Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall From: edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Nuclear Winter Rebuttal Message-ID: <1698@randvax.ARPA> Date: Wed, 15-Feb-84 06:23:17 EST Article-I.D.: randvax.1698 Posted: Wed Feb 15 06:23:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 03:24:51 EST References: <572@orca.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 40 ------------------------------ Why not look up the Science article in question? It is on page 1283 of the December 23, 1983 issue. You'll find that Dr. Singer's rebuttal just doesn't wash. Some items: 1) The theory doesn't just consider dust, but the enormous amount of soot and smoke produced by bomb-induced fires. These sub- micron particles behave differently from the volcanic dust measurements that earlier models have been based on. Also, nuclear weapons are far better at injecting dust into the stratosphere (higher atmosphere) than volcanos. 2) The lower stratosphere and upper troposphere are indeed heated in this model, while the lower troposphere (nearest the ground) is cooled. Comparing an absorbing atmosphere such as this to the diffusive one of Venus is ridiculous. The Venusian atmosphere is extremely dense and CO2-laden. Earth's wasn't, last time I checked. 3) One possible effect of this hot-layered-over-cold model is the supression of the convection mechanism which leads to storms. This can slow the `raining-out' of the dust and smoke. 4) The model predicts a much longer time for the ozone layer to recover than for the lower atmosphere to clear, with the net result being a couple months of strong cooling followed by several months of elevated ultraviolet radiation. 5) The article openly admits that it is considering some `worst- case' scenarios. It also presents some possible milder outcomes. Uncertainties are clearly identified. 6) Far from being written by `Carl Sagan and his followers', Sagan is only a minor author; principal author is Dr. R. P. Turco. [I have to admit that Sagan has sadly disappointed me with the dogmatism of his public pronouncements. I hope his science is better than his politics.] Now, I'm not convinced that the Nuclear Winter theory is a fact, nor am I convinced it is false. It will be refined or rejected with time. The above is my own personal opinion, and has no relation to the opinion or research of my employer. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall