Would a small nuclear war solve global warming?

A contractive study by NASA has become part of the public disk, causing people to worry around the globe.It.

More than a decade before the war in prestigious Ukraine, Huffington Post published an article detailing a NASA study that claims a small nuclear war could solve global warming.

12 years later, this disturbing study seems to have made a return to the public record.

But first, what was said in the study?

NASA's “Scientists and a number of other institutions have recently shaped the effects of a war involving 100 Hiroshima calibre bombs, or 0.03% of the current nuclear arsenal in the world, according to National Geographic. Research suggests that 5 million tons of black carbon meter would be hidden in the lowest part of the atmosphere,” ) writes Huffington Post.

The result of this small “ ” war, according to NASA climate models, could actually be global cooling.

While the global cooling caused by the war between two superpowers could be catastrophic (which explains also the term <x0 nuclear term”), a smaller-scale war could have a positive impact on the world climate, writes National Geographic.

Models suggest that although the world is currently in a warming trend, small-scale war can reduce global temperatures by 1.26 degrees Celsius for 2 to 3 years after the war.

In tropical areas temperatures can drop from 5.4 to 7.2 degrees Celsius.

These findings sound very disturbing, but at least the study of NASA manages to point out that the consequences of such a disaster would be far greater than the benefit of a change, however considerable, of the global warming process.

“ ... even a small exchange of nuclear weapons ] between 50-100 bombings of Hiroshima's size, which India and Pakistan already have in their arsenal... would produce enough soot and smoke to block sunlight, cool the planet and produce an unprecedented climate change in recorded human history.

Moreover, extreme weather caused by even a mild nuclear winter would have a tremendous effect on crops and famines, including the creation of a global decline of 10% of rainfall. The bloza can also cause tremendous damage to the ozone layer, allowing more ultraviolet rays to reach the ground,” according to National Geographic.

The bad ones seem to weigh more than the benefits in the event of global cooling caused by a small nuclear war.

Yet, this discurs is more consistent than ever and seems to have made a return to public opinion.

No longer last week, on October 6th, the popular page of World Engineering Science and Engineering posted on its 2.4 million followers Twitter, a model of itss with the consequences of a small nuclear warʹ on global warming, drawing the same conclusions as studying NASA nearly 12 years ago.

Their model again mentions the cooling global effect that a small nuclear war can have.

According to Newsweek agency, this post gathered over 1,000 approvals.

Newsweek also reported that shortly after that, a video of Donald Trump Jr, the son of former US President Donald Trump, was posted on Twitter by former federal prosecutor Ron Filipkowski.

On it, Trump Jr. speaks to the camera on the subject of nuclear war and claims to have read a news article last week about how a small nuclear war <x0... could be good for global warming or climate crisis”.

Meanwhile, Alan Robick, a prominent professor of climate science at Rutgers University's Department of Environmental Sciences, told Newsweek that the assessment of 2.25 degrees F for 2 to 3 years presented by the World of Engineering was “the wrong” and that the climate effects “would depend entirely on the amount of smoke that would be produced. ”

Robick also said that since these effects would be temporary, it is not accurate to say that this would solve global warming.

In fact, when viewed in a wider context, a nuclear war would actually make things much worse by causing a completely new climate crisis. /Euronews Albania