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