same intellectual rights?
@@musicilike69 statistically Nuclear is about as safe as wind and solar. The most dangerous is coal, which kills tens of thousands of people each year through air pollution. Nuclear is the only viable alternative to coal for baseload electricity production at this point.
Neil, I love your work, but this video needs a better thumbnail so that it can get the attention it deserves.
If that happens, people would probably just say this it looks too much like clickbait.
It definitely does, and it doesn't need to be clickbaity.
I _almost_ didn't click on this video until I checked the channel for a reminder of who this guy was. Once I realized, I clicked immediately of course, but not everyone will do that.
And possibly also need a better and more relevant title…?
But don't worry, they will get better in the future
Any ideas for a better thumbnail?
@@NeilHalloran -Kurzgezagt brachiosaurus with a huge text bubble reading “not really”-
Well, the idea first comes to my mind is the dust covered earth model in _The Shadow Peace Pt. 1_ (may some viewers still recognize this?), with large text “Famine? No. I was wrong”.
I think simpler would be better, hope my input helps…!
Thank you for covering this topic! It really botheres me, that extinction level nuclear winter is something so generally accepted that normal discussion about this is very hard. In my opinion it only slightly reduces the fear of a nuclear war, since an all out nuclear war would still be incredibly devastating, that noone can even think about risking it. But its important to know what to talk about. Also thank you for poiting out forest fires, which are a good example for what we could might expect in case of widespread fires due to a all out nuclear war.
i dont really care
@@aurrtt7115 so you don't care if you die?
@@nicbarth3838 you got it right broski
@@aurrtt7115 good for you man! I aim to be there one day
ur a bit of a strange guy. alcohol would fix u right up big man@@nicbarth3838
"In the nuclear world. The true enemy is war itself." From the film Crimson Tide.
Great line at the dinner table
no. its everyone you meet. you will be starving mad and will kill for food at no cost. you think this is just daisy's and gumdrops. its not. its fucking hell; and living through that will make you do things you would never have done in normal society. you ready?
This guy is like a shining light of reason in a world that seems to be increasingly ridiculous. Thank you for this amazing breath of fresh air.
here we have a comment written by an angst ridden dweeb who gets high off of their own farts.
yeah true, there's too much cash incentive to shock and awe in professional news nowadays, there used to be a greater divide between news and tabloids, now it's all getting mixed together for the sake of clicks and views :p
😂😂😂
Jesus is the light, leading people to heaven! If you are with God, no matter what happens on this Earth you will know that you will be going to be with your Creator for eternity!
16:31 Unpopular opinion: if I had to nitpick about this subject, it's the fact that I had first hand experience in seeing relatives and/or closed ones having very bad reactions after taking it. Luckily for me, their case wasn't nearly as bad as some others who told me their relatives died shortly after.
What I mean to say is: it's probably harmless for many people, but the doctors should help their patients into making an educated choice, because it's not harmless for everyone.
My partner, because of a very specific disability, chose not to take it, because it didn't go so well for people who had the same pathology a her who took it. She's fully aware that she's more at risk if she got sick, but taking it was not an option either. I don't envy her, because both are going to be bad for her. So we did all we could to avoid her getting sick.
Let me know if you want to talk about this privately (by e-mail for example).
The evolution of "news" and "facts" due to the internet's abundance of readily available information has had horrific consequences on us as a society. The fact that you had the courage to make this video, challenge mob rule, and potentially put your credibility at risk has given me the utmost respect for you as a content creator. I hope in the future that others may follow your lead and have the same capacity to admit their own biases and understand the consequences of overstating dangers and truth decay. Thank you.
Couldn't agree more, there's too much cash incentive to shock and awe in professional news nowadays, there used to be a greater divide between news and tabloids, now it's all getting mixed together for the sake of clicks and views :p
Same as back then, sagan is another golden calf that could be played for any psychosocial narrative, many such figures exist today
@@Ekstrax It's wild to me how much people still try and blame and bash 'mainstream news' when most of y'all dont actually follow mainstream news at all and get pretty much all your views from social media posts these days.
@@maynardburger lol also true, i for one still follow the mainstream news in my country but thats because its pretty good imo, if you know the preferred biases
mob rule is bairly problem, because we live under minority rule. no backlash will happen to this video mark my words.
The question isn't "will humans cease to exist", the question is "how miserable could life on earth become." The issue isn't "would we survive" but "would we want to." That's true whether you're talking about nuclear war or climate change. So when looking at the answers people are coming to, it's also important to look at the questions being asked. Doomsday questions are often being asked by those seeking clicks - the scientists themselves haven't framed things that way.
Those who’d survive the longest would be the ones who pressed the button in the first place. They’d be whisked away to their XYZ bunkers to drink champaign and eat like kings while the rest of us die due to their actions.
if such thing happens i would wish to be the in the first group to go, those post apocalyptic movies/books are not a joke, society would collapse in days, or weeks. If life is hard right now imagine how worse it would become to fight for your life every single day, not being able to trust anyone...
Guys, HERE is Our Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
"Would we want to," survive? Same for climate change as it is for nuclear war? Well got news for you the climate has already changed so you should just ask yourself now, do you still want to survive/live? Hopefully the answer is positive but if not at least we won't be troubled by your stupid analogies anymore. By the way approximately 520 nuclear bombs have been set off in the atmosphere since 1945 and we are all mostly fine.
@@theluftwaffle1 for how long? What sort of kings would get rid of their slaves? Without us the foundation they can do none of that, for long. If they ever went through with this I guess it would show how very very stupid we all are. For not changing this world even though nothing was stopping us (even our leaders obviously didn’t care, since they destroyed the very foundation keeping them able to eat and do things like kings) and for electing such stupidity.
Mr Neil, Honesty is the best policy and a gateway towards truth. 👍
This might be one of my favorite videos I've ever watched. Thank you for your frankness, Neil!
Factual arguments vs. Moral arguments.
I'll have to readjust my perspective to understand which of my beliefs are moral reactions and therefore overstated opinions. In fact, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that many, if not most, overstated opinions are simply a result of our fear that they have been understated.
It's odd to pit facts vs morals, as if they are opposites. In order to apply morals, facts must be the starting point. In order to interpret facts, morals must be used. They work hand in hand. Facts without morals is a road to dark ideas
I posted this and I hope to hear a response from him.
Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers you base this on?
The reason I ask this is that the recent peer review papers I could find, all concluded that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia would cause catastrophic effects e.g. cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a catastrophic loss of the Ozone, massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight.
I am not able to find scientific studies that support your updated position regarding global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other effects. If it is based on personal unqualified research you should make this clear in your video, or cite the studies that support your views.
I know only of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that claimed that the climate effects would be minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long.
However, this is updated research does not appear applicable to global nuclear exchanges between, e.g. NATO and Russia. That scenario would involve 1000 or more >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke (soot and other small particles) into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer.
Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere.
You have to also take into account the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight, that can last a decade or so:
"The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019)
And the destruction of the Ozone Layer, an Ozone reduction of 75% globally and 65% at the topics lasting 15 years (Bardeen et al., 2021). Interestingly, they find a small regional war (India and Pakistan) could cause Ozone levels to decrease by 25%, with recovery taking 12 years.
"Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change
lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies"
I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature.
References:
Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange:
Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079.
Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543.
Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056.
Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13).
Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590.
Papers that concluded that a small regional nuclear war (e.g. Pakistan and India) involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling:
Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772
Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
@@Diamonddavej Literally everything you said was discussed already.
The studies mentioned, etc.
This WAS the RAND corporation whom helped research this video, literally "Research and Development"
@@D-Vinko After 2 days spent looking for this mythical RAND study, I see that the first RAND Coperation study, into nuclear war and climate, was published in 1966 by E. S. Batten. The study was updated a couple of times, last in 1974, as far as I know. Batten concluded that a global nuclear war would cause severe global cooling of 2-3 Celsius:
Batten, E.S., 1966. The Effects of Nuclear War on the weather and climate, The RAND Corporation. RM-4989-TAB.
Batten, E.S., 1974. The atmospheric response to a stratospheric dust cloud as simulated by a general circulation model. RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA.
I cannot find a more recent, last few years, updated analysis by the RAND Coperation. The 1974 analysis is extremely out of date. Also, they are a think tank, and if such a study existes, it likely a syntesis of peer reviewed studies, the studies I read, which consistently conclude that a nuclear war between the US and Russia, with current stockpiles, would cause catastrophic climate and other effects.
If you know of a more recent RAND Coperation study, let me know.
That said, it's unlikely they published the study in peer review literature, I can't find it there.
The RAND Coperation, funded by the US government, they developed US policy on nuclear weapons. The RAND Cooperation and their leading expert, Herman Kahn, were the inspiration for the BLAND Coperation and Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
A RAND study on nuclear weapons is a bit like asking a US weapons manufacturer to write an essay on cluster bombs effects on civilians.
@@ThomasBomb45 They are opposites, because morality is rooted in sentimentality & empathy; it states "this must be so, because it *feels* right" and is inherently disconnected from an objective viewpoint, as opposed to empiricism or factuality which states "this must be so, because it *is* so".
There are numerous times in which what was factually necessary to achieve a goal was not morally justified, and vice versa. Morals are really just imagined guidelines that most people agreed upon in order to protect themselves in a society, it's not some existential constant and they certainly hold no weight in the face of facts.
I have been scared of a nuclear holocaust since I was 4 years old and I approve this message. I also approve the general intellectual honesty displayed.
Bro how did you learn about nuclear holocaust as a toddler? I amn't saying you didn't, I am just. Wth.
@@picklechin2716 I was born in Sweden in 78 and lived in fear of and was depressed by the prospect of nuclear war all my childhood. But I have to ask, did you listen to what he said?
@@picklechin2716 Oh I got your comment wrong, I was very awake as a toddler to what was going on (and therefore has a lot of memories from that time).
@@picklechin2716 Sry
@@persallnas5408 I would also be scared if I lived in Sweden. 🤢🤮
I went on a similar journey to this about 5 years ago when I started realising more and more risks where overstated once I had dug into them. It's a pattern in that "bad news" tends to propagate faster and further than "good news", even here it seems like you felt you couldn't make a video without the prompt of the "bad news" story of truth decay.
I really want to thank you for this video and I'll be trying to share it widely.
This reminds me of the whole “Ozone hole” debacle that happened a while ago. If you’ve ever wondered why you don’t hear about it anymore, it’s because we actually took action against it, set policies in order, and the ozone layer is by and large back to normal! Notice there wasnt a lot of reporting about how we actually solved an issue, the reporting was only done when the issue was there and could be made into a world ending disaster.
@@ksmi9109
“It’s like AIDS from the sky.”
“It’s going to end live on earth as we know it.”
That’s how the OZONE HOLE pseudo-apocalypse was sold to us .
Your revisionist history is merely more myth creation .
Here is some actual truth :
These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole.
They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon.
We are told that the Montreal Protocol saved us from Ozone Depletion ( this is the myth which you are promulgating ) .
But in actual truth , China ( which was by far the biggest CFC offender ) actually did very little post-Montreal Protocol .
It seems the Ozone Hole magically self-corrected.
And whatever happened to Acid Rain?
Acid Rain was supposed to kill all the plants and things , and subsequently devastate the food cycle and lead to mass extinction too .
Funny how that problem , TOO , just disappeared without anyone noticing 🤷♂️
@@ksmi9109 Well, it's not back to normal, but it is unequivocably headed that way. And as someone who was starting as an undergrad at the time and followed the topic, I can say there was lots of coverage of how the Montreal protocol addressed the problem: of the gradual phase out of CFC's in rough order of how bad they were for ozone. We are still in the phase out. The gradual approach angered some environmentalists who didn't think it was fast enough and would still lead to disaster. Predicting doom on the other end were some corporate stakeholders saying that we we would loose food refrigeration leading to d starvation and epidemics of food borne disease.. Some still tried to claim that CFC were not the cause or that the ozone hole was a natural phenomena. Sounds familiar.
They had less capacity for people to try to ihave their own facts, and they had Margret Thacher. A chemist by training she understood the reality of the science and brought other conservatives in, including Ronald Reagan along.
This was like a breath of fresh air after nearly drowning. Truth decay is worse than most people could even dream and it’s not tearing the country apart - it’s already done it. It’s impossible to have fact based discussions with people anymore because literally any discussion with someone from the “other side” becomes a debate that you have to win. Instead of a conversation on the facts and reality. Thank you for this video. I wish more people were like you.
What’s worse is when you disengage because you feel the only way to win is by doing something morally wrong like screaming a racial slur and, even when you know it’s wrong, those intrusive thoughts keep going in and for the sake of yourself and others you have to let the other side win.
Equally dislike it when others try to change my mind and can't let me have my own opinion (I don't force my opinion on them)
@@bigbadlara5304 exactly. That’s why I’ve been trying to distance myself from such extremist rhetoric. I used to consider myself a communist, but after interacting with actual communists who called me everything from the F slur to “Hitler’s strongest soldier” I have since distanced myself from them and the idea of communism and stateless society as a whole.
@@bigbadlara5304 This is hilarious, because this is EXACTLY part of the problem of what truth decay is - thinking your opinion holds some inherent value. We are not talking about personal preferences like what sort of pizza toppings you like, something that is 100% subjective and personal. We are talking about the determination of what is true or not. Opinions can straight up be WRONG and when they are, it needs to be called out. If you cant handle this, then you are not ready for actual mature discussion and are a prime example of the worsening problem we're facing where people think what they 'feel' takes priority over what is real.
@@maynardburger no, my opinions have changed tons of times. Above I am talking about people who force their opinion on me. They don't want to change their mind and don't accept that I have a different opinion even though I accept they have a different opinion.
This has to be the most beautiful Video I have ever watched….. How you explain and see the other point of view even if it differed from your own and recognize where you might have gone wrong with different videos is astounding….. Amazing work
The quality of these videos are on a level unseen on this platform, and anywhere else for that matter. That you make these brilliant videos and share them for free is amazing. Your content deserves A LOT more recognition. Keep up the great work!
Thanks DT!
Great video man! This debate needs to happen more. I graduated from journalism school a few weeks ago and misinformation is by far the biggest threat and challenge that we face. This video for sure has given me different views on how to operate around facts and overstatements, and the media needs this even though we still have good journalists out there.
It’s just that the good journalists are drowned out by the voices of countless political propagandists that call themselves “objective journalists”
This and Neil’s other content is so superb. Just wish there was more. Though I suppose a tremendous amount of work went into each video.
Great video. While nuclear winter and climate change by themselves may not be world-ending events, civilization as we know it, seems pretty fragile. The compounding of things like these, along with conventional wars, terrorism, culture wars, natural catastrophes, and truth decay, may be enough to disrupt civilization to the point that life will become as uncertain as it was in the Dark Ages.
Thank you for your integrity. And thank you for respecting your viewers.
I think you are one of one of the most wholesome youtubers I've stumbled upon, your honesty and desire help us understand facts and have a common ground is inspiring, keep up the good work!
Your content is so underrated. I love how detailed everything was. Calling this great is an understatement.
This is easily the best video I've seen in years. Thanks. FWIW I am sure I'm in the minority of your viewers, in that I was already aware of Rand's 'Truth Decay' study, and had read some of the higher level summaries. I know and respect several folks at Rand. I find the polarization of US society perhaps one of the most horrific trends of my lifetime, in that it so severely limits all of the progress we could make as a nation, and as a global leader. I support any legitimate effort to mitigate and reduce it, and this video is one of the more heartening things I've seen. Again, thanks.
I can’t say I agree with you on all your opinions, but I can respect you’re willingness to be as open as you are and looking into the facts. That’s how discourse should be, we might not agree with everything but we can still talk about things and try and come up with solutions to problems to make a better tomorrow, for everyone.
Oh my GOD! the king has returned (I know you didn't really leave), thank you so much for the insanely good uploads, overall quality, and effort you put into your videos .Seriously one of the best (and somehow still underrated) content creators I have ever seen
I didn't know who he was until he referenced his own video which I watched and loved and then I went Oh my GOD! (as well)
Thanks Drako!
I have a lot of respect that you made this video, and I think it's a very important point to make.
I'm very much convinced of the reality of climate change and other forms of environmental destruction, but I am a staunch opponent of preaching nothing but doom and gloom.
I've noticed that a number of people in my generation will say things like "what's the point in even trying? Even if we somehow survive climate disaster we'll just get hit by an asteroid or the Yellowstone volcano will explode. Humanity sucks and we deserve what's coming our way."
Besides being an extremely fatalistic view of the future, and one that I've found to be alarmingly common, I think it is a self fulfilling prophecy if we let it perpetuate.
People are desperate to believe things are worse than they are. We need to properly frame the magnitude of such potential disasters we might face (and asteroids and the Yellowstone volcano are far down the list by the way) but we face a great danger but playing up the danger.
Some think this will be a "scare em' straight" strategy where we convince the people in power that everything will go to hell if they don't do something. In reality these people haven't done nearly as much, and all we've done is succeeded in terrifying the general public, who has less power to incite change.
I argue then that this fear has led many to paralysis. They have become so convinced the situation is awful that they give up wanting to try. It is a harrowing outcome, and it is I think, a coping mechanism that removes from our species the responsibility of having to clean up our mess.
But I am slowly seeing more positive climate reporting. We need to continue to show an accurate depiction of what can happen, and what problems need to be addressed, but having the caveat "but we can figure this out" I think is sorely needed.
I think there is hope. Nothing will change unless we believe it will. We need to have hope that we have the power to create change, and have greater faith in humanity that others will choose to join in the fight.
Very well said
I whole heartedly agree with every single word and sentence that was said in this comments. Finally someone isn't having such a hopeless misanthropic view like this.
Let’s just hope the nuclear war is quick and swift… and starts in the mid Atlantic, East Coast, US… right at about the border between Virginia and North Carolina.
Guys, HERE is The Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Wasatch Wind ("@Wasatch Wind") I've looked at 100 years temperatures data across the U.S. and it shows a definite cooling trend. So be careful of what you wish, earth could turn into an ice ball by reducing CO2 levels.
Dude shoutout to you for being able to balance views from both sides on these issues. Very few people are able to do that today.
It’s nice to see incredible creators such as In a Nutshell getting involved with your channel.
I do not like "in a nutshell"
@@goyonman9655 elaborate.
@@techypriest7523 usually people call him "kurzgesagt"
@@goyonman9655 I'm commenting here because I want to know why as well.
I genuinely love everything about the videos you make. Thank you for these great insights.
The biggest problem for Nuclear weapons are in their EMP and Neutron Flash variants. One eliminates logistics completely, potentially killing millions of civilians due to congestion and supply not reaching urban centers. The other *kills* anything organic in the blast zone almost immediately, particularly if the flash can be made with high energy particles (gamma rays essentially) that penetrate meters upon meters of blockage essencially allowing the killzone to increase beyond the visible blast, while leaving machines intact.
Nuclear weapons may not be the end all be all destructive force if we contrast it with fictional tellings, but they remain the death of societies. Actually destroying the planet is a level of destruction no military would bother to even research given the pointlessness of such a weapon. How would you like to fire a double barrel shotgun where the second barrel always backfires in your face? Yeah, didn't think so.
The truth is always worth telling. Thank you for making this video Neil Halloran.
Even though you have a very small amount of videos, the quality is insane. Always happy to click on one. Keep up the great work!
Got to say, I'm very impressed with your objectivity and willingness to admit an error. You've earned my subscription today.
Neil, thanks for being part of the solution! I'm grateful for the way you talk about difficult topics
As someone who is skeptical about many of these things, I appreciate the honesty. I’ll admit that when I push back, at times I go too far. I appreciate the reality check. I’ve been guilty of cherry picking data too. Thank you, and e need more people like you.
Calling this video “honest” is dishonest. He called the Rand corporation “a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization” not “the largest and most influential think tank in the US, and the largest spreader of propaganda” which sets off major alarm bells. Also that trying to disprove nuclear winter is one of the main goals of the RAND corporation
And i just really don’t see how someone can compare a nuclear explosion to forest fires; they’re fundamentally different because nuclear fission is incredibly energy dense. In fact, a nuclear explosion would probably cause MORE cooling than a volcano eruption. Sure, overall there is more energy distributed by a volcano eruption, but thats because its spread out over a much larger area
@@Caffeine_Addict_2020 Well a volcano is underground. Most nuclear blasts will be air bursts that don't generate much fallout or the kind of dust a volcano would.
@@charliedontsurf334 This is true, but certainly a nuclear blast will push what particles it can far higher right? I'm definitely not speaking from any advanced knowledge or expertise, but I don't really see how we can compare the two situations
@@Caffeine_Addict_2020 Well as a military veteran I was taught how air burst nukes throw up a less more fallout than a ground burst. Underground is the best as it shouldn't kick up any. My comment on a volcano is just a guess based on that. I'm no volcanologist.
You sound like the most professional and respectful academic man i have ever heard in my life
I was recently introduced to your channel by a friend, and I have to say, your content is phenomenal. From your ability to make numbers tell a compelling story, to your candor in admitting when you were wrong or if you simply don't know the answer. As a scientist that constantly finds myself frustrated with misrepresentations of data, and the ever-growing presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this video is a refreshing and positive take on an ongoing problem with our society. Keep up the great work, man. And I will look forward to watching future videos.
Over time I have learned that the reality, truth; is more often than not more complicated than it seems. Once that is understood you can begin the process of learning.
Nuclear weapons are fake. Good luck.
Collaboration with Rand Corporation should tell you everything you need to know about this video, before you watch.
There seem to be a new wave of slick, well produced, "level headed takes" on certain subjects very similar to this video that have recently been getting attention on youtube....all, self-admittedly, created by corporate think tanks....this vid fits the archetype
Another video from Neil? Wow! Keep them coming!
Actually honest and has integrity. This is the dude I want a genuine discussions with.
A coherent and honest TH-cam channel?!? What year is this?
Truly grand (and unfortunately also rare), this combination of knowledge and integrity.
I am glad I found this channel. Truth is the most valuable and cherished thing in my life.
To the uploader, honesty is the best policy, you did the right thing. Thank you.
Nuclear winter may be unlikely as shown by the presented evidence. Still, I'm convinced that the full exchange would either way severely damage global and local infrastructure meaning no public services (including medical and safety measures), import of food and medical supplies, etc. Radiation would also pose long-term problems even for those who think they could fend for themselves by producing their own food. Also, almost entire northern hemisphere hovers around cold or freezing temperatures throughout the year even without nuclear winter. People would die off like flies with severed heat, electricity, and freshwater production (not all, but huge percentage).
But if you're honest and say "Nuclear war would really, really suck!" they'll treat it like it's not a threat. We can't sacrifice integrity and exaggerate either... It's a lose lose...
They want to hide int heir rooms and tell themselves we're drama-queens and it will never happen. Even if we told them it had a 100% chance of ending humanity, they'd just question our credibility.
You can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved.
You get it. You bring up great points on just staying warm. If your home is 32 F/ 0 C that is very frigid
Yea the majority of these comments under this delusional ass video are so far gone from reality it’s fucking hilarious. WW3 is death for 99.9999% of the human race Lmfao.
Agree. Nuclear winter was just one of many horrors facing post-nuclear-war people. Debunking it is useful but doesn’t lessen the terrible consequences of nuclear war.
You're one of the most logical people I've ever heard speak. Please don't stop making these videos.
I appreciate you coming out and admitting that the truth is better than fear mongering.
This makes me feel good about the future human race. I don't think anything could ever justify using nuclear bombs, but it's reassuring to know that we could carry on if it happened. I honestly think this truth is a real inspiration to everyone who is scared about nukes and is worth sharing with others, thank you.
He is sponsored by the psychopaths in the US government who are lobbying for a nuclear war, the prospect is horrifying as they try to spur money on normalizing the end of time. They stopped hiding for awhile now... Its getting harder and harder to end all life as we know it and it make the few in power tremble. History will ask us soon enough why didn't we just take those narcissist out of their castles and end it all when the first fire an nuclear weapon in so called "limited exchange of nuclear warhead".
"We could carry on", sure, from the new stone age.
@@Bee.Holder it's 50/50 some say yes some say no, I like how we live now.
@@Bee.Holder No, nuclear stockpiles have decreased to the point that it’s no longer a threat to global civilization. Too the point some countries and even continents, would be pretty much untouched.
@@Barabel22 Nuclear arsenals are smaller than they were in the time of the Cold War era, but there are still about 13.000 nuclear warheads in the world today. Considering all the possible effects of full scale nuclear war, I personally wouldn't like to survive it though there are some delusional people who think that nuclear war can be won.
He is really is worth listening to! He is honest enough to admit when he gets something wrong!
The current situation in Ukraine is showing us the catastrophic effects of large scale modern war even for those who are not in the war zone. If even a few big cities were nuked, the impact of the damage on infrastructure would be devastating, food, water, electricity at least regionally stopped, perhaps for a long time. The freeze that killed the TX power grid got fixed just in time to avoid mass deaths. If enough places get nuked, help is not coming. We could lose billions of people over the fertilizer/water/energy/food/supply chain problems that are not even covid or Ukraine related, they were already happening. A nuclear war could end modern life without radiation or nuclear winter.
@@blackmagnetica8714 dumb
Brilliant as always!
This video is a deep breath of fresh air. Thanks so much for making this
A fantastic video about a very concerning topic that I've observed in action over at least the last 20 years. I really respect your honesty and commitment to the truth. I think there is inherent value in the truth, and now more than ever it's important that we commit ourselves to it.
This is such a great video, thank you for making and sharing it. If more people were open to critiquing their own biases this world would be an almost infinitely better place. I really wish the average person could do this.
Wow. Your comments on your Covid stance in retrospect were so fresh,so honest... I congratulate you. Thank you.
Have you noticed the fact that he put in little white glitches in the scenes that illustrated clouds in nuclear winter, to show radiation? That was incredible! Loved it!
Neil is the definition of *Quality*
Thanks Pax!
The main problem I have with the way climate change is addressed is the blame that is seemingly laid upon all people, rather than the governments, companies or groups who contribute the most.
I think they do overstate things to galvanize support and manipulate emotions, I don't deny we have an impact on the planet.
Transparency from the government would be nice, we know they cover stuff up and lie about how bad situations can actually be.
Or they outright admit to manipulating weather patterns like they did in Vietnam(as if they stopped) or make "owning the weather as a force multiplier by 2025" as a military operation
Again its portrayed as if we as the people are responsible and must change our lives, while we know they hold themselves to a different standard.
@aeAble, isnt it interesting that some of the prominent promoters of the "man made global warming/'climate change'" theories continue to own, develop, &/or buy properties on coastlines?
They supposedly sincerely believe - they "know" - that the oceans are on the cusp of swamping + devouring the coastlines, yet, they're often going out their way to heavily invest & even live in the areas they "know" are basically momentarily about to be totally destroyed???
Right. Sure.
The idea the ruling class - who unleashed practices like "one time use plastics" & who created the "obesity epidemic" - are responsible environmentalists &/or honorable wise leaders deeply concerned with & committed to the well being of the masses would be laughable were it not so tragically untrue.
Yeah y'all, they care about our health & want us to thrive in all ways. Sure. That's why they have allowed highly "addictive" toxic obesity causing "products" like "diet" soda's to be sold & marketed as weight loss products for decades. And "forever chemicals." And "birth control" drugs/hormones that contaminate something like 56% of America's drinking water supply. And soy. And the sale of organs from "aborted" fetuses.
And a whole lot more.
I love all of your videos! I'm currently a college student, and I love learning new information your videos are incrediblely informative. Whenever I think of an outstanding TH-cam channel I think of the content you create! I'm glad that you clarified this concept!
ummm... it was never my understanding that it was the subsequent fires that would cause the nuclear winter.
First up, I want to applaud your commitment to the truth, even if telling it feels counter productive. Truth matters more than ever right now.. but on to my point..
Now to be fair, i will admit there is debate about what the effect of nuclear war would be, and projections are based on computer models, so depending on the parameters used you can get quite different results... but...
There are a number of factors that contribute to nukes having a much stronger propensity for creating a significant global cooling event than forest fires, even if a comparable amount of energy is released.... and it's all about physics.. specifically thermodynamics... On the simplest level, It comes down to how much particulate matter is propelled into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) for the amount of energy released, AND the physical properties of that material (particle size, mass, emissivity, absorbance window, etc..)... and the biggest factors determining this are temperature and the material being combusted...
Forest fires burn at 800°C (1472° F) to 1200°C (2192° F).. While quite hot, it is not even hot enough to melt iron let alone hot enough to vapourize most minerals, so the vast majority of particles from a forest fire are big, heavy complex multi carbon molecules which can have a cooling effect, but typically can't stay aloft for long, or things like carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide (still heavier than "air" btw) which would not have a cooling effect ...
Additionally the rising column of hot air from a forest fire cools quite quickly, with temperatures dropping from around 800 degrees to around between 50 to 100 degrees by the time you get just 50-60 meters or so above the top of the flames, let alone the full 20,000m to the bottom of the stratosphere .... So overall, even if a forest fire burns long enough to release the same total amount of energy as is released from a nuke, most of the burned material remains on the ground, or in the lower atmosphere and very little gets carried all the way up to the stratosphere as there is simply not enough energy available to carry this material that high.
On the other hand, the temperatures at ground zero for a nuclear blast can reach 100,000,000°C... yes.. that's a 1 followed by 8 zeros! It's literally hotter than the sun... At this temperature nearly everything vaporizes and turns into a big burning ball of plasma, even metals!
The heat is so intense and so concentrated it is EXTREMELY efficient at propelling (what will be) particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, easily carrying literal tonnes of material into the stratosphere with a single (large) blast. As the ball of plasma cools all that matter that was converted into a plasma condenses back into a gas, and then particles of solid matter.
Many will act as nucleation sites for rain, or will quickly accumulate enough mass to rain back to earth, but a large amount of metallic nano particles will remain aloft for months to years! These type of particles have a disproportionate effect acting like sunscreen (think zinc oxide) for the planet!
So as you can see it's not just a question of burning x amount of stuff, or releasing x amount of energy, it's about mechanisms and the insane physics that accompany a nuclear blast.
While a single or even several nuclear blasts are unlikely to have a measurable difference on climate (beyond perhaps a short term local effect), once you start looking at anything more than a handful in short succession, the effect becomes more and more noticable, and if there was an all out nuclear war, chances are pretty good we really would be looking at a potentially extinction level event.
Cheers!
A number of flaws in your argument here, I'm not going to point all of them out but here's the two big ones:
1. The extremely high temperatures you refer to reached in a nuclear blast last an extremely brief period of time, it's not going to continuously send particulate in the air the way a fire does.
2. You disregarded the fact most nukes would be air burst detonations. In such cases a lot more of any vaporized ground matter would be directed sideways, not straight into the stratosphere (some will still move up through the mushroom cloud). The amount has always been relatively little compared to the fires it would produce.
For these reasons, when calculating nuclear winter scenarios it has always been mostly about the fires afterwards, which as you stated aren't so good at sending stuff high up and keeping it there. Because all the "serious" nuclear winter scenarios have been extremely reliant on the fires afterwards sending particulate high in the atmosphere and it lingering there for substantial periods of time to cause cooling, it is extremely likely that the effects predicted in those models are highly overblown.
@@SuperG4M3R45 Flaws there too. Though those extremely high temperatures are reach for an extremely small period of time, it is still sufficient to melt and boil most substances close to instantly, still making this plasma. Also, heat dissipates over time, so there will still be massive amounts of heat in these melted and boiled materials near the cities CBDs, most likely to be targeted with an air burst, still super-heated within the hours after the attack. The boiled materials made into gases would still rise, and in CBDs, where there are many materials, like plastics, that could boil after the hours of intense heat and the moment of infuriatingly high amounts of heat, would rise into the atmosphere. Also, though directed sideways in your second point, the blast *is* limited, and would most likely be directed sideways only within a radius of the blast that carries a higher air-pressure*, with a 400kt blast being around 9nm as a radius, within minutes of the attack. It would still be very, very hot and the gas would be very hard pressed* to dissipate enough heat to prevent rising very quickly.
*hard pressed as in the phrase, not like being made denser. *for ‘higher air-pressure’, I mean higher than 0.5-1PSI
I'm sorry, but association with Rand Corp doesn't necessarily lend credence to the unusually timed U-turn. Particularly not on this subject. Let's not forget that Rand has in the past been responsible for an escalation I the arms race. Previously two of its members played a large part in making the H bomb a reality and several more invented the heat shield making ICBM's possible.
Not for profit does not mean impartial. To date, 80% of their funding still comes from the Air Force.
This, it is fucking hilarious. The second I saw "Rand Corp" it's like oh, so it's bullshit. Like MEMRI do you know what Middle East Media Research Institute gets its funding from and where it is located? Washington D.C. It is bankrolled by a neocon think tank and Israeli military and intelligence. MEMRI is literally Israeli propaganda that has, rather ironically, done far more to humanize the Arab world to a Western audience in an unwittingly funny way than anyone else. No like literally, MEMRI has probably done more to make a good number of people like me sympathetic toward the Islamic world than any other singular source ever could have.
I likewise find it absolutely fucking horrifying that USAF is apparently training people to simply believe atomic weapons are not a big deal. Which what this lends me to believe is when there was all those accusations of small tactical nukes being used on airfields in Iraq, that those might not even have been MOABs, it makes me wonder if the leaked videos from Iraq in the late 2000s and early 2010s with people talking about seeing the biggest explosion they'd ever seen and thinking it was nukes being used, what if that really is what's going on, and as part of their new military doctrine as usual narcissist/psychopath tactics, accuse the enemy of what you are yourself doing (deploying WMDs). I mean either way I've seen people on YT posting nonsense such as "we don't use nuclear weapons that big anymore, they're really not a big deal, using nuclear weapons is overblown as a threat, it's not gonna end the world."
In other words like everything else in this scumfuck society, follow the money. Somebody, somewhere, is about to make a fuckton of money off of building new nuclear weapon systems. This is likely partly in response or having something to do with Russia's hypersonic missile systems.
It should be added, that supposedly the Russians have been working on everything from detonating Yellowstone to flooding the Eastern seaboard with tsunamis.
Regardless, I can assure every single American reading this, that virtually every single last one of every person you've ever loved is going to die, HORRIBLY if they are living in the suburbs or rural areas. Near none of the people you cared about will make it out or live more than five years after the nuclear war. You also will not have any America left. It'd be extremely difficult to even organize and maintain regional FEMA government zones, of which there are, I forget what it is now but there's something like 11 different FEMA zones for Continuity of Government operations last time I checked, maybe 7, idk what it is now. I mean either way, if you are not in Congress, you are not going to live. Think about that: the only people that may survive longer term, is Congress and the Senate. At least a good amount of them. Unless, God willing, Russian nuclear penatrators can justly punish them at Mount Weather and Ravenrock even as we punish Putin and his Boyars in their bunkers.
Honest mistakes are fine. Today the far bigger problem with the world is deliberate lies. Such as the ones from your sponsor of this video, which landed us here today.
I really appreciate this video. I tend to be pretty scientifically minded, but when I see exaggerated claims that don't pan out, it makes me REALLY skeptical about the intentions and scientific ability about the people making the claims. The whole point of science is to question everything, and to be able to disprove skeptical questions with facts and evidence. When scientists forget this, and start dismissing people's honest questions with insults instead of data, people of my temperament become really jaded and distrustful.
I love seeing a different perspective for theories that are generally agreed upon as fact. Thanks and continue to do it!
You've done it again! These videos are great and they use tonnes of data and sources which really backs up you points, the graphs are just mind blowing.
Thanks so much Scott!
I simply do not get this comment. The title of the video is a question which never was answered in the video. This is quite strange...
It simply did not citied any modeling result for any study which is about the topic.
While half of the video is simply a major deviation from the topic instead at least discussing about the results.
Because some scientist used current climate modeling software in the last 10 years.
Their finding was that the original 80s study is optimistic. The result was even worse using the current knowledge.
The some RL "validation" example of the video is simply meaningless. Compared to a full scale nuclear war the effect of the oil well fire of Kuwait is meaningless.
It would be far better analogy that imagine lots of Pinatubo volcano activity in the same time for weeks. Not a single one.
Less than half of this video is about nuclear winter, and the actual scientific content amounts to a few minutes. Most of it boils down to 'calm down' about nukes, climate and covid. The nuclear winter argument largely consists of irrelevant comparisons. Australian wildfires burned a much larger area than Hiroshima, but wildfires burn in patches and lines that move across the landscape. High-yield airbursts over cities would ignite fires simultaneously over large areas, producing conflagrations that loft smoke to higher altitudes. The Kuwait oil fires also were not such conflagrations. On climate, you pull one quote that the melting of permafrost, releasing methane, isn't by itself enough to cause runaway global heating which humans would be unable to stop. But there are multiple positive feedback mechanisms that are accelerating climate change. The IPCC does not say that a runaway scenario has been ruled out. Human extinction is unlikely because it's a big planet with diffferent local circumstances and we are an adaptive, willful species. But a deep die-off of humanity is not unlikely and collapse of global civilization, a new Dark Age, can't be ruled out.
What I heard was 'we were wrong then, but believe us now'.
You're entitled to your opinions, but the truth of any particular issue isn't really the point of the video. The point is "consider your own bias" when seeking truth.
Hi Mark. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I can say that my own attitudes about nuclear winter, for most of my life, were closely in line with the way the threat was communicated to the public in 1983 - based on reading the famous Parade Magazine article and watching television programs at the time. Volcanic eruptions and asteroids were referenced a lot in these explanations, and such comparisons were central into my own understanding. That's why I feel it was natural to discuss them.
@@NeilHalloran Thanks for your thought proving video. However, I have a few concerns and questions.
Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites you based this on?
The reason I ask is that the recent scientific consensus (last 5 years) still appears to conclude that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia ("...involving numbers of weapons allowed under current treaties.") would cause a variety of catastrophic effects - cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a loss of over half of the Ozone layer, and a massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight.
I am not able to find scientific studies that support your updated optimistic position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects. If it is based on personal unqualified research you should make this clear in your video or notes, so people can assess your assertion.
I know of some new research into small regional nuclear exchanges, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt between India and Pakistan, that claims that the climate effects would be minimal as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke, lofted by smaller nuclear weapons, would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper by Robock et al., (2007) that claimed that even a small nuclear war could cause severe global cooling and food shortages.
However, this is updated research does not appear to be applicable to a global nuclear exchange between, e.g. NATO and Russia, a scenario would involve several thousand >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer.
Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think you alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot does indeed loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere.
You have to also take into account the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone later, coupled with reduced global temperatures:
Photosynthesis: "The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019)
Ozone: "Several modeling studies have shown that stratospheric temperatures would increase by more than 50 K and stratospheric ozone would undergo global destruction, even for a scenario where 5 Tg of soot is injected into the stratosphere (Mills et al., 2014; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007; Toon et al., 2007)." - (Coupe et al., 2019)
Ozone: "For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies" - (Bardeen et al., 2021)
I think over all your assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused on temperature.
References:
Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange:
Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079.
Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543.
Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13).
Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590.
Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages:
" We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply."
Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012.
Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., 2007, claming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling:
Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772
Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
@@NeilHalloran Thanks for your reply. I would be as wary of optimistic epiphanies as of pessimistic assumptions. From a scientific standpoint, how severe a threat nuclear winter is has no bearing on how severe the climate crisis is and neither has any implications for the severity of covid-19. I think this is a very pointed criticism of this video, because its scientific content is very little, I have already pointed out some of its flaws, and the major part of the film is devoted to precisely this message of an optimism that somehow connects these topics.
Congratulations Sir, for being honest and an example to us all!
Dude I so admire you for doing this video. THIS is how science should guide us
Even without a nuclear winter; the overwhelming majority of industrial fertilizer, artificial non pollinating seeds and agricultural equipment manufacturing that is responsible for the consequential increase in crop yields of the past century, is located within the potential belligerent countries territories. Studies estimating planetary carrying capacity using preindustrial agricultural practices provide a range of 600-800 million as being sustainable in terms of a global population. Unfortunately released data from declassified belligerent parties war plans cite the destruction of fertile agricultural regions as a priority. Primarily using ground impact detonations. Which create a longer lasting radiation impact. And with the majority of global arable farmland located within the targeted northern hemisphere, planetary carrying capacity would be significantly reduced. With some modeling predicting a meager 200-300 million as being sustainable afterwards. Additionally the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing for both antivirals and antibiotics, along with medical equipment is produced by the belligerent countries. Loss of these facilities would compound the spread of disease along with subsequent conditions.
"1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
I guess 600 - 800 million will have to do lol
Sagan’s nuclear winter scenarios were primitive and he mainly focused on the atmospheric effects - it was closest to his own scientific discipline. Modern cities contain huge amounts of toxic combustibles that the Iraqi oil fires, volcanoes, and forest fires can’t match. Obviously energy infrastructure will be a prime target so no fuel and no fertilizer. You can add radiation from the deliberate targeting of nuclear plants and nuclear waste repositories, increased UV radiation, which will cause large amounts of flora and fauna death on its own, and ecosystem collapse. There’s easily available information from DoE (and some DoD think tanks) that makes Sagan’s nuclear winter scenario look like the soft option.
Yeah , this is the real problem , we eat natural gas turned into fertiliser .
@@dongately2817 I think that's the problem with your argument, you'd think that the think tanks are the ones who really have all the true information, the thing is, the great part of them are fearmongers, who usually put political pressure, exactly like Sagan did, LOW and many, MANY official documents (Russian and American) state that those structures are civilian, and targeting civilian cities or infrastructure is considered illegal, it's a war against an enemy, not against humanity or the world, this sounds cynical, I know, but there's people who actually work on this stuff, and who make the rules when it comes to nuclear war. You've heard it before and now, it's just fear mongering.
Also the UV radiation and depletion of the ozone layer it's bad science, doesn't have supporting arguments.
Actually nuclear weapons produce little long term radiation. Fallout radiation declines 90% every 36 hours. People started to rebuild in Japanese cities hit in a few days.
This is the first video I’ve ever watched from your channel. It’s truly amazing the points that you made and the level-headedness you showed when talking about these hot button issues. Will absolutely come back for more
Kudos, hope more people follow this guys example
this dudes videos are the bomb....
Wooowwwwwww!!! This could TOTALLY be a tv show that I would watch!!! This is an incredible demonstration!!!! We need MORE please!!!!!!
It would be nice if we could get a breakdown of your research and editing process. This stuff is so inspiring!
This guy is like the dad I never had. Thank you for your amazing work 🙌
A huge issue with overstating a risk is that it legitimizes the taking of more radical actions and reactions. We’re seeing a lot of that from both sides right now. Oversell the risk in order to sell people extreme “solutions”.
I'm not sure I've ever seen this channel before now. This guy is practically the Todd Grande of pop-science. Great video, great channel, and thanks for the content.
Excellent video. Tons of respect for making this
Thank you! You're a very supportive Iceburg :)
Love your pursuit of truth. Liked and subscribed!
Damn, I already was a huge fan before but this channel just keeps getting better. Wise words and a humble and honest attitude. Keep it up!!
Former meteorologist here. I figured this out about a year ago and it shocked me to my core to the point that I only told a few people the truth.
"A game where both sides lose." Perhaps so, but it isn't 'a game where ALL sides lose' as has been the general consensus. Mutually Assured Destruction, on a planetary level, is completely wrong and that's been the only thing keeping us from having at each other.
I can certainly see why the misconception would be best kept circulating.
Nuclear weapons are fake.
@@disabledchatzen5276 if only...
It's not quite that simple. MAD still comes into play in that any counter value exchange where adversaries target each other's population centers (or in counter force strategies where certain cities include targets of strategic value).
So no, there might not be a massive nuclear winter. However, the economic and social impacts on both sides is likely to be sufficiently disastrous to act as an effective deterrent.
It is also likely that the rest of the world will not be hurrying to the aid of the aggressor in such a situation. Any country involved in an exchange of sufficient size (which will likely be smaller than you think) would likely reduce a first world power to second world status for decades, and would likely ensure that country's economy would ever catch back up to it's competitors
However, it is my understanding as a layperson with an interest in such things, that opinions are somewhat divided. Although the models from the 1990s that simplied that even a moderately small exchange could lead to global dimming and a major famine, more recent models implied that the impact on climate might be, as OP indicates but does not detail, less of a big deal.
However, it is my understanding that climatologists where awaiting the next generation of numerical models before this question could be answered more definitively. I haven't seen any recently published papers to make me think otherwise.
Is my thinking out of date?
Also, MAD was never supposed to mean "the end of humanity" but to the effectively guaranteed total destruction of your opponent in the event they decided to strike against you first.
The concept of a global post war disaster may likely have had an additionally chilling (sorry) effect on planning around strategic nuclear war fighting, but it has never really slowed planning down.
The only thing to (maybe) do that was the peace dividend for about nine years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Then it was back to business as usual.
Do you mind citing the research that supports your position, I'd like to know what recent scientific papers, books, or websites changed you opinions?
The reason I ask is that the recent peer review papers (last 5 years) concluded that a global nuclear war between the US and Russia would cause catastrophic cooling and other catastrophic effects (modelled using current nuclear stockpiles). I cannot find any new research that provokes optimism.
The current scientific consensus indicates a cooling of c. 8 Celsius lasting almost a decade (the peak of last Ice Age was 8 Celsius cooler), a catastrophic loss of over half the Ozone layer, and massive decreased photosynthesis due to soot blocking sunlight.
I am not able to find any scientific studies that supports an updated position regarding a global nuclear war causing less extreme cooling or other more benign effects than previously assessed. Rather, II see that the experts are all in agreement. A large scale Nuclear war would be catastrophic.
That said, see there is some new research into small regional nuclear conflicts, involving c. 100 small nuclear weapons of 15 kt each between India and Pakistan, that claims climate effects would be rather minimal, as the 5 teragrams (Tg) of smoke lofted by smaller nuclear weapons would not stay aloft for long. This new research was provoked by an earlier paper that claimed that a small nuclear war would cause severe global cooling and a global famine (Robock et al., 2007).
However, this updated research does not appear to be applicable to large scale global nuclear exchanges between, e.g. NATO and Russia. That scenario would involve >1,000 >100 kt to c. 1 megaton range weapons capable of lofting 150 Tg of smoke (soot and other small particles) into the stratosphere, where it can remain for far longer.
Also, a comprehensive coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that solar heating would loft smoke from a nuclear war deep into the stratosphere. And research (Yu et al., 2019) based on satellite observations of forest fires (I think the video alluded to this study) confirmed Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) modelling, that solar heating of black carbon soot can loft smoke from the troposphere to the stratosphere.
You have to also take into account other effects, asside from a decrease in temperature, the decrease in photosynthesis brought about by smoke blocking sunlight and the destruction of the Ozone Layer:L
"The total downwelling solar radiation at the surface is only 30-40% of normal (where normal is around 160 W/m2) during the first 6 months of the soot injection across both models. In WACCM4, surface light levels remain below 40% of normal for 3 years, returning to normal after about 10 years after the war starts, while ModelE shows a slower recovery, which is a direct consequence of the small, fixed size aerosols." - (Coup et al., 2019)
And the destruction of the Ozone Layer, an Ozone reduction of 75% globally and 65% at the topics lasting 15 years (Bardeen et al., 2021). Interestingly, they find a small regional war (India and Pakistan) could cause Ozone levels to decrease by 25%, with recovery taking 12 years.
"Nuclear war would result in many immediate fatalities from the blast, heat, and radiation, but smoke from fires started by these weapons could also cause climate change
lasting up to 15 years threatening food production. For the first time with a modern climate model, we have simulated the effects on ozone chemistry and surface ultraviolet (UV) light caused by absorption of sunlight by smoke from a global nuclear war. This could lead to a loss of most of our protective ozone layer taking a decade to recover and resulting in several years of extremely high UV light at the surface further endangering human health and food supplies"
I think over I think Neil's assessment is overly optimistic and peculiarly focused only on temperature.
References:
Papers that support catastrophic climate cooling and other effects resulting from a global nuclear exchange:
Bardeen, C.G., Kinnison, D.E., Toon, O.B., Mills, M.J., Vitt, F., Xia, L., Jägermeyr, J., Lovenduski, N.S., Scherrer, K.J., Clyne, M. and Robock, A., 2021. Extreme Ozone Loss Following Nuclear War Results in Enhanced Surface Ultraviolet Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126(18), p.e2021JD035079.
Coupe, J., Bardeen, C.G., Robock, A. and Toon, O.B. 2019. Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 8522-8543.
Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056.
Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G.L., 2007. Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112(D13).
Yu, P., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C.G., Zhu, Y., Rosenlof, K.H., Portmann, R.W., Thornberry, T.D., Gao, R.S., Davis, S.M., Wolf, E.T. and de Gouw, J., 2019. Black carbon lofts wildfire smoke high into the stratosphere to form a persistent plume. Science, 365(6453), pp.587-590.
Original paper that claimed that even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could cause severe global cooling and food shortages:
" We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply."
Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G.L., Toon, O.B., Bardeen, C. and Turco, R.P., 2007. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(8), pp.2003-2012.
Follow-up papers that contradicted Robock et al., (2007), claiming that a small regional nuclear war between Pakistan and India, involving 100 x 15 kt weapons, would not cause serious long lasting climate cooling:
Reisner, J., D'Angelo, G., Koo, E., Even, W., Hecht, M., Hunke, E., Comeau, D., Bos, R. and Cooley, J., 2018. Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(5), pp.2752-2772
Wagman, B.M., Lundquist, K.A., Tang, Q., Glascoe, L.G. and Bader, D.C. 2020. Examining the Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange Using a Multiscale Atmospheric Modeling Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125, e2020JD033056, doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033056.
We are not overpopulated and we are not warming anymore than if we weren't here is my view. Awesome sir. Good addressing. Thanks for respecting opinions.
Great video. I love to see people having honest conversations. It’s the only hope towards finding the truth.
This video has more character, humility, and wisdom in it as I could ever ask for. There’s so much to take away from it I don’t even know where to start. Thank you.
I appreciate your intellectual honesty.
Good on you man. Getting vulnerable with a heart felt, sincerer message in and about a post truth world is hard work.
Intellectual honesty and rational introspection?! In MY house?!
I respect you correcting mistakes and pursuing the truth, keep strong brother!