Wild claim: Nuclear war could trigger big El Niño and decrease seafood

Unprecedented warming in equatorial Pacific Ocean could last up to seven years


Research News


A nuclear war could trigger an unprecedented El Niño-like warming episode in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, slashing algal populations by 40 percent and likely lowering the fish catch, according to a Rutgers-led study.

The research, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, shows that turning to the oceans for food if land-based farming fails after a nuclear war is unlikely to be a successful strategy – at least in the equatorial Pacific.

“In our computer simulations, we see a 40 percent reduction in phytoplankton (algae) biomass in the equatorial Pacific, which would likely have downstream effects on larger marine organisms that people eat,” said lead author Joshua Coupe, a post-doctoral research associate in the Department of Environmental Sciences in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. “Previous research has shown that global cooling following a nuclear war could lead to crop failure on land, and our study shows we probably can’t rely on seafood to help feed people, at least in that area of the world.”

Scientists studied climate change in six nuclear war scenarios, focusing on the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The scenarios include a major conflict between the United States and Russia and five smaller wars between India and Pakistan. Such wars could ignite enormous fires that inject millions of tons of soot (black carbon) into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight and disrupting Earth’s climate.

With an Earth system model to simulate the six scenarios, the scientists showed that a large-scale nuclear war could trigger an unprecedented El Niño-like event lasting up to seven years. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is the largest naturally occurring phenomenon that affects Pacific Ocean circulation, alternating between warm El Niño and cold La Niña events and profoundly influencing marine productivity and fisheries.

During a “nuclear Niño,” scientists found that precipitation over the Maritime Continent (the area between the Indian and Pacific oceans and surrounding seas) and equatorial Africa would be shut down, largely because of a cooler climate.

More importantly, a nuclear Niño would shut down upwelling of deeper, colder waters along the equator in the Pacific Ocean, reducing the upward movement of nutrients that phytoplankton – the base of the marine food web – need to survive. Moreover, the diminished sunlight after a nuclear war would drastically reduce photosynthesis, stressing and potentially killing many phytoplankton.

“Turning to the sea for food after a nuclear war that dramatically reduces crop production on land seems like it would be a good idea,” said co-author Alan Robock, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers-New Brunswick. “But that would not be a reliable source of the protein we need, and we must prevent nuclear conflict if we want to safeguard our food and Earth’s environment.”


Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara; University of Colorado, Boulder; Australian Antarctic Partnership Program; University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley; and National Center for Atmospheric Research contributed to the study.

3.7 7 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 25, 2021 6:09 pm

How many people would survive a big nuclear war?

Joe Laitin reports that reporters at Bikini were questioning an army lieutenant about what weapons would be used in the next war.

“I dunno,” he said, “but in the war after the next war, sure as Hell, they’ll be using spears!”


John Tillman
Reply to  commieBob
January 26, 2021 5:55 pm

Paraphrasing Einstein.

But in fact, humanity would survive the worst nuclear war possible today, ie intentionally mass murderous attacks with the whole global arsenal on its most dense population centers. Of course that’s not how even all-out nuclear war would be waged, but for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that every nuclear power tried to k!ll as many people as possible.

Deployed and stockpiled strategic and tactical nukes number roughly 10,000, way down from the height of the Cold War. The vast majority are still Russian and US. Their yields vary enormously. Many would be duds, but assume all the devices work. Maybe there are really 12,000 warheads, after all.


The number of “cities” is about the same, containing possibly 4.4 billion people (a high and disputed estimate). Obviously the definition of urban areas differs, but this is a ballpark, back of the envelope calculation.


Each aimpoint would thus subject on average perhaps 440,000 people to heat, blast and radiation effects. Victims k!lled by prompt radiation would already be dead from blast and heat wounds. Radioactive fallout would be limited, since the weapons would be airburst at optimum height to inflict the most blast damage, rather than ground burst (as against hard military targets). Possibly as many as 40% would be killed outright or soon die from injuries. That’s 1.76 billion, leaving about six billion mainly rural survivors.

Russian strategic nuclear warhead (550 Kt) on Tokyo, the most populous and one of the densest megacities:

Estimated fatalities:
Estimated injuries:
In any given 24-hour period, there are on average 9,456,516 people in the light (1 psi) blast range of the simulated detonation.

That’s less than 10% dead in the one psi zone, but a city of that size would merit more than one warhead.


Now, advocates of bogus Nuclear Winter scenarios claim that darkness and cold would lead to crop failures and the deaths of a billion more from starvation. Dubious, but disastrous breakdown of urban society and to a lesser extent rural, due to supply chain disruption, probably would boost death and destruction.

Russia and China do have large civil defense programs, to include underground dwellings in Beijing and seemingly endless tunnels for ICBMs and CCP members throughout the country. Still, err on the side of catastrophe and add another 1.24 billion post-apocalyptic fatalities.

Total butcher’s bill: three billion human lives lost out of closing in on eight billion, for some five billion survivors. This is likely too high a total loss estimate, but arguably defensible as a worst case scenario. When I was born in 1950, our planet supported 2.5 billion people. At least twice that number would escape nuclear destruction even under this highly improbable, to put it mildly, scenario.

More realistic scenarios would be much lower, but there would be fallout from surface bursts, which would increase radiation injuries and possible harm agriculture.

But any scale of nuclear war is a bad thing. Nukes exist primarily to make another world war, if not unthinkable, then at least less likely, at the low risk of being worse.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
January 26, 2021 6:14 pm

PS: Many of stockpiled warhead might not be deliverable, although Russian ICBM silos are thought to be reloadable, as possibly are their sub-launched ballistic missile tubes. Few nuclear-capable aircraft would be liable to survive a counter-military attack. Fewer than half of USN ballistic missile subs are at sea at any one time, but in a crisis those operational in port could be surged.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
January 27, 2021 7:29 am

So even if less seafood, fewer people to consume it. And who knows how much fuel for ocean-going trawlers.

January 25, 2021 6:10 pm

My model of nuclear war scenarios suggests If the Biden Administration keeps employing losers to high government positions it will embolden dictators or terrorists and thus increase the likelihood of nuclear conflict.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Waza
January 25, 2021 6:34 pm

China flew a bunch of fighter jets through Taiwan air space Sunday in a show of force. The PLA invasion, missile strikes, and amphib assault on Taiwan is about 2 to 2 1/2 months out by my reckoning of the the Chicom’s military preparations.

John Tillman
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 26, 2021 4:46 pm

The fighters escorted bombers.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 26, 2021 5:12 pm

Well, I’ll be surprised if the Chicoms attack Taiwan.

What do they gain by doing so? Taiwan’s not going anywhere, and the Chicom position is much stronger today because of the weakling, and compromised Joe Biden being in office.

But Xi does seem to be in a hurry for some reason. He’s pushing his envelope with regard to India, and pushing his envelope with Japan, and many other nations, including Taiwan, so maybe Xi wants to rule the world before he passes from the scene, so he’s going to push until someone pushes back sufficiently.

It wouldn’t be the first time a dictator suffered from megalomania and got a lot of people dead as a result.

The U.S. still has the capability to destroy the Chicoms several times over. There is that for the megalomaniac to consider.

Of course, we can’t guarantee that Biden will pull the trigger.

Reply to  Waza
January 25, 2021 9:01 pm

Which losers are you talking about specifically? Biden has got a long way to go before he comes near the cowboys Trump appointed. Scott Pruit and Scott Atlas to name a couple

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2021 9:40 pm

Susan Rice, the Benghazi talkshow serial liar. John Kerry Climate Czar and Chief of WH ketchup.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 1:58 am

You mean people who could actually do things and actually had some human morality.

Something Biden and his appointees could only even wish they had.

Biden only knows LOSERS..

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 10:30 am

human morality” Huh? Pruitt lost his job for the misuse of taxpayer money, and Atlas provided voodoo advice to the president over covid that arguably cost the lives of tens of thousands, maybe more. I think your use of the word “morality” is stretch, even for you Fred.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 11:07 am

Three-fourths of all C-19 deaths could have been prevented had Democrats not politicized the use of hydroxychloroquine by relying on a bogus, and later retracted, “study” in the Lancet.
I’m eagerly anticipating the multi-$trillion class-action lawsuit that will soon be filed against the Democrats and all their fellow conspirators.

4 Eyes
Reply to  RockyRoad
January 26, 2021 1:03 pm

Given that the AMA changed its mind on hydroxychloroquine a lawsuit is not out of the question.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 26, 2021 3:15 pm

I’m eagerly anticipating the multi-$trillion class-action lawsuit that will soon be filed against the Democrats and all their fellow conspirators.”
Probably happen about the same time trump proves voter fraud.
HCQ (with regard to covid) was quackery from the start which is why only the gullible ran with it.

John Tillman
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 4:47 pm

The Indian government is gullible?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
January 26, 2021 5:40 pm

The nation of Taiwan is currently running a clinical trial of Hydroxychloriquine to determine its effects on prevention and treatment of the Wuhan virus.

The trial has been going for quite some time so results should be coming soon.

There are several other therapuetics that are effective against the Wuhan virus, but the demonizing of early treatment with therapeutics by the Left because Trump was in favor of doing it, is a crime against humanity, as far as I’m concerned.

I posted an article the other day where an 80-year old woman had to sue her hospital’s doctors so they would give her Ivermectin. She took the Ivermectin and made what her relatives called a “miraculous turnaround” after taking it while in the ICU on a ventilator. Before the medicine was administered, the doctors gave her a 20 percent chance of living, given her age and condition.

The Left has demonized early treatment so much that patients have to sue their doctors to get the medicine they need.

This will multiply the problems our hospitals have as the aftereffects of the Wuhan virus stress our medical facilities into the future.

The initial infection is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Wuhan virus.

The sooner you get this virus out of your body, the better for you. Therapeutics get this virus out of the body sooner than just allowing it to run its natural course. If it runs its normal course, you may be in for a lot of health problems in the future.

You should not allow the Wuhan virus to run its course in the body. Take therapeutics as soon as the infection is detected. It’s easy and safe and only takes a week or ten days (depending on medication used) and may save you a whole lot of trouble in the future.

It’s a crying shame that American Doctors Associations are not trumpeting this advice to the rafters. The hospitals overflow and there is silence from the Medical Profession. Politics has taken over everything.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 26, 2021 6:12 pm


If you really want to know which drugs work…. take a look at the ones they thrust down Trumps throat when he got covid. No HCQ in sight.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 27, 2021 10:03 am

Simon, by the time Trump needed medication, there were actually viable alternatives to hydroxychloriquine, but that wasn’t the case just months earlier when HCQ was the only thing that looked viable.

Senator Johnson from Wisconsin held two hearings on therapeutics a few weeks ago, and to demonstrate just how bad it still is to try to promote therapeutics, the Leftwing Media were accusing Johnson of selling snake oil. And Johnson’s hearing didn’t just cover HCQ, it covered about a dozen useful or potentially useful drugs that could be used against the Wuhan virus.

The demonization by the Left of early treatment with therapeutics is ongoing. It’s crazy.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 11:56 am

Compared to ANY democrat, Pruitt and even Trump are angels

Democrats do not know the meaning of MORALITY..

….. as you have shown in every post you make.

Now off you go, pet some little boy’s hair for self-gratification, slimy-one

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 3:17 pm

Now off you go, pet some little boy’s hair for self-gratification”
Why do you keep going to the Paedophile thing Fred? You trying to tell us something?

Reply to  fred250
January 27, 2021 11:11 am

I can see why you like Putin. He locks up his opponents. Good on Biden for calling him on his mistreatment of political opponents, something Trump never had the balls to do.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 3:49 am

How many wars did Trump get us into, Slimon?

Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 26, 2021 3:19 pm

How many wars did Trump get us into”
He didn’t need to start wars with foreign powers he started enough in the US killing plenty. And for the record how many wars did How many did Carter start?

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 7:06 am

I see Simon is still clinging to the belief that he is the measure by which all things are to be judged.

Bill Powers
Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 7:17 am

The Left will be using Trump for misdirection for the foreseeable future. At least for the next four years CNN will be stuck on “Orange Man Bad we don’t have time to talk about Biden Blunders”

Reply to  Bill Powers
January 26, 2021 10:32 am

Four years? There is a lifetime of material for the left in Trump. You would have to think hard to find a political rule he didn’t break.

Joe the non climate expert
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 11:04 am

Trump broke most every political rule

fortunately he didnt screw things up like Obama or Biden.

Iran nuclear appeasement is just a start
Same with the “anti black employment $15 minimum wage act”
destruction of the electric grid with “un-reliable renewables”
Starting the race war with “critical race teaching”
Empowering blacks to be less productive and empowering blacks to accomplish less

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 11:58 am

You really have DERANGEMENT syndrome, don’t you slimon.

Breaking rules of the deep leftist swamp.. SO WHAT.

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 12:08 pm

Breaking rules of the deep leftist swamp”
No they are just rules the country is run by…. usually.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 12:19 pm

Name them. Doing something the DNC didn’t want him to doesn’t count as rulebreaking.

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 3:20 pm

For a start he paid off a porn start he was screwing so it wouldn’t affect his election chances. That’s a crime.

John Tillman
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 4:54 pm

Trump wasn’t charged with a campaign finance crime. His lawyer Cohen got in trouble. Trump won at least two of his his three cases against Daniels.

Reply to  John Tillman
January 26, 2021 6:13 pm

And there is still the important one waiting for him.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 12:18 pm

Now that’s funny, a socialist whining about breaking rules.
Regardless, just because you hate the guy, doesn’t prove that he’s evil, or that he broke any rules.

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 3:21 pm

Regardless, just because you hate the guy, doesn’t prove that he’s evil, or that he broke any rules.”
I hate the guy because he is as close to evil we have see in a president. Oh and he breaks rules.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 6:11 pm

Whine whine whine!

Foolish through and through there, simple.

Biden’s son demonstrates what he learned from his Father and Uncle. Party hard with major drugs with as many prostitutes as he can get into one room.

Let alone Biden’s deep into dementia and the democrats still pushed him as prez.

Of course, Biden bragging on video about how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired and got the prosecution into his son eliminated…

Criminals from top to bottom.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 26, 2021 7:32 pm

Of course, Biden bragging on video about how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired and got the prosecution into his son eliminated…”
Correction… Biden fired Shokin because Obama had asked him to. Why did he you should ask? Well Shokin was a notoriously corrupt politician who most of Europe wanted fired. You can read about it here if you want to know the truth.

Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2021 8:21 pm

You use one of the leftist corrupt pretend ‘fact checker’ rags to rebut Biden’s video?

I suppose they also rebut all of the documentation supplied by the Ukraine and Ukraine re-opening their investigation?…

New levels of falsehoods fabrications and bald lies there, simple.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 6:50 pm

“I hate the guy because he is as close to evil we have see in a president”

Ridiculous. You are living in Bizzarro World, Simon, alongside your fellow leftist travelers.

The Leftwing Media says Trump is Hitler, and you believe them. Easy pickin’s for the propagandists.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 11:01 am

You should use something besides a CNN lense.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 26, 2021 12:19 pm

Simon is psychologically incapable of recognizing any fact that doesn’t fit within his far left world view.

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 3:24 pm

Simon is psychologically incapable of recognizing any fact that doesn’t fit within his far left world view.”
You really are a delicate little flower aren’t you Mark. Other people having an opinion is just too much for you isn’t it dear?
And for the record I am not far left. I may be from your far right standpoint but I have voted left and right. I look at policies not parties. Plenty of republicans I rate…. just not the crook Trump.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 6:15 pm

Your regular proclamations and refusal of hard facts proves your opinions are either that of a sheltered minor in granny’s basement or you are a paid trollop slinging the party line that you are paid to sling.

False in everything there, simple.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2021 11:14 am

You want hard facts, I give them to you and you run away. No comment I see on your lying Shokin comment re Biden.

Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2021 8:29 pm

Your pretend ‘fact check’ rebuttals is the epitome of “running away”.

The alleged ‘fact check’ twists words and centers their ‘opinion’ on the word of their choice. A classic red herring logical fallacy.

Besides, the alleged fact check claims Biden leveraged the $1B to “oust” the prosecutor…

Why in the world would Biden “oust” a foreign prosecutor?
A) because the prosecutor is investigating Biden’s son, Hunter!

Meanwhile the deranged left has fits about President Trump asking the Ukraine for assistance, including with the “Hunter Biden” investigation long past Ukraine having already received funds.

Typical of the left, it is all right when one of their elite’s commits extortion. It is not all right for Conservatives to work with foreign governments…

Totally bogus.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 6:00 pm

Try eating more fish. It’s supposed to be a brain food, simple.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 26, 2021 6:14 pm

Try lifting your knuckles off the ground. It wont hurt so much. Moron.

Reply to  Simon
January 28, 2021 8:29 pm

Personal insults, simple?

January 25, 2021 6:11 pm

Alan Robock said: “But that [the ocenas] would not be a reliable source of the protein we need, and we must prevent nuclear conflict if we want to safeguard our food and Earth’s environment.”

Well … if we’re going to have such a big nuclear exchange that our food supply is compromised, I wouldn’t worry about it, since there’s not going to be that many survivors to feed!

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 26, 2021 7:07 am

The Earth’s climate survived the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs. It’s got nothing to worry about from a nuclear war.

Christopher Simpson
January 25, 2021 6:22 pm

“… we must prevent nuclear conflict if we want to safeguard our food and Earth’s environment.”

Uh, yep. That’s the overriding reason to prevent a nuclear war for sure. The death of millions of people are also kind of a bit of a factor in there maybe. But let’s keep our priorities straight here.

Reply to  Christopher Simpson
January 25, 2021 8:43 pm

Biden gets in……. immediately there’s talks of nuclear war.


Reply to  fred250
January 25, 2021 9:02 pm

No, they talked about taking the button away from Trump.

Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2021 11:03 pm

Wasn’t that the send button on his Twitter account?

Reply to  Redge
January 25, 2021 11:42 pm

That’s very good.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 1:49 am

“taking the button away from Trump.”


And giving it to a senile dementia patient who like to “stroke” young girls’ hair ??

Just your type, hey slimon.

Or do you prefer young boys?

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 10:23 am

And giving it to a senile dementia patient “
The senile dementia patient…. Haha, so what dos that make Trump? It’s one thing losing to a Kennedy or an Obama… but Biden? LOSER!!!!

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 12:01 pm

Trump’s mind is still very much in tact.

Biden is more like you.. little mind , and what there is , is FAILING badly

Trump was beaten by the MSM, and all the far-left deep swamp lies and deceits and vote manipulation.

You KNOW that.

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 12:09 pm

Trump was beaten by the MSM, and all the far-left deep swamp lies and deceits and vote manipulation.”
Still beaten which makes him a loser. Time to move on Trumpeteer.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 12:22 pm

Notice how Simon is actually proud of the fact that Trump was beaten by the lies of his side.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 12:21 pm

He lost to BIden, all members of the social media, all of the mainstream media, plus those whose job it was to gin up a few million extra votes, just in case.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2021 11:15 am

I see Biden’s approval rating is already higher than Trumps ever was. What a loser.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 7:08 am

The left always declares that it’s the right who are warmongers.
Yet it is always the left that end up getting the US into wars.

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 8:48 am

(D) Polk MexAm War
(R) Lincoln Civil War
(R) McKinley SpanAm War
(D) Wilson WWI
(D) HST Korea
(D) Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam
(R) GHWB Gulf War
(D) Clinton Balkans
(R) GWB Iran, Afghanistan
(D) Obama Syria/ISIS

Score: 7-5 (D) but maybe I missed a conflict here and there

Like I didn’t count Grenada/Reagan, that one just was a pushover did anyone even get hurt?

Richard Page
Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 9:10 am

Wasn’t GWB Iran, Afghanistan and Gulf War II? Obama with ISIS is iffy as it’s still unclear whether he did more to support them or attack them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 26, 2021 7:38 pm

Obama sat by while the Islamic Terror Army wreaked havoc all over the Middle East, killing/displacing millions of innocent people.

And Obama did nothing as Iran tried to undermine the Iraqi government.

Trump had to come in and fix the situation. And he used the same tools Obama had available to himself. The difference is Obama did not use his tools, for whatever reason, whereas Trump did use his tools and wiped out the Caliphate with them.

Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 12:23 pm

Why not rank the conflicts based on how many died?

Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 2:11 pm

The Republicans shouldn’t be blamed for the Civil War, that’s wrong. The first battle of the Civil War was when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter. The President of the Confederates was Jefferson Davis – he was a Democrat. Score 8-4 (D).

Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 6:38 pm

Civil War was started by Republican’s? Really!?
Republicans fired on Fort Sumter?

That’s wrong right from the start.

Next, blaming McKinley for the Spanish American War.

The democrat president ‘Stephen Grover Cleveland’ served during the big buildup to declaring war on Spain.

War was actually declared BEFORE McKinley’s inauguration, by ‘Stephen Grover Cleveland’.

I also note that you failed to include the many ‘conflicts’ America fought in; e.g. Actually Battling ISIS.
Obama started the conflict with his funding of terrorism, then declared that ISIS would be fighting for generations.

Trump wiped ISIS off the Middle East map! Then started removing soldiers from the Middle East.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 7:09 pm

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into the Balkans war. Clinton wanted to attack from 25,000 feet, and then it became evident that bombing wasn’t going to win the war, and the Europeans said troops had to be sent in to end the conflict, and Clinton balked at sending in American ground troops, but then the Europeans said they were going without Clinton, so he changed his mind and allowed American troops to go in along with the European troops.

This turned out to be a fortunate circumstance. Because Clinton balked, the Europeans put a British general in charge of the operation, instead of Clinton’s American General, Wesley Clark.

At one point during the fight, Russian troops were holding a vital airport in Serbia that was surrounded by NATO troops.

General Clark wanted NATO troops to attack the Russians at the airport and remove them, and you can imagine the reaction the Russian government would have had to that happening.

The British general, who was in charge because Clinton balked, told General Clark that he was not prepared to start a nuclear war with Russia over that airport and there would be no attack on the Russian troops.

The next day the Russian troops agreed to leave the airport peacefully. And did so.

So, aren’t we glad that idiot General Clark wasn’t in charge of this operation! What a moron! Yeah, let’s attack the Russians.

Clark was a contributor to CNN and MSNBC after he retired. You should never take advice from this man.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 27, 2021 4:29 am

There’s a British singer called James Blunt who was an officer in charge of a cavalry recce troop at Pristina airport that day. He was directly told by Clark to clear the Russians off the airfield “by any damn means.” He passed it up the line and was told to ignore it. Apparently Clark had already asked an American unit to do this and when they refused started going around to other NATO unit commanders to try to bully them into doing it. Later that day the Russians moved away from the airport by themselves, having made their point.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 27, 2021 10:11 am

Thanks for that interesting tidbit.

General Clark could have been a disaster.

Not all generals know what they are doing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 7:16 pm

I think Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford, were all involved in the Vietnam war to one extent or another.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  menace
January 26, 2021 7:25 pm

GWB would be Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn’t do Iran, although he should have since he had over 300,000 American troops available in the area at one time.

He could probably have caused the Mad Mullahs to be overthrown had he just made serious threats to invade Iran.

At that time, the Mullahs were not nearly as strong and their internal opposition was large and would have responded had the U.S. officially endorsed the overthrow of the Mad Mullahs with U.S. support to follow.

The Mad Mullahs would still be running away, if they survived.

But some of our leaders don’t have enough foresight to see the Big Picture. So this opportunity was allowed to pass. We lost a large number of American troops to the subsequent machinations of the Mad Mullahs of Iran. We should have put a stop to them a long time ago. Think of all the trouble they have caused since then.

Trump is one who sees the Big Picture. One of the few in leadership. That was one of the things that impressed me about him. He sees the international situation clearly.

Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2021 6:18 pm

No, they did not.

Speculative rumors are patently absurd.

sky king
January 25, 2021 6:26 pm

Those are genuine humanitarians there at Rutgers. Without their virtue signaling we might have continued to think nuclear war was a good thing.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  sky king
January 25, 2021 6:37 pm

Based on a number of the Biden West Wing new-hire idiots and morons, they need all the help they can get.

Richard Page
Reply to  sky king
January 26, 2021 2:47 am

Unfortunately there has been a fairly recent tendency within some parts of the western militaries that no longer think in terms of mutually assured destruction but to think that the US could actually win a nuclear war. I believe Hillary Clinton was part of the group that believed this idea which was an extremely scary thought. It was based on extremely incorrect data and wild guesses and I sincerely hope it is now consigned to the rubbish bin of dangerously bad ideas.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 26, 2021 7:44 pm

“Unfortunately there has been a fairly recent tendency within some parts of the western militaries that no longer think in terms of mutually assured destruction but to think that the US could actually win a nuclear war”

The Chicoms also promote the idea that a limited nuclear war is feasible.

I suppose it depends on the personalities of the various leaders involved. Are the Chicoms going to bet their futures on guessing how an adversary is going to react in the situation? What if they guess wrong? We know what will happen then.

Joel O'Bryan
January 25, 2021 6:32 pm

El Nino and the warmth is brings would be the least of our problems.
Besides, didn’t the Liberal retards always claim global nuclear war would bring a nuclear winter?

Tom Halla
January 25, 2021 6:33 pm

TTAPS (Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan), the so-called “nuclear winter’ study seems to have as many lives as Mann et al 1998. A really dubious study with considerable political impact in both cases, but both were so useful to politicians they never die, despite being disproved.

January 25, 2021 6:35 pm

No other way humans can cause El Ninos.

Since El Ninos have provided the only warming in the satellite era.


January 25, 2021 6:44 pm

Memo to Joe: You own these crazy dudes.

Mickey Reno
January 25, 2021 6:49 pm

Dear god, if we have a nuclear war, what academic thinks it’s important to study the environmental impacts and climate change that occurs after human civilization is destroyed? These people should be ashamed of themselves.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
January 25, 2021 7:43 pm

The research grant money keeps them wealthy

January 25, 2021 7:08 pm

With an Earth system model to simulate the six scenarios

After 40 years of failed climate models, they finally find one that works. Who would believe that!

The Global Warming religion will die out as the old believers die out. They will never admit they were wrong but the younger ones will soon enough realise the data does not match the belief. Some young scientist will eventually have so little to lose and take the gamble to get on the right side of history.

I have not checked the actual sources but the linked site is questioning the validity of climate models:

The IPCC has admitted there is a great deal of “continuing uncertainty” in the sign and magnitude of the cloud influence. Most models indicate positive feedback (more warming), but this “is not well understood” and the IPCC scientists “are not confident that it is realistic.”

Cannot even get the sign right let alone the magnitude. The reality is that the clouds will do whatever it takes to keep the maximum ocean temperature constant. Clearly they have no clue.

Reply to  RickWill
January 25, 2021 11:09 pm

My concern is the young are now so indoctrinated with all the garbage spewed by the greens (not just climate), sceptical thinking will die out sooner.

Where are the young people to replace Watts, McIntyre, Spenser etc?

Yes, we will win the climate battle eventually, but I fear the war is already lost.

Reply to  Redge
January 26, 2021 12:27 am

The main problem I see is that there is a lot of money being poured into uneconomic technologies.

The serious risk is governments deciding who the winners are and subsidising uneconomic options to make them economic. Or taxing the cr@p out of economic options to make them uneconomic.

For example, solar panels already make economic sense for some remote mines in Australia that need to transport diesel fuel over long distances. The solar is simply a fuel replacement and is an economic option with a payback of about 8 years or even less. If batteries could be produced with a cycle life and shelf life in excess of 20 years for under $100/kWh then much of Australia could do without a grid. It now appears that such batteries may be technically possible.

I have been impressed with battery developments in the last decade. Still not there but already economic for grid stability applications and peak lopping instead of gas plant.

I also firmly believe that resource conservation is not a bad thing. I like hybrid cars for that reason.

Each generation has its share of curious people and I am certain that reality will prevail over ignorance or belief as far as Climate Change is concerned.

The question I ask is – what would be different if there was no misguided belief in Climate Change. Climate “ambition” is a VERY BAD thing. Anything that gives the unelected zombies at the UN easy access to money is not good.

Chris Nisbet
January 25, 2021 7:16 pm

They use a model to make a prediction and then say that it ‘shows’ something. I’m no scientist but this seems very misleading.

January 25, 2021 7:29 pm

Well considering all the bad things that would happen for sure if a nuclear war broke out let’s just not do that. Glad I could help 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TRM
January 26, 2021 7:47 pm

I’m with you! Let’s not have a nuclear war of any kind. 🙂

January 25, 2021 7:40 pm

Are the people who claim to have done this research serious about planning for a post nuclear war that would leave enough infrastructure to fill supply chains for 7 billion people ?

Richard Page
Reply to  Walt
January 26, 2021 2:51 am

Oh you mean the supply chains for about 2 bn people (or less) and over 5 bn body bags?

January 25, 2021 8:05 pm

Biden will unconstitutionally reinstate US’ involvement in the insane Iran Nuclear Treaty, which guarantees Iran (the world’s largest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism) will get nukes in a few years…

This unconstitutional treaty (never passed by Senate) will start a ME nuclear arms race, which won’t end well…Oh, goody..

If there ever is nuclear war, Iran will likely be the instigator and the US, China and Russia will likely pulled into the conflict because of various existing ME treaties.

Miss Trump yet?

Richard Page
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 26, 2021 2:58 am

Israel, as the only nuclear power in the ME, tends to guard that privilege jealously – even if they wanted to, I don’t think Iran will ever get a successful nuclear weapon. Whether it’s computer viruses in their programs or air strikes on their facilities and supply convoys, I think there will be a lot of setbacks.

January 25, 2021 8:11 pm

Is this article for comedic purposes. Should we be mourning the dollars spent on this useless exercise? May god have mercy on us – that is if he exists and is still interested in humanity both of which are appearing increasingly doubtful.

Peta of Newark
January 25, 2021 8:27 pm

Just to be The Devil’s Avocado..

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?

A Nuclear Exchange would be a kind, quick and merciful end/escape from legions of meddlers, tax collectors, interfering omnipotent nobody-busybodies and the appalling behaviour & mismanagement etc of entire countries, presently running rampant through Western Society by left-leaning and politically correct muppets
e.g. here

Even the mild mannered Dutch have had enough..
(I thought the French would have cracked first – curiouser and curiouser, what’s going on in France these days?)

See here what happens in the UK when a group of people come together to try help their own and each other’s mental and physical health
Your mileage will vary on that story, magical thinking says as much.
Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it, that’s all.

I’ve bookmarked dozens of stories like those and they keep coming ever thicker and faster..

Back on topic
How will a nuclear war create El Nino.
Nino needs a large pool of water, heated by the sun, to build on the Western side of the Pacific.
Nino happens when that pool collapses and the warm water floods back eastwards
If the sky is full of soot, dust and smoke, that pool won’t build as fast as normal – the sun is The Only Thing that can heat the water.

Yes, nuclear bombs etc are messy and dirty – they are the man-made equivalent of volcanoes.
As such – Fountains of Ambrosia for plants.
New dirt, New soil, Soot = Biochar, fresh supplies of trace elements, sulphur and nitrogen oxides by the shedload, dust containing Potash and Phosphate plus the myriad other nutrients that plants need.

The dust raised from the land will be loaded with iron (why it’s red/orange/yellow) and it will be Oceanic Ambrosia when it falls into the water
The Ocean would go green as never seen in a very long time.
Yet this self promoting clown (just check out his bio) thinks the exact opposite and is so completely Brain Dead that he needs A Computer as his authority to back himself up.

Bless him, he doesn’t actually realise what he’s telling us when he says “The computer told me”
Give it up mate. Put yourself out to pasture. We’ll just forget what you said.

People, even my little 8 year old autistic non-reading non-writing friend knows better than that, has more sense AND recognises her own limits infinitely better than he does.
Really she does.

Not long after a reasonably sized nuclear exchange, Planet Earth will blossom and bloom like it has not done for 10’s or 100’s of millions of years
If you were/are any fan or believer of Global Greening, your head would explode if you were (still) around to see it

The Devil’s Avocado says that a large nuclear exchange would be one of The Best Gifts we could ever bestow upon Ma Nature

And I am NOT saying that because of the lives that would be lost – do not let your own Magical Thinking and inbuilt Troll tell you otherwise.
If it does, we really are doomed.

Just look at the verdant garden that’s grown up around Chernobyl, and it didn’t even go bang. Just a minor hydrogen pop

There is a Real World out there – go visit it sometime.
For everyone’s sake, not just your own.

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 26, 2021 3:07 am

A nuclear war would not be kind, quick or merciful for the vast majority of the victims. As to comparing a nuclear war with Chernobyl – I think your thinking is off by several orders of magnitude; by comparison, Chernobyl released lower level radiation into a localised area. Irradiating vast areas of the planet would not be the gift you might think it is. Ma Nature would take a while to bloom and blossom, as you say.

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 26, 2021 9:28 am

As to what’s happening in France? The French are really, really ticked off with Macron and he’s furiously trying to redirect that dislike at the UK to try to save his own hide. The UK is attempting to pass it to the EU with limited success and everyone’s getting terribly frustrated but really can’t be bothered to do much about it (insert Gallic shrug here).

January 25, 2021 9:48 pm

Don’t be dissing nuclear weapons. Our entire economy is based on them. People accept our guarantees because we have them and more of them than anyone else. You will accept our IOUs because of them and you will accept our massive debt because if you don’t, its game over and nobody wants that.

Reply to  Doonman
January 26, 2021 7:16 am

You honestly believe that the only reason why people buy US treasuries is because the DOD is threatening them?????

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 8:13 am

The DOD is threatening no one. That’s the politicians job and they do that constantly. But I’m open to listening to your theory of what backs the US dollar, if you have one. It certainly isn’t the interest rate.

Richard Page
Reply to  Doonman
January 26, 2021 8:48 am

It’s a fiat currency – it’s backed by the strength and stability of the US economy, not who’s the biggest bully in the playground. This is why Biden’s plans are likely to have huge and far reaching consequences.

Reply to  Doonman
January 26, 2021 12:26 pm

Please list these threats, assuming they don’t exist only in your mind.
What backs the US currency? The strength of the US economy.

Mr. Lee
January 25, 2021 10:42 pm

Hello? Who is it? Oh..ok, I see. Hold on a sec.
(muffles receiver with hand)
Hey Rutgers! it’s the 80’s and they want their quasi-scientific fear-mongering back!

Jimmy Haigh
January 26, 2021 12:45 am

That’s a bummer! I was really looking forward to some giant langoustines after the Harris/Biden nuclear war!

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
January 26, 2021 1:55 am

“Harris/Biden nuclear war”


I don’t think Harris and Biden will go to nuclear war with each other.

Although I could be wrong. !

Harris’s backers are already in control…

…and Biden is a sock-puppet with a hand up his …..

Richard Page
Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 9:17 am

I can, however, imagine Harris going nuclear on Biden if he doesn’t do as he’s told!

Reply to  Richard Page
January 26, 2021 12:04 pm

Biden is incapable of this own thoughts…

… of course he will do as he is told.

Reply to  fred250
January 26, 2021 12:28 pm

Perhaps if she lets Biden pat her on the head?

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 26, 2021 1:23 am

It seems to me that after a nuclear war El Nino will be the least of our worries.

January 26, 2021 4:16 am

ohFFS the russsia russia crap ramps up with bidet in pdq..more likely china to do so or NK who dont have much to lose
that said the usa embassies promoting navalny the nutters appearances n protests was pretty dumb n dirty
novichok NOT but a great tox blood released showed lithium and a host of other drugs NOT all medico given one would think

Richard Page
Reply to  ozspeaksup
January 26, 2021 8:51 am

Heh yup. Finger pointing at Russia has become a popular pastime in many countries. Best of all, you never need any proof!

Tom in Florida
January 26, 2021 4:40 am

I seem to recall that it was reported on this blog that Chico California has a law against setting off a nuclear device within the city limits. A $1000 fine was the punishment.
Perhaps every city should pass that law, that will surely prevent a nuclear war.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 26, 2021 7:18 am

How high does a cities control of it’s airspace go up to?
At some point the FAA takes over.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2021 9:22 am

Well the FAA would be perfectly within its rights to fine aircraft for dropping something midflight but California might have to take over once the object landed within the city limits – assuming there’s enough of the city limits left to estimate where it landed of course.

Steve E.
January 26, 2021 4:56 am

I’d be much more inclined to laugh at the absurdity of these kinds of studies if they weren’t paid for by tax dollars…

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Steve E.
January 26, 2021 5:48 am

My first thoughts when seeing the title to this study was just how much of our tax dollars were pissed away and who were the f-n morons that approved the expenditure.

Richard M
January 26, 2021 5:48 am

Typical climate pseudo-science. No one knows what causes El Nino but somehow a nuclear war will do it. The climate crazy knows no end.

AGW is Not Science
January 26, 2021 5:53 am

In our computer simulations,

That’s really as far as you need to read. As usual, a bunch of assumptions (mostly wrong) are fed into a computer, which is then used to run “simulations” which are what would happen IF all of the input assumptions were correct. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

More to the point, worrying about an El Nino after a nuclear war is kind of like worrying about whether falling debris will clog the drain in the kitchen sink after the house burns to the ground – with everybody in it.

We seriously need to stop sending taxpayer money to academia.

January 26, 2021 6:20 am

Where do they get these idiots? “Nuclear war”? What part of total destruction of the planet don’t they understand?

January 26, 2021 7:04 am

I see they are still trying to push the nuclear winter nonsense.
The belief that large scale fires are capable of injecting soot into the stratosphere was demolished decades ago.

January 26, 2021 10:59 am

Is there a reason to worry about seafood supply after humans are wiped out?
Seems like an exercise in futility, to me.

very old white guy
January 26, 2021 11:48 am

I think dying from the radiation poisoning would be a big concern for those that managed to survive the actual blasts.

Reply to  very old white guy
January 26, 2021 12:32 pm

To a large degree, the only people who died from radiation poisoning in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were those who drank the black rain that followed the blasts.

January 26, 2021 1:17 pm

So nuclear winter is out in favor of nuclear warming?

Actually – that’s a LOT scarier than “global warming”, so, why not?

Don Forcash
January 26, 2021 3:40 pm

Wild claim – Nuclear war could destroy earth’s human population, making adverse impact on crops irrelevant.

January 26, 2021 5:54 pm

With an Earth system model to simulate the six scenarios, the scientists showed that a large-scale nuclear war could trigger an unprecedented El Niño-like event lasting up to seven years.”

No size limit to the vague words, “large-scale nuclear war“?
That describing a huge fudge factor input into their models.

Vague waffle words without definition puts this into the ‘we fudged a whole lot of mega explosions and then modeled our fantasies’ world of non-reality.

All predicated on some fantasia idea of why, where and how a nuclear war is waged, ala early 1950s anti-nuclear movies.

next, they’ll have Japan suffering dozens of Godzilla attacks from the oceans.

could trigger an unprecedented El Niño-like event lasting up to seven years”

I get the impression none of these geniuses ever bothered to calculate just how much energy is encompassed by El Ninos versus their alleged nuclear war. it’s all self satisfation make believe scenarios.

Nor do these yahoos have any concept regarding just how El Ninos are actually formed.

January 27, 2021 12:27 am

It seems like what they have shown is that the climate system is incredibly resistant to human interference. Our most powerful and nightmarish destructive weapons will disrupt climate and lead to the fabled “nuclear winter” …. but climate feedbacks will kick in and induce a persistent El Nino: an effect where heat built up in the oceans is released to warm the atmosphere.

So why are we worrying about a hypothesized warming so small it can not be distinguished from natural variability?

January 27, 2021 12:29 am

Why worry about reduce ocean food production. There will not be any humans left for farm, it will soon recover.

January 27, 2021 5:31 am

Thank you for your concern and input Alan but just at present we’re trying to prioritize resourcing for Covid or the climactic dooming but we will get around to these second order problems at some stage.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights