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?