Nuclear GC to cause (near) extinction

Your submission is now in Draft mode. Once it's ready, please submit your draft for review by our team of Community Moderators. Thank you!

Question

A nuclear exchange could cause a nuclear winter – a release of black carbon into the atmosphere which would according to some studies, result in the blocking the Sun’s thermal energy. This would lower temperatures regionally and globally for several years, and open up new holes in the ozone layer protecting the Earth from harmful radiation, reduce global precipitation by about 10%, trigger crop failures, and result in widespread food shortages.

According to some models, the smoke would rapidly engulf the Earth and form a dense stratospheric smoke layer. The smoke from a war fought with strategic nuclear weapons would quickly prevent up to 70% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and 35% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Southern Hemisphere. Such an enormous loss of warming sunlight would produce Ice Age weather conditions on Earth in a matter of weeks. For a period of 1-3 years following the war, temperatures would fall below freezing every day in the central agricultural zones of North America and Eurasia.

This could leave some survivors in parts of Australia and New Zealand, but they would be in a very precarious situation and the threat of extinction from other sources would be great. Whether a nuclear winter could cause extinction is currently unclear. Some models consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable.

These studies consider what is currently the worst-case nuclear exchange, namely, that between the US and Russia. However, It is possible that a future nuclear arms race someday leads to larger stockpiles or more dangerous nuclear weapons than existed at the height of the Cold War. In this case, chances of a nuclear extinction might be higher than they currently are.

In the first part of the Ragnarök Question Series, we asked the question If a global catastrophe happens before 2100, will it be principally due to the deployment of nuclear weapons?. Now it is asked,

Given that nuclear catastrophe occurs that results in the reduction of global population of at least 10% by 2100, will the global population decline by more than 95% relative to the pre-catastrophe population?

The question resolves ambiguous if a global nuclear catastrophe that claims at least 10% (in any period of 5 years or less) does not occur. It resolves positively if such a catastrophe does occur, and the global population is less than 95% of the pre-catastrophe population at any point within 25 years of the catastrophe. The question resolves negative if a global nuclear catastrophe occurs that claims at least 10% (in any period of 5 years or less) but the post-catastrophe population remains above 5%.


This question is part of the Ragnarök Question Series. Check out the other questions in the series:

  1. If a global biological catastrophe occurs, will it reduce the human population by 95% or more?

  2. If an artificial intelligence catastrophe occurs, will it reduce the human population by 95% or more?

  3. If a nuclear catastrophe occurs, will it reduce the human population by 95% or more?

  4. If a global climate disaster occurs by 2100, will the human population decline by 95% or more?

  5. If a global nanotechnology catastrophe occurs by 2100, will the human population decline by 95% or more?

Also, please check out our questions on whether a global catastrophe will occur by 2100, and if so, which?:

  1. By 2100 will the human population decrease by at least 10% during any period of 5 years?

  2. Will such a catastrophe be due to either human-made climate change or geoengineering?

  3. Will such a catastrophe be due to a nanotechnology failure-mode?

  4. Will such a catastrophe be due to nuclear war?

  5. Will such a catastrophe be due to an artificial intelligence failure-mode?

  6. Will such a catastrophe be due to biotechnology or bioengineered organisms?

All results are analysed here, and will be updated periodically.

Categories:
Series – Ragnarok

Make a Prediction

Prediction

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Current points depend on your prediction, the community's prediction, and the result. Your total earned points are averaged over the lifetime of the question, so predict early to get as many points as possible! See the FAQ.

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site