Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!danc
From: danc@orca.UUCP (Daniel Cobb)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Nuclear Winter Rebuttal
Message-ID: <572@orca.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Feb-84 16:39:55 EST
Article-I.D.: orca.572
Posted: Fri Feb 10 16:39:55 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 04:25:15 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR.
Lines: 42

Before I get started, I would like to say hello to those people on the 
net in Europe. Hi Europe! How nice it is that we have this capacity 
to communicate! Greetings!!

About the nuclear winter that Sagan and his followers have been telling us 
about. -A recent artice in the Wall Street Journal disagrees with Sagan's 
nuclear winter hypothesis. The article was written by a Geophysicist
from the University of Virginia, a Mr. Fred Singer.  In short, the 
article says that there are two environmental models that can be used to 
estimate the effects of a large nuclear exchange. They are the planets Mars,
and Venus. On Mars, intense dust storms have blocked out a great deal of 
sunlight, thus lowering the surface temperature of the planet. But on Venus,
a greenhouse mechanism (associated with particles in the atmosphere) has 
warmed the surface of the planet to 700 degrees Farenheit. The article is 
far more technical and specific but it says that the Martian model does not 
apply to our situation because of differences in the optical properties of
the particles in the Martian atmosphere and the particles that would be placed 
in the Earth's atmosphere by a nuclear war. Obviously Venus is far closer to 
the Sun than Mars or the Earth, and the 700 degrees surface temperature of 
Venus reflects this proximity. So it seems that a warming of the Earth is more 
probable.  After all, the surface warming is not caused only by direct solar 
radiation, but by the fact that particles in the atmosphere will not allow the 
surface to to cool as rapidly. We are experiencing this very effect now, with a 
general warming the planet surface due to the burning of fossil fuels. 

Sagan also says that intense ultraviolet radiation would reach the surface due
to a breakdown of the ozone layer, thereby creating a hazard to life, but 
Singer says that if general solar radiation is screened by dust and smoke, 
so will ultraviolet radiation, and that a rapid rebuilding of the upper ozone 
layer would occur shortly thereafter anyway. Singer also goes on to say that a 
temperature differences in the atmosphere caused by these particles would 
bring about intense thunderstorms, cleaning the atmosphere. Obviously nuclear 
war would be horrible, but are we perhaps overestimating the effects? 

Singer presents a good deal of information, and the article closes with an
interesting question, although modified here. Does the prediction of a nuclear 
war make it less likey to happen? If so, should scientists ignore studies that 
indicate less severe environmental effects, and publicize those studies that 
dramatize the worst possible outcome, in effect seriously and artificially 
weighting there conclusions? Would this be lying?