Index, Table Of Contents, About Page

▼

Carl Sagan; Nuclear Winter - Consequence Of Nuclear War (MAD) Means Extinction Of All Life On Earth, A World War Cannot Be Fought Any Longer Due To 1,000 Nuclear Bombs Worth of Deadly Radiation In Every Nuclear Reactor And Up To 20,000 Nuclear Bombs In Every Spent Fuel Pool

Carl Sagan; Nuclear Winter - Consequence Of Nuclear War (MAD) Means Extinction Of All Life On Earth, A World War Cannot Be Fought Any Longer Due To 1,000 Nuclear Bombs Worth of Deadly Radiation In Every Nuclear Reactor And Up To 20,000 Nuclear Bombs In Every Spent Fuel Pool

CARL SAGAN IMAGINES AND SIMULATES WORLD WAR III WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS


World War III Simulation; it is much worse than even Carl Sagan imagined

20 PLUS CLOSE CALLS ALREADY; AND EVERY DAY THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE NOT BANNED, THE RISK GROWS BECAUSE EVENTUALLY EVERY WEAPON THAT EXISTS, IT IS USED


20+ Close Calls; Why MAD Total Nuclear Global World War III Almost Happened 20 Times So Far, What Happens AFTER A Global Nuclear War?

EVEN LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN WOULD RESULT IN DESTRUCTION OF HUMANITY


Even a limited nuclear war between 2 small nations such as India and Pakistan would result in a nuclear winter that could result in the destruction of a large part of humanity on a global basis due to nuclear winter. 

Nuclear Winter - Consequence Of Nuclear War

What if the radio and TV announced that in 15 minutes, 1,000 nuclear bombs would reach your nation, and explode in every city or town of any size? What would you do? This is a story about a few families who got this news, and what they did...

IN MAD GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR, ALL 430 NUCLEAR PLANTS AND 430 SPENT FUEL POOLS WOULD LIBERATE 1,000 TO 10,000 NUCLEAR BOMBS WORTH OF RADIATION EACH

In a MAD global nuclear war, not only would all nuclear weapons be used globally, destroying all major cities instantly, all 400 nuclear power plants and their spent fuel pool contents would also be destroyed and their radiation would be released via meltdowns and explosions. 

A world war is not possibly any more, because the consequence of a world war is that all nuclear weapons are used, and no one can live through that. As a result, no nuclear weapons can be used any longer. The consequences of a nuclear war and what happens after that are detailed in the article below, going into what happens to 430 nuclear plant spent fuel pools, in an Armageddon scenario..

How And Why Spent Fuel Pools Melt Down, Catch On Fire And Cause Armageddon Scenarios

NUCLEAR SHIPS AND SUBS POSE HUGE RISK, GETS EVEN WORSE IN NUCLEAR WAS AS THEIR NUCLEAR REACTORS MELT DOWN AND OUT


Nuclear Ships And Subs Pose Huge Risk To Humanity; 1 Minute Away From Starting WW III

In case of nuclear war, all nuclear research facilities and nuclear powered ships/carriers along with all of their nuclear weapons that they have on board would also be destroyed, releasing ALL of their radiation contents. Nuclear subs would destroy each other after shooting off their nuclear loads, using nuclear torpedoes, which would more than likely create huge tsunamis, such as the one that struck Fukushima. 

With this MASSIVE amount of nuclear radiation released, all at the same time, it is impossible for anyone on planet Earth to live through it, even underground.

Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear War

THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF GLOBAL RADIOACTIVE HELL AND NUCLEAR WINTER WOULD BE THE RESULT OF (MAD) WAR


Radiation at lethal levels would persist above ground for hundreds of thousands of years, and all human life on the planet Earth would cease to exist, along with all but the hardiest radiation resistant bacteria. What would follow a global nuclear war, is a nuclear winter.

Nuclear Winter 1 of 2; discussion of nuclear winter by representatives and testimony by expert witnesses

LOOK UP LIVE MAP OF NUCLEAR BOMB BLASTS IN YOUR TOWN AND WHAT EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE LOCALLY; IGNORES NUCLEAR WINTER EFFECT

Students or adults can play with different nuclear bombs and see what happens if a nuclear bomb hits your LOCAL town; 




NUCLEAR WINTER DEFINITION

Wikipedia; "Nuclear winter (also known as atomic winter) is a hypothetical climatic effect of countervalue nuclear war. Models suggest that detonating dozens or more nuclear weapons on cities prone to firestorm, comparable to the Hiroshima of 1945, could have a profound and severe effect on the climate causing cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or even years by the emission of large amounts of the firestorms smoke and soot into the Earth's stratosphere.[1]

Similar climatic effects can be caused by comets or an asteroid impact,[2][3] also sometimes termed an impact winter, or by asupervolcano eruption, known as a volcanic winter.[4]

MECHANISM



Picture of a pyro-cumulonimbus taken from a commercial airliner cruising at about 10 km. In 2002 various sensing instruments detected 17 distinct pyrocumulonimbus cloud events in North America alone.[5]

The nuclear winter scenario predicts that if enough huge city firestorms follow the nuclear explosions of a nuclear war, the firestorms could loft massive amounts of dense sooty smoke from the fire, into the upper troposphere and stratosphere in the firestorms resulting pyrocumulonimbus clouds. 

At 10–15 kilometres (6–9 miles) above the Earth's surface, the absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke, lifting some, or all of it, into the stratosphere, where the smoke would persist for years, if there is no rain to wash it out. 

This aerosol of particles would block out much of the sun's light from reaching the surface, with this causing surface temperatures to drop drastically, and with that, it is predicted surface air temperatures would be akin to, or colder than, a given region's winter, for years on end. 

SMOKE REMOVAL TIMESPAN


The exact timescale for how long this smoke remains, and thus how severely this smoke affects the climate once it reaches the stratosphere, is dependent on both chemical and physical removal processes. 

The physical removal mechanisms affecting the timescale of smoke particle removal are how quickly the aerosol particles coagulate,[6] and fall out of the atmosphere via dry deposition,[6] and to a slower degree, the time it takes for solar radiation pressure to move the particles to a lower level in the atmosphere. 

Whether by coagulation or radiation pressure, once theaerosol of smoke particles are at this lower atmospheric level cloud seeding can begin, permitting precipitation to wash the smoke aerosol out of the atmosphere by the wet deposition mechanism. 

The chemical processes that affect the removal are dependent on the ability of atmospheric chemistry tooxidize the smoke, via reactions with oxidative species such as ozone and nitrogen oxides, both of which are found at all levels of the atmosphere.[7]

Historical data on residence times of aerosols, albeit adifferent mixture of aerosols, in this case stratospheric sulfur aerosols and volcanic ash, frommegavolcano eruptions, appear to be in the 1-2 year time scale.[8]

Aerosol atmosphere interactions are still poorly understood.[9][10]

CONSEQUENCES



Diagram obtained by the CIA depicting the findings of Soviet computer model research on nuclear winter from 1983. The diagram shows the models predictions of global temperature changes after a global nuclear exchange. Top shows effects after 40 days, bottom after 243 days. 

A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years, and according to the research could be "catastrophic".[11][12]

GLOBAL OZONE DEPLETION HOLE, EXPOSURE TO LETHAL SPACE RADIATION FOR EVERYONE ON PLANET


A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and causing environmental damage for at least a decade.[13] 

The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the mesosphere. 

The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, causing a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. 

Based on new work published in 2007 and 2008 by some of the authors of the original studies, several new hypotheses have been put forth.[14][15]

MINOR NUCLEAR WAR WOULD THREATEN GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLIES


A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. 

The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, which are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years. 

Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately A.D. 1600 and A.D. 1850). 

This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. Larger amounts of smoke would produce larger climate changes, and for the 150 Teragrams (Tg) case produce a true nuclear winter (1 Tg is 1012 grams), making agriculture impossible for years. In both cases, new climate model simulations show that the effects would last for more than a decade. 

2007 study on global nuclear war 


A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in July 2007,[16] "Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences",[17] used current climate models to look at the consequences of a global nuclear war involving most or all of the world's current nuclear arsenals (which the authors judged to be one the size of the world's arsenals twenty years earlier). 

The authors used a global circulation model, ModelE from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which they noted "has been tested extensively in global warming experiments and to examine the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate." 

The model was used to investigate the effects of a war involving the entire current global nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 150 Tg of smoke into the atmosphere, as well as a war involving about one third of the current nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 50 Tg of smoke. In the 150 Tg case they found that: 

GLOBAL COOLING WOULD RESULT IN ALMOST INSTANT ICE AGE


A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. 

The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions. 

In addition, they found that this cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%. As for the 50 Tg case involving one third of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude," but that "the time scale of response is about the same." 

They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that "this period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought." 

Kuwait wells in the first Gulf War 



Some of the 700 Kuwaiti oil fires burning in 1991. 


This satellite photo of the south of Britain shows black smoke from the 2005 Buncefield fire, a series of fires and explosions involving approximately 250,000,000 liters of fossil fuels. The plume is seen spreading in two main streams from the explosion site at the apex of the inverted 'v'. 

By the time the fire had been extinguished the smoke had reached the English Channel. The orange dot is a marker, not the actual fire. Although the smoke plume was from a single source, and larger in size than the individual oil fire plumes in Kuwait 1991, the Buncefield smoke cloud remained out of the stratosphere. 

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Carl Sagan and other scientists predicted that nearly 700 burning oil wells set ablaze by the retreating Iraqi army could cause environmental damage comparable to nuclear winter.[18] The fires were not fully extinguished until November 6, 1991, eight months after the end of the war,[19]and consumed an estimated six million barrels of oil daily. 

According to a 1992 study from Peter Hobbsand Lawrence Radke, daily emissions of sulfur dioxide were 57% of that from electric utilities in the United States, emissions of carbon dioxide were 2% of global emissions and emissions of soot were 3,400 metric tons per day.[20]

However, pre-war claims of wide scale, long-lasting, and significant global environmental impacts were not borne out and found to be significantly exaggerated by the media and speculators,[21] with climate models at the time of the fires predicting only more localized effects such as a daytime temperature drop of ~10 °C within ~200 km of the source.[22]

At the peak of the fires, the smoke absorbed 75% to 80% of the sun’s radiation. The particles were never observed to rise above 6 km and when combined with scavenging by clouds gave the smoke a short residency time in the atmosphere and localized its effects;[20]

Professor Carl Sagan of the Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, Sagan (TTAPS) study hypothesized in January 1991 that enough smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°–6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared."[23]

The 2007 study discussed above noted that modern computer models have been applied to the Kuwait oil fires, finding that individual smoke plumes are not able to loft smoke into the stratosphere, but that smoke from fires covering a large area like some forest fires can lift smoke into the stratosphere, and this is supported by recent evidence that it occurs far more often than previously thought.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

The study also suggested that the burning of the comparably smaller cities, which would be expected to follow a nuclear strike, would also loft significant amounts of smoke into the stratosphere: 


Satellite measurements of ash and aerosol emissions from Mount Pinatubo. 

Stenchikov et al. [2006b][31] conducted detailed, high-resolution smoke plume simulations with the RAMS regional climate model [e.g., Miguez-Macho et al., 2005][32] and showed that individual plumes, such as those from the Kuwait oil fires in 1991, would not be expected to loft into the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, because they become diluted. 

However, much larger plumes, such as would be generated by city fires, produce large, undiluted mass motion that results in smoke lofting. New large eddy simulationmodel results at much higher resolution also give similar lofting to our results, and no small scale response that would inhibit the lofting [Jensen, 2006].[33]

ERUPTION OF KRAKATOA VOLCANO IN 1883 CAUSED A COOLING EFFECT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, REDUCING AGRICULTURAL HARVESTING, CAUSED SEVERE FOOD SHORTAGES


The eruption of the Philippines volcano Mount Pinatubo ejected roughly 10 km3 (2.4 cu mi) of magma and 17,000,000 tonnes (19,000,000 short tons) of SO2, mostly during the explosive Plinian/Ultra-Plinian event of June 15, 1991, creating a global stratospheric SO2 haze layer which persisted for six months. 

Despite introducing ten times as much SO2 as the Kuwaiti fires,[34] global temperatures dropped by only about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F),[35] and despite a several-month 10% drop in solar irradiation, there was no global impact to agriculture.[36]

In June 1957, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons by Samuel Glasstone was published containing a section entitled "Nuclear Bombs and the Weather" (pages 69–71), which states: "The dust raised in severe volcanic eruptions, such as that at Krakatoa in 1883, is known to cause a noticeable reduction in the sunlight reaching the earth ...

The amount of debris remaining in the atmosphere after the explosion of even the largest nuclear weapons is probably not more than about 1 percent or so of that raised by the Krakatoa eruption. Further, solar radiation records reveal that none of the nuclear explosions to date has resulted in any detectable change in the direct sunlight recorded on the ground."[37]

In 1974, John Hampson suggested that a full-scale nuclear exchange could result in depletion of the ozone shield, possibly subjecting the earth to ultraviolet radiation for a year or more.[38][39] In 1975, the United States National Research Council (NRC) reported on ozone depletion following nuclear war, judging that the effect of dust would probably be slight climatic cooling.[38][40]

According to Dr. Vitalii Nikolaevich Tsygichko, a Senior Analyst at the Academy of Sciences, the author of the study, Mathematical Model of Soviet Strategic Operations on the Continental Theater, and a former member of the General Staff, military analysts discussed the idea of a "nuclear winter" (although they did not use that exact term) years before U.S. scientists wrote about it in the 1980s.[41]

1982 


In 1981, William J. Moran began discussions and research in the NRC on the dust effects of a large exchange of nuclear warheads. An NRC study panel on the topic met in December 1981 and April 1982.[38]

As part of a study launched in 1980 by Ambio, a journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Paul Crutzen and John Birks circulated a draft paper in early 1982 with the first quantitative evidence of alterations in short-term climate after a nuclear war.[38] In 1982, a special issue of Ambio devoted to the possible environmental consequences of nuclear war included a paper by Crutzen and Birks anticipating the nuclear winter scenario.[42]

The paper discussed particulates from large fires, nitrogen oxide, ozone depletion and the effect of nuclear twilight on agriculture. Crutzen and Birks showed that smoke injected into the atmosphere by fires in cities, forests and petroleum reserves could prevent up to 99% of sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface, with major climatic consequences: "The normal dynamic and temperature structure of the atmosphere would therefore change considerably over a large fraction of the Northern Hemisphere, which will probably lead to important changes in land surface temperatures and wind systems."[42] An important implication of their work was that a "first strike" nuclear attack would have severe consequences for the perpetrator. 

1983 


In 1982, the so-called TTAPS team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) undertook a computational modeling study of the atmospheric consequences of nuclear war, publishing their results in Science in December 1983.[43]

The phrase "nuclear winter" was coined by Turco just prior to publication.[44] In this early work, TTAPS carried out the first estimates of the total smoke and dust emissions that would result from a major nuclear exchange, and determined quantitatively the subsequent effects on the atmospheric radiation balance and temperature structure. 

To compute dust and smoke impacts, they employed a one-dimensional microphysics/radiative-transfer model of the Earth's lower atmosphere (to the mesopause), which defined only the vertical characteristics of the global climate perturbation. 

Around this time, interest in nuclear war environmental effects also arose in the USSR. After becoming aware of the work of the Swedish Academy and, in particular, papers by N.P.Bochkov and E.I.Chazov,[45]Russian atmospheric scientist Georgy Golitsyn applied his research on dust-storms to the situation following a nuclear catastrophe.[46]

His suggestion that the atmosphere would be heated and that the surface of the planet would cool appeared in The Herald of the Academy of Sciences in September 1983.[47] Upon learning of the TTAPS scenarios, Vladimir Alexandrov and G. I. Stenchikov soon published a report on the climatic consequences of nuclear war based on simulations with a two-level global circulation model, which produced results consistent with the TTAPS findings.[48]

1986 


In 1984 the WMO commissioned Georgy Golitsyn and N. A. Phillips to review the state of the science. They found that studies generally assumed a scenario that half of the world's nuclear weapons would be used, ~5000 Mt, destroying approximately 1,000 cities, and creating large quantities of carbonaceous smoke - 1–2 × 1014 grams being mostly likely, with a range of 0.2 – 6.4 × 1014 grams (NAS; TTAPS assumed 2.25 × 1014). 

The smoke resulting would be largely opaque to solar radiation but transparent to infra-red, thus cooling by blocking sunlight but not causing warming from enhancing the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of the smoke can be much greater than unity. 

Forest fires resulting from non-urban targets could increase aerosol production further. Dust from near-surface explosions against hardened targets also contributes; each Mt-equivalent of explosion could release up to 5 million tons of dust, but most would quickly fall out; high altitude dust is estimated at 0.1-1 million tons per Mt-equivalent of explosion. Burning of crude oil could also contribute substantially. 

The 1-D radiative-convective models used in these studies produced a range of results, with coolings up to 15-42 °C between 14 and 35 days after the war, with a "baseline" of about 20 °C. Somewhat more sophisticated calculations using 3-D GCMs (Alexandrov and Stenchikov (1983); Covey, Schneider and Thompson (1984); produced similar results: temperature drops of between 20 and 40 °C, though with regional variations. 

All calculations show large heating (up to 80 °C) at the top of the smoke layer at about 10 km; this implies a substantial modification of the circulation there and the possibility of advection of the cloud into low latitudes and the southern hemisphere. 

The report made no attempt to compare the likely human impacts of the post-war cooling to the direct deaths from explosions. 

1990 


In 1990, in a paper entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter," TTAPS give a more detailed description of the short- and long-term atmospheric effects of a nuclear war using a three-dimensional model:[49]

First 1 to 3 months: 
10 to 25% of soot injected is immediately removed by precipitation, while the rest is transported over the globe in 1 to 2 weeks 

SCOPE figures for July smoke injection: 

22 °C drop in mid-latitudes 

10 °C drop in humid climates 

75% decrease in rainfall in mid-latitudes 

Light level reduction of 0% in low latitudes to 90% in high smoke injection areas 

SCOPE figures for winter smoke injection: 

Temperature drops between 3° and 4 °C 

Following 1 to 3 years: 

25 to 40% of injected smoke is stabilised in atmosphere (NCAR). Smoke stabilised for approximately 1 year. 

Land temperatures of several degrees below normal 

Ocean surface temperature between 2 and 6 °C 

Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface. 

Policy implications

During the early 1980s, Fidel Castro recommended to the Kremlin a harder line against Washington, even suggesting the possibility of nuclear strikes. The pressure stopped after Soviet officials gave Castro a briefing on the ecological impact on Cuba of nuclear strikes on the United States.[60]

In an interview in 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev, in response to the comment "In the 1980s, you warned about the unprecedented dangers of nuclear weapons and took very daring steps to reverse the arms race," said "Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act in that situation."[61]

As the implications of nuclear winter began to be taken seriously in the late 1980s, military analysts turned their attention to the development of nuclear warheads that would explode at low altitudes and cause less thermal radiation ignited fires, thus reducing the likelihood of a nuclear winter. 

The TTAPS paper had described a 3000 MT counterforce attack on ICBM sites; Michael Altfeld of Michigan State University and political scientist Stephen Cimbala of Pennsylvania State University argued that smaller, more accurate warheads and lower detonation heights could produce the same counterforce strike with only 3 MT and produce less climatic effects, even if cities were targeted, as lower fuzing heights, such as surface bursts, would limit the range of the burning thermal rays due to terrain masking and shadowing, while also temporarily lofting far more radioactive soil into the atmosphere. 

Therefore as a consequence of attempting to limit the target fire hazard by reducing the range of thermal radiation with fuzing for surface bursts, this will result in a scenario were the far more concentrated, and therefore deadlier, local fallout that is generated following a surface burst forms, as opposed to the comparatively dilute global fallout created when nuclear weapons are fuzed in air burst mode.[62][63]

Altfeld and Cimbala also suggested that belief in the possibility of nuclear winter has actually made nuclear war more likely, contrary to the views of Sagan and others, because it has inspired the development of more accurate, and lower explosive yield, nuclear weapons.[64]

Books 


The Cold and the Dark: The World after Nuclear War A book co-authored by Carl Sagan in 1984 which followed his co-authoring of the TTAPS study in 1983." 

VOLCANOES CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING 


Volcanoes block the sun and cause temporary cooling of the Earth through particles not letting sun and heat in.

How Ice Age is triggered by huge volcanic eruptions

Mount Tambora and the Year Without a Summer

The theory seems to be valid, much like the nuclear winter theory.

A volcano can throw up enough particles that block sunlight and heat, thus causing a fast global or regional cooling effect. As the particles settle out of the air, the globe warms back up. Anyone who has ever lived in an area where a huge forest fire happened knows what happens to the sunlight and heat if the sun is blocked by smoke from the forest fire. The temperature drops immediately, and stays that way for as long as the smoke is in the way of the sun. If the smoke is thick and dark enough, it can even get dark under the smoke. Now imagine this happening over a whole region, not just locally, or even globally, if the volcanic eruption is large enough. 

But this cooling effect is only temporary, because as soon as the particles drop out of the sky, the sun warms up the globe again and the ice melts. The Krakatoa eruption caused a couple seasons of cooling and devastating losses of crops, resulting in famines globally. 

CO2 TRAPS HEAT IN AND WARMS THE PLANET UP 


CO2 Added By Humanity Is More Than 200 Times All Volcanoes Combined, As Oxygen Levels, Human Intelligence, Reaction Times, Health And Environment Deteriorates

CO2 operates by a different mechanism, and it heats up the planet like a blanket trapping the heat in. CO2 is normally removed by plants, but humanity is adding so much CO2, that plants cannot remove it, so it keeps increasing in amount, and the insulating effect keeps growing and getting worse, which means the heat will keep on building inside of this insulating layer of gas.

NUCLEAR PLANTS ALSO CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, ACID RAIN, ACID OCEANS

Besides multiplying the lethal globe killing force of nuclear weapons by orders of magnitude, nuclear plants also cause global warming, despite the nuclear industry claiming the opposite. 

Low Dose Radiation, CO2 Causing Oxygen Depletion Globally, Killing Trees, Corals, Fish, Algae; Hyperbaric Oxygen As A Solution; via @AGreenRoad

Nuclear Energy As A Direct Cause Of Global Warming, Acid Rain, Acid Oceans, Extreme Weather, And Super Storms

Fukushima Created Radioactive Sulfur, Acid Rain, Acid Ocean And Radioactive Chlorine, Which Reached The USA

Radioactive Carbon 14 From Nuclear Power Plants Causing Deforestation, Fungus Infections, Disease And Death Of Trees And Plants Globally - Global Warming

Krypton 85 - 1,800,000 Bq Radioactive Global Warming Gases Released From Each Nuclear Reactor Vent Stack Each Second

Nuclear Energy As A Direct Cause Of Global Warming; via @AGreenRoad

Dr. Ivan Oelrich; Nuclear Spent Fuel Reprocessing Greenwashing via @AGreenRoad

Dr. Helen Caldicott MD - Paducah Kentucky Nuclear Fuel Enrichment Plant Dirty Global Warming Gases Emission Secrets; via @AGreenRoad

Low Dose Radiation Causes Oxygen Depletion Globally, Kills Trees, Corals, Fish, Algae; via @AGreenRoad

Radioactive Krypton 85 Gas Generates Massive Storms, Larger Typhoons And More Lightning Due To Increased Conductivity Of The Atmosphere

How Nuclear Reactors Act Like Tesla Death Ray Ion Guns, Shooting Plasma Ionizing Gases And Rays Into Upper Atmosphere, Destroying Ion Balance And Modifying Weather

Bottom line, nuclear plants are as big a problem as coal, oil and gas emitting facilities and vehicles. All of them need to be switched to hydrogen fuel. A carbon and nuclear free future is essential and it must be done quickly, if humanity is to have any hope of surviving. 

SUMMARY

Humanity will either ban and dismantle all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear plants and nuclear weapons, or those weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear facilities) will destroy humanity. There is no other choice. Either you are on the side of destroying all life on the planet via maintaining, supporting and paying for nuclear technology, or you are on the side of clean renewable energy from solar, wind, tides, geothermal, and other carbon free sources of energy. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO; ENDORSE, LEARN, TRANSFORM, DONATE, SHARE, SUPPORT, SPONSOR, CONNECT, COMMENT, AND/OR COLLABORATE

DONATE

Please help AGRP get this news out... thanks for your generous and very appreciated support! What you support grows and expands. What you withhold support from shrinks, shrivels and disappears. Even .50 cents per month is a great help. What is teaching the science of sustainable health worth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr. Goodheart Teach How To Make A Positive Difference For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet

TRANSLATE

Click to Translate; 60 languages - German, French, Russian, Spanish

JOIN THE NETWORK OF OTHER ACTIVISTS; PLUG INTO AGRP


* Join the AGR Network. Forward this or any other article by clicking on the social media facebook, google plus and/or twitter buttons below any AGRP article. The first step for activists is to bring awareness of an issue to the public, by being informed yourself. Which news and information network do you prefer to plug into and network with?








 Email AGRP

RSS Feed

Subscribe to; A Green Road Project Magazine, monthly issues
It is easy to join the AGRP network, and your email will never be rented, sold or shared.

Subscribe/sign up, give feedback, or offer news tips or story ideas by sending an email to agreenroad@gmail.com . Subscribe by typing the word subscribe in the subject line.

COPYRIGHT

Wayne Dyer - What You Think, You Become (Wayne Dyer Meditation)

"Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "ALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR FAIR USE" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute, that otherwise might be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." For more info go to:www.lawcornel.edu/uscode.

Copyright protected material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). Please read Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: SHARE THIS ARTICLE

A Green Road; Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. 

Keep asking - what works for 7 future generations without causing harm? 

Support AGR and share this article via by copying and pasting title and url into;

End


Carl Sagan; Nuclear Winter - Consequence Of Nuclear War (MAD) Means Extinction Of All Life On Earth, A World War Cannot Be Fought Any Longer Due To 1,000 Nuclear Bombs Worth of Deadly Radiation In Every Nuclear Reactor And Up To 20,000 Nuclear Bombs In Every Spent Fuel Pool

at