Nah, global warming is on much larger scales than nuclear winter. Well get a few years or decades of winter and then a quick rebound to warming. Even worse than just the warming, because at least that happens gradually and gives nature and people time to adapt.
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 1600 and 1850 AD). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened.
In the 150 Tg case they found that:
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
True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days.
Nah, global warming is on much larger scales than nuclear winter. Well get a few years or decades of winter and then a quick rebound to warming. Even worse than just the warming, because at least that happens gradually and gives nature and people time to adapt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Yes, for a few decades. And then we’d go straight into warming again.
The only solution: a new nuclear war every 50 or so years. Solar radiation management is for suckers, real men use nukes!
True, but it would still revert to global warming after that. Probably even way worse because a lot of the vegetation cover would be dead, so think desert weather : very cold nights and very hot days.
And whatever nature managed to adapt and survive the winter would probably be killed off by the warming afterwards. Yeah.