Science desk
< December 6	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 7

Nuclear Winter vs. Climate Change

Could a purposefully-created nuclear winter viably be created in order to offset the warming effects of climate change? Would it work in dampening the effects of global warming going forward, or cause more problems than it's worth? Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would cause way more problems than it is worth. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, even if undesirable, it could theoretically be done, say to offset global temperatures after they've risen drastically? I read that it would cause something equivalent to the Little Ice Age, but that is with current global climactic conditions. If the earth heats by 3.3 °C to 5.7 °C, would a nuclear winter just bring temperatures back down to what they are now, or would it still be a "winter" of sorts? Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it would have that effect or not is not really all that important given that we would all die of radiation poisoning and other long-term radiation exposure effects. Hence why I linked you to nuclear fallout. The cure would be far, faaaaaar worse than the disease, assuming it would even have the desired cooling effect at all. It's not worth really spending CPU hours on a climate model of this when, even if it had the cooling effect, we'd all die. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This was more out of interest in the effects on climate than on humans or ecology.

For example, if a massive volcanic eruption brought down temperatures in the future, would that be offset by elevated climate temperatures due to global warming to make them more like temperatures now, or would it be the same as if that eruption had happened now because it would block so much solar radiation that the greenhouse effect would be negligible?

I don't know. Do you get where I'm coming from? I am not legitimately proposing that we deliberately irradiate ourselves back into the stone age. Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional means can be used to produce firestorms in a sufficient number to set of the effect; see Nuclear winter § Mechanism. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by these firestorms, whether ignited by nuclear bombs or otherwise, will have a countereffect and may in the end make a dire situation worse; see Nuclear winter § Nuclear summer. --Lambiam 08:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Nuclear winter caused by nuclear devices was the only form I was familiar with, so it's good to know that it can be done through conventional means. I didn't know if Nuclear summer was a guaranteed thing or not, so that's nice to know as well. Thank you for your help!

Would the massive volcanic eruption take on similar effects? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways of doing this that don't involve nuclear bombs, this is known as Stratospheric aerosol injection. The youtube channel Kurzgesagt had an interesting episode ("Geoengineering") about this that I can recommend. El sjaako (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Milankovitch cycles is well worth reading. The idea is that ice ages occur in predictable ways and that the Earth is well past the peak of the Holocene interglacial. Hence we might well be worrying about global cooling if we weren't worrying about global warming! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If those snowy Elizabethan-Victorian winters didn't do it then then nothing could till half a thousand centuries AD. Hudson Bay, Canada has to avoid melting completely for a year (maybe more if hotter summer(s) happen soon enough after) for an ice cap to start covering North North America in a feedback loop. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like, a glacial feedback loop? How would it loop? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Bay melts completely for a few months a year on average. Around 100,000BC the melting seasons stopped obliterating the ice completely so the ice accumulation seasons started having head starts. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a neat tidbit of information that I was unaware of. The more you know :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ice age § Feedback processes: Ice caps and sheets grow by positive feedback mechanisms. One of these is that ice has a high albedo, reflecting more sunlight back into space, that in the absence of ice would be instead absorbed by the land and water. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out to me! I was not aware of the article on Milankovitch cycles, so I'm grateful that you've brought it to my attention. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's super cool! For those interested, here is the video mentioned: Geoengineering: A Horrible Idea We Might Have to Do. I'll be sure to give both the video and the article a look. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mask effectiveness vs Covid

Hi. Have any reliable scientists/journals etc published data on effectiveness of masks on preventing transfer of Covid, either focused on protecting the wearer or protecting those the wearer mixes with?

Particularly keen to see information about the kind of home-made cloth masks people tend to wear, rather than 'proper' PPE.

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant information at COVID-19 masks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there anything on cloth masks? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first section of the article. --Jayron 32 12:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That section has a vague part sentence of text on effectiveness. The effectiveness section (which is really good) doesn't seem to relate to cloth masks. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked points out that there is a more detailed account at Cloth face mask. Enjoy! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try a search on Google Scholar like this.

Evaluation of Cloth Masks and Modified Procedure Masks as Personal Protective Equipment for the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic is about the newest I could see at a quick glance. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 18:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the very recently published Kansas study comparing case and death rates in counties with and without mask mandates. The health commissioner was forced out because of the report. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Wikipedians good in writing lead definitions

Greetings,

I am looking for suggestions for (not retired/ still active) Wikipedians in writing comprehensive and good Wikipedia article lead definitions (from available multiple definitions) for articles related to Sciences and Humanities (preferable at least five from each segment, and expecting users names suggestions other than one's own :))

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]