Wonderful Photos of Wonderful Potential Renewable Fuel Sources.

A cow grazing amidst the piles of rubbish in Dhaka. With over 8000 slums, thousands of people work everyday in the polluted environment of Bangladesh's capital. The city is known to have the 2nd most polluted water supply in the world, contaminated by industrial waste and human excrement. The local authorities in Dhaka do not consider waste disposal a priority and as a result, rubbish accumulates in large piles around the city before it is finally removed.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200501/19/eng20050119_171163.html

UPDATED: 14:39, January 19, 2005

Dhaka to emerge as world's second largest city by 2015


Dhaka will be the second largest city in the world by 2015, next to Tokyo, with a growth of urban population at a rate of 3.1 percent per year, reported the daily New Age on Wednesday.

<snip>

Dhaka will surpass Sao Paulo, Bombay, New York, Mexico City, Calcutta in 2015 with inclusion of two more Asian cities Jakarta and Karachi in the list and exit of Los Angeles and Shanghai, saidthe UN report.

<snip>

During 1975-2000, seven cities have attained the status of mega-cities. Four of those mega-cities had growth rates above four percent per year, including Dhaka with 6.9 percent, Lagos with 5.6percent, Hyderabad with 4.8 percent and Karachi with 4.3 percent.

Lagos, Dhaka, Karachi and Jakarta will likely grow at annual rates ranging from three percent to 3.6 percent till 2015, which are high given the present mega-city status of the cities.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter

Introduction

Nuclear winter is a term that describes the climatic effects of nuclear war. In the 1980's, work conducted jointly by Western and Soviet scientists showed that for a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union the climatic consequences, and indirect effects of the collapse of society, would be so severe that the ensuing nuclear winter would produce famine for billions of people far from the target zones.

There are several wrong impressions that people have about nuclear winter. One is that there was a flaw in the theory and that the large climatic effects were disproven. Another is that the problem, even if it existed, has been solved by the end of the nuclear arms race. But these are both wrong. Furthermore, new nuclear states threaten global climate change even with arsenals that are much less than 1% of the current global arsenal.

What's New

Based on new work published in 2007 and 2008 by some of the pioneers of nuclear winter research who worked on the original studies, we now can say several things about this topic.

New Science:

* A minor nuclear war (such as between India and Pakistan or in the Middle East), with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is only 0.03% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal.
* This same scenario would produce global ozone depletion, because the heating of the stratosphere would enhance the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.
* 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 we previously thought. New climate model simulations, that 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.

New Policy Implications:

* The only way to eliminate the possibility of this climatic catastrophe is to eliminate the nuclear weapons. If they exist, they can be used.
* The spread of nuclear weapons to new emerging states threatens not only the people of those countries, but the entire planet.
* Rapid reduction of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals will set an example for the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used and are not needed.

How Does Nuclear Winter Work?

A nuclear explosion is like bringing a piece of the Sun to the Earth's surface for a fraction of a second. Like a giant match, it causes cities and industrial areas to burn. Megacities have developed in India and Pakistan and other developing countries, providing tremendous amounts of fuel for potential fires. The direct effects of the nuclear weapons, blast, radioactivity, fires, and extensive pollution, would kill millions of people, but only those near the targets. However, the fires would have another effect. The massive amounts of dark smoke from the fires would be lofted into the upper troposphere, 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) above the Earth's surface, and then absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke, lifting it into the stratosphere, a layer where the smoke would persist for years, with no rain to wash it out.

<snip>

References

References to Our New Work

* Mills, Michael J., Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Douglas E. Kinnison, and Rolando R. Garcia, 2008: Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict. Proc. National Acad. Sci., 105, 5307-5312.
* Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Owen B. Toon, Charles Bardeen, and Richard P. Turco, 2007a: Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atm. Chem. Phys., 7, 2003-2012.
* Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007b: Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:2006JD008235.
* Robock, Alan, Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, and Charles Bardeen, 2007c: The continuing environmental threat of nuclear weapons: Integrated policy responses needed. EOS, 88, 228, 231, doi:10.1029/2007ES001816.
* Robock, Alan, 2007: Climate effects of a regional nuclear conflict. IPRC Climate, 7, no. 1, 16-18.
* Robock, Alan, 2008: Time to bury a dangerous legacy: Part II: Climatic catastrophe would follow regional nuclear conflict. YaleGlobal Online.
* Toon, Owen B., Richard P. Turco, Alan Robock, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007a: Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism. Atm. Chem. Phys., 7, 1973-2002.
* Toon, Owen B., Alan Robock, Richard P. Turco, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007b: Consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts. Science, 315, 1224-1225.

References to Classical Original Articles on Nuclear Winter

* Aleksandrov, V. V., and G. L. Stenchikov, 1983: On the modeling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war, Proc. Applied Math, Computing Centre, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 21 pp.
* Crutzen, P. J., and J. W. Birks, 1982: The atmosphere after a nuclear war: Twilight at noon, Ambio, 11, 114-125.
* Harwell, M. A. and T. C. Hutchinson, Eds., 1986: Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, SCOPE 28. Volume II, Ecological and Agricultural Effects, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
* Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, 1999: Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 759-762.
* Pittock, A. B., T. P. Ackerman, P. J. Crutzen, M. C. MacCracken, C. S. Shapiro, and R. P. Turco, Eds., 1986: Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, SCOPE 28. Volume I, Physical and Atmospheric Effects, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
* Robock, A., 1984: Snow and ice feedbacks prolong effects of nuclear winter, Nature, 310, 667-670.
* Robock, A., 1989: Policy implications of nuclear winter and ideas for solutions, Ambio, 18, 360-366.
* Sagan, C., and R. Turco, 1990: A Path Where No Man Thought - Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race, New York, Random House, 499 pp. ISBN: 0394583078.
* Turco, R. P., O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan, 1983: Nuclear winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions, Science, 222, 1283-1292.
* Turco, R. P., O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan, 1990: Climate and smoke: An appraisal of nuclear winter, Science, 247, 166-176.

Citation

Robock, Alan (Lead Author); Sjaak Slanina (Topic Editor). 2009. "Nuclear winter." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). . <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter>

How Does Nuclear Winter Work?

A nuclear explosion is like bringing a piece of the Sun to the Earth's surface for a fraction of a second. Like a giant match, it causes cities and industrial areas to burn. Megacities have developed in India and Pakistan and other developing countries, providing tremendous amounts of fuel for potential fires. The direct effects of the nuclear weapons, blast, radioactivity, fires, and extensive pollution, would kill millions of people, but only those near the targets. However, the fires would have another effect. The massive amounts of dark smoke from the fires would be lofted into the upper troposphere, 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) above the Earth's surface, and then absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke, lifting it into the stratosphere, a layer where the smoke would persist for years, with no rain to wash it out.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1208

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Last Updated: 5:55 PM GMT on May 23, 2009 — Last Comment: 10:19 AM GMT on May 24, 2009
Nuclear winter revisited

Posted by: JeffMasters, 2:00 PM GMT on April 10, 2009

In the 1980s and early 1990s, a series of scientific papers published by Soviet scientists and Western scientists (including prominent scientists Dr. Carl Sagan, host of the PBS "Cosmos" TV series, and Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen) laid out the dire consequences on global climate of a major nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Soviet Union. The nuclear explosions would send massive clouds of dust high into the stratosphere, blocking so much sunlight that a nuclear winter would result. Global temperatures would plunge 20°C to 40°C for several months, and remain 2-6°C lower for 1-3 years. Up to 70% of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer would be destroyed, allowing huge doses of ultraviolet light to reach the surface. This UV light would kill much of the marine life that forms the basis of the food chain, resulting in the collapse many fisheries and the starvation of the people and animals that depend it. The UV light would also blind huge numbers of animals, who would then wander sightlessly and starve. The cold and dust would create widespread crop failures and global famine, killing billions of people who did not die in the nuclear explosions. The "nuclear winter" papers were widely credited with helping lead to the nuclear arms reduction treaties of the 1990s, as it was clear that we risked catastrophic global climate change in the event of a full-scale nuclear war.

Even a limited nuclear exchange can cause a climate disaster

Well, it turns out that this portrayal of nuclear winter was overly optimistic, according to a series of papers published over the past few years by Brian Toon of the University of Colorado, Alan Robock of Rutgers University, and Rich Turco of UCLA. Their most recent paper, a December 2008 study titled, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War", concludes that "1980s predictions of nuclear winter effects were, if anything, underestimates". Furthermore, they assert that even a limited nuclear war poses a significant threat to Earth's climate. The scientists used a sophisticated atmospheric/oceanic climate model that had a good track record simulating the cooling effects of past major volcanic eruptions, such as the Philippines' Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. The scientists injected five terragrams (Tg) of soot particles into the model atmosphere over Pakistan in May of 2006. This amount of smoke, they argued, would be the likely result of the cities burned up by a limited nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs in the region. India and Pakistan are thought to have 109 to 172 nuclear weapons of unknown yield.

<snip>

This magnitude of this cooling would bring about the coldest temperatures observed on the globe in over 1000 years (Figure 1). The growing season would shorten by 10-30 days over much of the globe, resulting in widespread crop failures. The effects would be similar to what happened after the greatest volcanic eruption in historic times, the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia. This cooling from this eruption triggered the infamous Year Without a Summer in 1816 in the Northern Hemisphere, when killing frosts disrupted agriculture every month of the summer in New England, creating terrible hardship. Exceptionally cold and wet weather in Europe triggered widespread harvest failures, resulting in famine and economic collapse. However, the cooling effect of this eruption only lasted about a year. Cooling from a limited nuclear exchange would create two to three consecutive "Years Without a Summer", and over a decade of significantly reduced crop yields. The authors found that the smoke in the stratosphere cause a 20% reduction in Earth's protective ozone layer, with losses of 25-45% over the mid-latitudes where the majority of Earth's population lives, and 50-70% ozone loss at northern high latitude regions such as Scandinavia, Alaska, and northern Canada. A massive increase in ultraviolet radiation at the surface would result, capable of causing widespread and severe damage to plants and animals. Thus, even a limited nuclear exchange could trigger severe global climate change capable of causing economic chaos and widespread starvation.

<snip>

Climate change and the Doomsday Clock

It is sobering to realize that the nuclear weapons used in the study represented only 0.3% of the world's total nuclear arsenal of 26,000 warheads. Fortunately, significant progress was made in the 1990s and 2000s to reduce the threat of nuclear war. If the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) is fully implemented by the U.S. and Russia as planned, by 2012 the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons will be just 6% of the 70,000 warheads that existed at the peak of the cold war in 1986. However, the threat of a more limited regional nuclear war has increased in recent decades, since more countries have been joining the nuclear club--an average of one country every five years. The 2007 move by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move the hands of their Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight--the figurative end of civilization--helped call attention to this increased threat. In addition, they also mentioned climate change for the first time as part of the rationale for moving the clock closer to midnight. I believe that climate change does not pose an immediate threat to civilization--at least for the next 20 years or so--and there is still time to significantly reduce the threat of "doomsday" levels of climate change to civilization if strong action is taken in the next 20 years to cut carbon emissions. Thus, setting the hands of the clock closer to midnight because of climate change is probably premature. However, climate change triggered by a limited nuclear war is a whole different situation. The twin disasters of a limited nuclear war, coupled with the devastating global climate change it could wreak, should remind us that there is no such thing as a small scale nuclear war. Even a limited nuclear war is a huge threat to Earth's climate. Thus, there is no cause more important to work for than peace, so, this Easter weekend, I plan on making myself--and thus the world--more peaceful.

Jeff Masters