Primitive New Vegas Mod.?

[charwo]

 

Nuclear winter is a steaming pile of crap.

I havn't studied the subject in depth myself, however when dealing with complicated subjects I tend to rely on teh advice of experts. In this case that is the climatologists. This isn't an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) but rather acknowledging the knowledge of experts in their fields.

 

 

It is an appeal to authority when countervailing evidence is both stark and damning. We have seen much, much worse than any nuclear war in terms of supervolcanos and unless the Siberian Traps catch on fire (which I wouldn't put past Chairman Cheng and would explain more than a bit about Fallout) climatic effects would be nil even by the beginning of the 22nd century, much less by 2162, the beginning of Fallout. Climatology is a lot like theoretical physics: there's so much based on speculation and extrapolation that Bullshit in the way the Rational Wiki describes it is nearly inevitable.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bullshit

 

The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

 

This is why things like Climate change panic are so obnoxious (I'm all for getting off fossil fuels, but not because any climate issues). In this case though, even a cursory look at what actually happens when X amount of material gets thrown high into the atmosphere is pretty well documented. Nukes throw up nearly no material, not high enough to cause nuclear winter. Fallout, oh yes, Fallout is a huge issue, a localized catastrophe if it falls in the first 14 days. In the case of both Fallout (and residual radiation in general) and Nuclear winter effects, the effects are way WAY oversold. If you look at the actual known effects of super volcanoes, you'll see. It's not that nuclear war wouldn't cause some short term climate impacts, but nukes aren't magic things that will change the nature of how things work. That's a BS trope used by bad scifi writers. It's fear mongering pure and simple.

 

And really, if you want to kill a city, don't nuke it, spray it with anthrax spores. Those lil basts will get into so many basements even intermittent blooms will force the city to be evaced. It's a chemical weapon attack every day for 70 years.

[Tony the Wookie]

 

If my conversions are correct, 20 degrees Celsius wouldn't be enough to make Nevada and Arizona anything like winter... It would still be 24 to 26 degrees Celsius in the summer, which is nice a warm. Even at a drop of 35 you aren't getting below freezing except for 2 months out of the year.

Yep, but that's for the US/Russia of the 20th/21st century (don't know when the latest estimate is/was) and we are talking Fallout in 2077 with what is most definitely a far greater aresenal of nuclear weapons that is unequivocally (according to lore) used throughout the globe. I don't think it's a impossible scenario to consider if one was devoted to the idea of such a campaign.

 

 

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Nuclear winter in Washington DC or Boston I would play, nuclear winter in my part of the country is not something I would ever want to see.

[devinpatterson]

It is an appeal to authority when countervailing evidence

While I appreciate your opinion both in regard to nuclear winter and Anthropic (man made or influenced) global climate disruption, I put more faith in the scientific consensus, as a strong agreement among the experts in their fields with the greatest scientific/empirical knowledge of the subject.

[charwo]

Then I will leave you with this gem from Micheal Crichton:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

[devinpatterson]

Then I will leave you with this gem from Micheal Crichton:

Micheal Crichton is an excellent author, one of my favorites, but I wouldn't use his opinion as a critique of the scientific method....which is really the heart of this discussion. Every theory in science is provisional in that it supports empirical evidence. If a better (better in teh sense that it has greater predictive value) theory comes along the former theory is superseded. An example is the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. Both upended teh traditional view of physics at the time, because they had greater predictive value of empirical observation.

 

The scientific method isn't perfect, the theories it produces sometimes require adjustments, refinements, evolution and revolutions. The scientific consensus from the scientific method by experts utilizing the most cutting edge technology available holds more weight for me than a author......even if he is one of my favorites.

[devinpatterson]

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Oh and just a quick follow up, there are many, many consensuses in science, from the standard model to relativity to chemistry (almost) as a whole, to many other scientific displines.....and they will continue to stand as consensus until (and if) better theories are found with more powerful predictive ability.

[charwo]

For the love of God, the man was scientist as well as a writer. You really, REALLY need to hear his State of Fear speech, especially the opening remarks on Chernobyl.

[Morgwynn]

With nuclear strikes there are two types that I know of 1. Air burst strike that is very destructive but doesn't create as much radioactive fallout. 2. Ground impact strikes that do cause much more fallout debris to be hurled into the air currents. If the nuclear strike were split 50/50 between ground strikes and air burst strikes a nuclear winter is possible, granted the closer to the equator the more temperate the nuclear winter is going to be however for the natives who have lived in that area their whole lives will feel the temperature change the greatest whereas refugee's escaping the nuclear winter farther north or south of the equator might find the climate moderate. Who knows maybe there were orbital pre-war cryonic beam weapons to help expedite the nuclear winter/mini ice age. Perhaps the mythical element of Handwavium had something to do with the nuclear winter to take place.

[Morgwynn]

Also a Primitive New Vegas Mod would be the perfect setting for a Grognak The Barbarian companion. Also shaman and wisemen/elders would have a little knowledge of pre war technology and to the rest of the tribesmen would think the shaman or wisemen/elders would be wielding magic. And after 200 years after the bombs dropped there could be temperate climates depicted with Green Mods to make the desert have more green flora and fauna returning. All through the mythical properties of Handwavium.

[charwo]

Well, there's a couple of problems with that. Deserts are a function of rainfall patterns, and to be blunt, Nevada is shielded from Pacific monsoons by two very high and sharp mountain ranges. Nuclear winter would have exactly zero effect on the long term rainfall patterns. A better solution would have been a long term hydrological change in Nevada pre war, where the ground is still getting parchy rainfall, but holding more of it. Deserts are dry because the soil can't hold the rain. For an extreme version of what I'm talking about, please see the Yellow River part of the following (it's at the begining,. the people are walking across the muddied river like it was bouncy ice, it's disgusting and therefore awesome):

But here's the thing: ejecting crap into the stratosphere doesn't actually do a whole lot. The reason is: the smoke and ash in nuclear winter is an over time effect. In the case of volcanos, it's not the burning firestorms that causes any effect: a volcano that pops out with explosive force is essentially a shape charge that propels islands worth of debris into the upper atmosphere with great force. By comparison, all firestorms stick to the ground, the smoke and nastiness forming a toxic smog that clings on the ground. In this case you have the fine dust on the ground being kicked up as opposed to throwing clumps of soil straight up. There aren't comparable in the magnitude that matters. Not high enough, not enough debris. Even if you assume as I do that Cheng was an omnicidal asshole that Vault Dweller repeatedly has assured me he was (a perfect storm of dark triad personality traits throwing a hissy fit over not being able to rule the world), there are much, MUCH better ways of rendering the US unfit for human habitation. Anthrax spores for example. Or lighting the Siberian Traps or setting off nuclear bombs in the sea to boil the cold methane deposits and turn the sea into battery acid. But all of this would only be a deliberately trying to recreate the Permian Great Dying rather than countervalue strategy of semi-rational Chicom government hoping to save itself by using US soldiers human shields because most of the Eastern seaboard was already occupied by US and Allied forces in 2077 (Witness Yangtze and Gobi Campaign which couldn't happen without Manchuria being under US control)