Talk:Nuclear darkness

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles

Climate change

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Discussion of Proposed Merger with Nuclear winter

the ideas are the same, but nuclear darkness is a term coined to specifically emphasize the lack of sunlight and its repercussions. Ianthomasjames (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (EST)

If the ideas are the same, that strongly argues then it should be incorporated as a section heading within the larger concept of Nuclear winter. As currently written as a standalone article, it is just an unsourced orphan. KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

true. but nuclear darkness happens after even one nuclear explosion. a nuclear winter, as defined in the article, occurs after a number of large scale explosions. this distinction must be made. the point of the 'orphan' right now is to provide a basis for discussion of this new term. sources are on their way. Ianthomasjames (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2008 (EST)

There are several good reasons why the term "nuclear darkness" is viable and needed as a standalone term. As discussed in the references and the present version of the definition, the term "nuclear winter" applies only to the most extreme examples of "nuclear darkness",and thus is essentially inadequate when used to describe current scientific findings. Consider that one-half of one percent of the explosive power of the deployed and operational nuclear weapons of the U.S. and Russia is capable of creating a "nuclear darkness" which would cause catastrophic changes to the global climate; this is a very long way from "nuclear winter" and it is hardly an insignificant effect. Because deadly climate change from regional nuclear war is a newly defined and predicted event, coming 20 years after the concept of "nuclear winter" was created, its mechanism warrants a new title. In other words, "nuclear winter" is an earlier term which now falls seriously short of describing the newly discovered/predicted effects; it is just too far down at the other end of the spectrum of predicted effects. Furthermore, the term "nuclear darkness" is useful because it helps minimize verbiage when attempting to describe the series of events involved in process; e.g., it is much easier to reference "nuclear darkness" than it is to say "a reduction of light reaching the Earth's surface cause by a global stratospheric smoke layer formed by the deposition of smoke from burning cities following a nuclear war". StevenStarr {talk} 11:44, 14 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbloomfield (talk • contribs)