5 billion humans is a lot of meat.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13166 readers
19 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This comes from a long line of shoddy "research" exaggerating potential effects of nuclear war. With MAD in place, like it was for the last 70 years, there's no need to make shit up, it'd be as bad as it can be. At first, they tried to convince people that NOx generated in fireball would strip atmosphere out of ozone; when proven wrong with experimental evidence (supersonic airliners generate some NOx; their output was big enough that it should have some effect on ozone layer according to their model, but it had none) they pivoted to "nuclear winter":
Although never openly acknowledged by the multi-disciplinary team who authored the most popular 1980s TTAPS model, in 2011 the American Institute of Physics states that the TTAPS team (named for its participants, who had all previously worked on the phenomenon of dust storms on Mars, or in the area of asteroid impact events: Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) announcement of their results in 1983 "was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control".[91] However, "the computer models were so simplified, and the data on smoke and other aerosols were still so poor, that the scientists could say nothing for certain".[91]
When proven wrong again with empirical evidence of oil fires of 1991 Gulf War, they shut up for some time:
When Operation Desert Storm began in January 1991, coinciding with the first few oil fires being lit, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Carl Sagan discussed the possible environmental effects of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan again argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of a nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the stratosphere, beginning around 48,000 feet (15,000 m) above sea level in Kuwait, resulting in global effects. He also argued that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the "Year Without a Summer".
The idea of oil well and oil reserve smoke pluming into the stratosphere serving as a main contributor to the soot of a nuclear winter was a central idea of the early climatology papers on the hypothesis; they were considered more of a possible contributor than smoke from cities, as the smoke from oil has a higher ratio of black soot, thus absorbing more sunlight.[93][101]
In a 1992 follow-up, Peter Hobbs and others had observed no appreciable evidence for the nuclear winter team's predicted massive "self-lofting" effect and the oil-fire smoke clouds contained less soot than the nuclear winter modelling team had assumed.[118]
The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the National Science Foundation, Peter Hobbs, stated that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis]... were probably a little overblown."[119]
then came back again hoping that someone would not remember the former and believe them. Even one of authors (Owen B. Toon) is the same, they cite their old papers and use old wrong numbers. This is not somebody trying to figure out how reality works, this is somebody trying to sell you a story. That story tries to make them relevant, but they aren't anymore, and more importantly they're wrong
This all is also before noticing that 70s era nuclear arsenal doesn't even exist anymore, so their predictions lack a plausible starting point in the first place. It's horseshit start to finish
Cool story bro.
Hey, at least in 10 years the earth will be mostly the same!
that's right we have a solution for global warming
Not if enough of Russia get exploded first, also killed Putin don't require nuking them, nuking them would be a good idea tho
If only either of the government cared about the people.
A megalomaniac using his population as cannon fodder Vs a military industrial complex that could care less if people die for its interest.
it's notable how you "your side" is allowed to be a wide system of dispassionate material interests and power structures involved in seeking to overcome contradictions against its interests in callous yet rational competition; while the "other side" is a single cartoon comic book villain singlehandedly doing 'all the bad things' on an irrational whim for reasons of 'vanity and cruelty' I guess. And its people and their interests and opinions from the rural poor to the college liberal to the oligarch capitalist to the Prime Minister are only relevant to pity or otherwise also one-dimensionally criticize. I hope you analyze the ways in which you are conditioned toward orientalism and myopic essentializing that serves your own "side's" imperialism by not recognizing and erasing the realities of other nations as just as complex and multifaceted as yours.
You're carrying a colonial outlook to distill such a huge and diverse country with a massive population of its 150 different ethnic/national people groups and 20+ autonomous republics and all its various economic interests and players and political trends and history as in Russia to an idealist child's comic book picture of one man's "megalomania". As the west not-so-coincidentally concocts this exact image for every country it tries to overthrow or attack, distilling them to 'one crazy irrational madman dictator who only knows force' and erasing the material existence and interests of the nation and its constituent classes and peoples and the history and context from which these things all arose as they exist. Which is very convenient then for "your side" to make it into whatever it wants.
Do you know what the Duma's structure and role is, its party and factional makeup is and has been, what their members' stances has been on topics like Ukraine since 2014, and what actions Putin has taken in accordance or against what they've been pushing for? Do you think its existence is just for show? You'll be surprised on some points and maybe dig deeper. To really have true understanding of a country you'd have to also dig into the historical, social, political, and economic realities, trends, and topics in the country
and the contradictions, struggles, and syntheses between them over the years; and go past just 2014 to root these trends in their relevant circumstances experiences, struggles, transition periods, etc. from which they all arrived in their present form, on both a structural and people level. Optimally bolstered by some culture studies and language.
But learning about the RF's federal governmental structure, and the Duma, and then the differences between the statements and actions of the Duma vs the Russian President's statements and actions since 2014 is a starting point to start chipping away at this cartoon caricature notion you have, which is not rooted in reality. For any country on the planet. And you know this about your own country, but don't extend the same humanity and respect toward other countries. It's a very US American thing. Maybe if you don't have the language skills you can also machine translate some stuff that they say themselves in their statements and speeches and congresses rather than dubbed 8 second snippets followed by 10 minutes of punditry on CNN too. And that's just politics
history and economy is important too. And never forget about the people on the ground. In who they actually are, not who you've decided they are, or your media has told you they are.
So, a population of 3 billion afterward? That's what our population was in 1960.
A lot of people conflate "the end of our comfortable familiar civilization" with "the end of humanity as a species, woe, all shall perish."
Even if this prediction is sound it's not the end of the world.
...This is the most hateful, bloodthirsty, ghoulish, deranged cracker shit I've ever heard. 5 billion might be a worthy sacrifice to you; but I just want you to face a noose after that fucked up mess you posted.
You know, it is one thing to be a malthusian, another to be a malthusian after like 1850, but to also be a fucking stupid malthusian who ignore everything except the simple number is beyond anything i ever seen.
I'm not Malthusian. What does Malthusianism have to do with this?
We need to close the mineshaft gap!
This is the most psychopathic shit I've read in a while.
It's very straightforward math based on the article you posted. It's not saying that a nuclear war wouldn't be bad, or shouldn't be avoided. Of course that should be avoided.
My issue is with the people who insist that humanity as a species is at risk from nuclear war. That's the part that's wrong.
Keep in mind that the 5 billion figure is literally just from food insecurity and famine during and following nuclear winter.
More people would die in the explosions directly, and more would die from the resulting fires + building collapses + radiation fallout + infrastructural collapse.
Given that most targets are population centers and military targets (often both), it doesn't look good.
But yeah I mean there probably would be some survivors.
But yeah I mean there probably would be some survivors.
This is literally the whole point I'm making. I really don't get the downvotes, it seems perfectly straightforward.
Yeah, especially in the southern hemisphere, a few centuries later we might have slightly different genetics through rapid evolution via population collapse but we'd probably be back developing with a bit more accurate folk knowledge and probably actually a lot of remembered tech.
It'd be terrible to the people it happened to but barely a blip in the life history of the planet from the first evolution to the last lifeforms leaving or dying.
The living will envy the dead
Sad to see that study having gone through peer review in Nature. The type of nuclear weapons that are in the current arsenals aren't bringing up soot into the atmosphere. That's the propaganda from the 60s and 70s speaking.
"Who are you to ... "
Agree, so read the study and see that it isn't based on the actual arsenals.
Also: "In the 1980s, there were investigations of nuclear winter impacts on global agricultural production"
That's proven and quite famous russian propaganda. Including that in their study has me doubting their motivations.
Okay, pseudonymous person on the internet, I’ll definitely take your word for it over a peer reviewed Nature paper.
That’s proven and quite famous russian propaganda. Including that in their study has me doubting their motivations.
Sure, Jan. Everything people don’t like is quite famously Russian propaganda these days.
I post under my real name. You?
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA165794
hat’s proven and quite famous russian propaganda. Including that in their study has me doubting their motivations.
[citation needed]
meanwhile, here's a study from UK for you https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/analysis-nuclear-war-would-be-more-devastating-earths-climate-cold-war-predictions
Citations here: https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/1198057/-/comment/7297539
Yeah, that doesn't prove anything. It's just some researcher speculating that maybe it won't be so bad after all. Anybody who would gamble the fate of humanity on this analysis is an absolute imbecile. Out of curiosity, how many billions dying would be acceptable to your psychopathic mind?
"just some researcher"
Maybe try clicking those multiple links?
I did, and I'm not impressed. How many billions dying is acceptable to you?
Did they say that it'll be the other sides billions, not theirs? I am so jaded that this discussion doesn't feel right without someone saying that their people will prosper after they nuke everyone else. With some bullshit that obviously the other sides nukes won't work but all of theirs will.
Today's nuclear arsenals won't kill billions. Russia is behind that propaganda.
Literally linked you two peer reviewed western studies that say otherwise. You're the only one spreading propaganda here. The fact that you think this something that should be gambled with shows that you're a sick individual.
Oh nobody's denying that there aren't academics who easily fall for Russian propaganda. I mean, even Carl Sagan fell for the one where all this started.
That doesn't change that we now know better.
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-studies-on-nuclear-winter-false-and-are-all-a-lie
Except we don't know better. We just have psychopaths such as yourself trying to convince people that a nuclear holocaust wouldn't be all that bad actually. Scum like you are driving us ever closer to nuclear annihilation.
This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don't see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.
I don't know or really care who's right because it's meaningless but you certainly don't look like the person with a valid position here.
Anybody who thinks a nuclear war between major powers would be an acceptable scenario is an utter imbecile and a piece of human garbage. Period. People why try to downplay the horrors of a nuclear holocaust are a danger to the human race.
Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That's not been suggested.
You're saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you're trying to push, even if it's objectives are good.
No, I'm saying that we should seriously consider peer reviewed research on the likely effects of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, a bunch of idiots here are claiming that western peer reviewed research is Russian propaganda. The fact that you're claiming that I'm the one pushing an agenda is fascinating.
By the way, my agenda is pretty simple. I don't want to die in a nuclear holocaust. The more idiots try to downplay the horror of a nuclear war the closer we all get to one.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don't get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that's pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that's not a good way to behave.
two peer reviewed western studies
wait you trust the rotten west's science?
The very fact that you posted this is all the citation anyone needs.
Everything coming from you is phony because you’re a big fat phony!
😆
That's proven and quite famous russian propaganda.
Check @[email protected] comment history
Speaks for itself haha
oh look, my favorite troll is back
Is the troll in the room with us right? Please show it!
I like my odds
