Talk:Nuclear winter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Kuwait
Whats Up Cuz: I read the article referenced in the Kuwaiti oil fires section, and decided to add some qualifications. First, the authors themselves state explicitly that differences in plume height and duration make analogies to nuclear winter inappropriate. This may be good reason to remove this section from the Nuclear Winter article entirely, but for now I have included this proviso. Second, I added language to more clearly highlight the fact that this study is based on modelling, rather than hard temperature data. I have no beef with the scientific bona fides of climate modelling, which for all I know are terrific, but model data is importantly different from empirical data, and I personally didn't catch the distinction the first time I read the wiki section. I think these edits better should inform the reader. 68.33.214.51 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
for the record:
The name might stem from 1983, but the concept that a nuclear war would cause massive cooling effects actually dates to well before that. There's a science fiction story by Poul Anderson, "Tomorrow's Children" published ca. 1948, set just after a nuclear war. In the opening pages, a character thinks of how the dust and smoke thrown into the atmosphere by the recent nuclear war is cooling the climate, and speculates it may even kick off an ice age. Whether Anderson thought of this himself, or picked it up from an article in a scientific journal is anybody's guess...
Malcolm Farmer, Monday, July 8, 2002
Removing the following statement from the article:
- The term "nuclear winter" was first coined by the 1983 "TTAPS" study (from the initials of the last names of its authors, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and
That's bullshit; the term was in widespread use at least as far back as the the early 70s (e.g. in the Illuminatus trilogy) and IMO probably was coined as far back as the manhattan project. Mkweise 01:08 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
TTAPS was based on three basic assumptions, which in my opinion are quite flawed:
1. Nuclear war would lead to massive wildfires across the globe. Studies suggest that such would not be the case; one study ("The Effects of Nuclear War") asserts that "Some believe that firestorms in the U.S. or Soviet cities are unlikely because the density of flammable materials (fuel loading) is too low – the ignition of a firestorm is thought to require a fuel loading of at least 8 lbs/sq. ft. (Hamburg had 32), compared to fuel loading of 2 lbs/sq. ft. in a typical U.S. suburb and 5 lbs/sq. ft. in a neighborhood of two story brick rowhouses."
2. These massive wildfires would lead to massive injection of submicron dust into the stratosphere. There is no evidence to suggest this would be the case; this phenomenon does not occur even in the largest of forest fires. This assumption is also clearly dependant on the first assumption.
3. This massive amount of stratospheric submicron dust would remain stratospheric for years. This relies on over-pessimistic estimates of atmospheric self-clearing mechanisms, and of course is utterly dependant on the first and second assumptions being correct.
[edit] thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification about Nuclear summer. It didn't sound right to me when I stumbled upon the entry. The reason I linked it was for individuals more learned in the subject to make a judgment. - ILFoxtrot 7/20/05
[edit] Krakatoa
The 1883 erruption of Krakatoa should be mentioned, the 200 megaton blast reduced global temperatures and changed weather patterns for about 5 years.
- But... did it? Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows the t record. William M. Connolley 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Rv crit
I rv'd 65.'s additions of criticism. Some of it might have been Fair Enough, but some was definitely Too Far, and all was unsourced. In particular:
- The theory of nuclear winter is most easily criticized as a political or emotional appeal with little grounding in good science. For example, a figure cited by Sagan was that a 5,000 megaton nuclear detonation or exchange could cause a global temperature drop of 35 degrees Celsius for three months. However, ice ages affected the Earth's temperature by only 10 degrees Celsius, meaning the projected 'winter' effect from even a relatively limited nuclear confrontation would be roughly three and a half times more powerful than an ice age.
is quite unreasonable. Sentence 1 is junk: the science is listed in the article. The reasons for a 30-ish degree T drop have been listed, and are well grounded. Unlike this para, which is totally sourceless. William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Nuclear winter debunked as false
I recall my physics teacher stating that a nuclear winter was not possible with the world's current nuclear armament. The largest nuclear weapon detonated was only 50 megatons, compared to the erruption of Mount St. Hellens which was over 300 megatons showing how meager our weapons are still compared to natural phenomena. Even with the sheer amount of warheads we have, it's not enough to cause a winter.
The great power of volcanos is inside the mountain. The nuclear explosion above ground will stir up a lot of smoke and soot and this done by many nuclear explosions (1000s of megatons) could stir incredible amount into the atmosphere. A human 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Tambora's explosion was around 1Gt and caused the Year Without a Summer nihil 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- There are bigger (up to 100 MT) weapons, and the big nuke states have literally THOUSANDS of nukes. Any MAD scenario assumes that a large number of them would be released in one massive wave and counterwave approach. MadMaxDog 05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually no, the largest nuclear device ever exploded was the USSR's Tsar Bomba and it was only 50MT. The largest nukes ever fielded was by the USSR and they were 20MT. These large nukes are almost entirely decomissioned now. Much smaller 100KT class devices are state of the art. Increasing accuracy of missiles have made large nukes obselete and largely unnecessary.
-
-
-
-
- wish more of this was _in the actual article_ as this is what I came here to check on. 71.103.118.165 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] TTAPS 1983 was changed by the three-dimensional TTAPS 1990
Apparently, no three-dimensional model calculated temperatures of as cold as -40C's.In 1990, in a paper entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter" , TTAPS give a more detailed description of the short- and long-term atmospheric effects of a nuclear war (TTAPS 1990).
The 1990 TTAPS yields different results as it uses a three-dimensional model. These are the new results:
First 1 to 3 months: 10 to 25 % of soot injected is immediately removed by precipitation, while the rest is transported over the globe in 1 to 2 weeks. SCOPE figures for July smoke injection: 22° C drop in mid-latitudes. 10° C drop in humid climates. 75 % decrease in rainfall in mid-latitudes. Light level reduction of 0 % in low latitudes to 90 % in high smoke injection areas. SCOPE figures for winter smoke injection: Temperature drops of 3° to 4° C. Following 1 to 3 years: 25 to 40 % of injected smoke is stabilised in atmosphere (NCAR). Smoke stabilised for approximately 1 year. Land temperatures of several degrees below normal. Ocean surface temperature drops of 2° to 6° C. Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface
http://home.freeuk.net/tomlyons/chapter4.htm
The results of the 1983 TTAPS could be dismissed as this more accurate and exact description was provided by the TTAPS authors.
Also,it is implied in one of the last paragraphs that the studies of Covey, Schneider and thompson as well as other 3-d studies yielded results of temperatures between -15 and -42C, although with regional variations. The studies of Stenchikov and Aleksandrov are described as similar. That is apparently incorrect. One of the links of the article points out this:
Covey, Schneider and Thompson, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), using a three-dimensional global circulation model (GCM)10,11 have predicted temperature drops to about -15ºC (5ºF) in continental interiors of the Northern Hemisphere. Their model also indicates that the blanket might spread worldwide within a few weeks. Similar work in the Soviet Union has been done with similar results11.
http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/vri/nwaos.htm#11
The temperatures of the studies of covey, schneider and thompson, as well as the studies of alexsandrov and stenchikov produced temperatures as cold as -15C in continental interiors. They did not reach -40's or 30's.
Some changes could be made in the article.The TTAPS 1983 became obsolete with the better studied three-dimensional model and the studies of schneider, thompson, covey and the russian authors stenchikov and aleksandrov did not yield results as low as -40C's. That's inaccurate, no three-dimensional study gave those results.
User:Mario Lopez 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Sign with ~~~~. You aren't Mario Lopez; you could become User:Mario Lopez. -40 etc: from the WCRP report: since I added this, I know its in there. William M. Connolley 10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake. It is in the WCRP report that analyzed the 1983 TTAPS, but not the aleksandrov and stenchinov report or the covey, schneider or thompson report. No three-dimensional model gave result of -40'Cs. If I am wrong, can you provide me with a link, that shows a three-dimensional studies with temperatures as low as 40'Cs, please? Also, the TTAPS 1990 should be added and the relevance of the 1983 dismissed as the last one is more accurate.
User:Mario Lopez 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you're not User:ML yet. See the button in the top right that says "register"? You want to do that. At the moment you're just anon 68.160.124.2.
- Anyway: I've never read TTAPS 1990. If youn have, feel free to add from it. Bear in mind that a lot of this article is historical - its *what people thought at the time*. So yes, subsequent research overwrites earlier stuff but its still very relevant for this page. William M. Connolley 16:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is biased
IT makes no mention how this theory has been debunked or even critcisms:
three sources that debunk it and there isn't even a criticism section wow...
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm--Jerluvsthecubs 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. The criticism has now substance. I have put your second reference into the article an reflected its content appropriately.
[edit] Dyson quote
The Dyson quote [1] is unsourced. Looking for it, I find it seems to originate in Michael Crichton speech, which isn't good enough. Can an yone source the Feynmann bit? William M. Connolley 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, looks like MC cribbed it from here but omitted to quote it exactly, which is poor form. I don't think thats desperately reliable either.
More to the point, this is supposed to be in the "scientific debate" section. These are just private mutterings
William M. Connolley 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsense Sentence
"Although the TTAPS study was widely quoted in the media, criticisms have not been supported by alternative model runs"
This sentence reads nonsensically. Please clean it up gramatically or I will delete it. Why is it necessary for critics to provide alternative models? This is not how Scientific Review works. I am not required to build a Corvette to be qualified to find fault in an Edsel.
-
- Scientific reviews are usually based on substance and not rhetorics (even in lower case mode). Providing models and providing model runs may both provide substance, but are different approaches. Gabriel Kielland 09:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That still does not justify your statement. It is not necessary to provide an alternate model to establish a fundamental flaw in an existing one. The nonsence sentence argues that one MUST provide an alternative model and that simply is not required for the conditions of scientific review and criticism to be satisfied. That is simply not true and the nonsense sentence is equally false.
Simply put, criticisms do NOT have to be supported by alternative modeling runs. I don't have to engineer a working model of Corvette in order to expose the design flaws in an Edsel, all I have to do is demonstrate the flaws in the Edsel.
As stated previously, it is grammatical and scientific nonsense as written. Clean it up and make it something that is not gibberish and I will quit deleting it. Adding cites does not make the sentence less nonsensical, it is just an attmept to obfuscate. Trying to insist on the standard of proving a negative doese make it nonsense.
"Althought the School Paper article, stating Theodore 'Beaver' Cleaver is suspected of eating boogers, was widely quoted in the media, The Beaver's criticisms were not supported by his statements to the contary"
Now see how absurd it sounds?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one refuting it. To prove myself innocent of murder, I can prove something as simple as it was physically impossible for me to be in the same place at the time of the murder. For example: Demonstrating I was 900 miles away attending a class with 10 other people from work. I don't have to refute every possible point in the DA's case to establish my innocence. If I solidly refute one key point, the case collapses under its own weight. Science works by the same standard. By your standards, I would. This is not the way the real world works.
There is enough sloppy grammar on Wiki as it is. When I find it, I will fix it if it can be salvaged. When it is flat out non-sequitir, I will delete it.
- I fail to see how the above discussion, while valid with regards to grammar, is applicable to the matter at hand. The reason that a criticism of nuclear winter (e.g. 'nuclear winter is impossible') needs to be supported by modeling is that there is no other way to justify the criticism. Analytical physics is not sufficient for the task, and no-one is experimenting with nuclear winter. To take the above example: how do you find fault with a car? You drive it (experimentation) or demonstrate that it won't work properly (theory or modeling). If you have none of these, your claim is unsupportable. In this case, the burden of proof is on someone saying that nuclear winter is impossible, because those who say it is have convincing evidence (in the form of global atmospheric models) on their side. If you can solidly refute one key point of the analysis, do so, but not here. Michaelbusch 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"The reason that a criticism of nuclear winter (e.g. 'nuclear winter is impossible') needs to be supported by modeling is that there is no other way to justify the criticism."
Sure there is, prove the model is insufficient or fundamentally flawed. The orginal TTAPS model is a laughibly primitive one dimensional model ran on a computer with less processing power than my PDA.
"To take the above example: how do you find fault with a car? You drive it (experimentation) or demonstrate that it won't work properly (theory or modeling). If you have none of these, your claim is unsupportable."
And neither requires I build an alternate car to prove the first model was fundamentally flawed. Modeling is building another car.
"In this case, the burden of proof is on someone saying that nuclear winter is impossible, because those who say it is have convincing evidence (in the form of global atmospheric models) on their side.
Nonsense, this turns Scientific Method on its head.
If you can solidly refute one key point of the analysis, do so, but not here. Michaelbusch 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UT"
No, the burden of proof is [b]ALWAYS[/b] on those making the original claim. Claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordianry evidence. all I have to do is find fault with the evidence.
- You are being disruptive and are violating numerous Wikipedia policies. The evidence for nuclear winter is the modeling. If you can find flaws with the models, do so, but that would be equivalent to providing alternative models. This discussion has gone past the point where it is suitable for Wikipedia. Note: computer power != accurate model. Michaelbusch 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it." I suggest you study up on the concept of Burden of Proof
"Note: computer power != accurate model. Michaelbusch 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)"
Primitive 1983 computer power = primitive 1983 model. You are putting faith in a one dimensional (and primitive by modern meterological standards) model of a complex three dimensional phenomenon that could run on a modern PDA. Any one submitting such a primitive model today on on a similarly complex phenomenon as say, Global Warming, would be ran out of the scientific community on a rail.
"If you can find flaws with the models, do so, but that would be equivalent to providing alternative models."
How so? Please explain because you have danced around this point until now. Exactly why does one follow the other?
- Finding a flaw in a model is equivalent to providing an alternate model, because you have then fixed the model and changed it. I did not dance around it. It seemed obvious.
- Primitive computer + good program = accurate model. Fast computer + bad program = inaccruate model. This also seemed obvious.
- Believe me, I know about burden of proof. The burden of proof for nuclear winter was satisfied by model runs combined with the global cooling resulting from aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions (e.g. Krakatoa and Pinatubo). If you want to counter it, you have to explain why setting off a lot of bombs wouldn't produce a massive amount of aerosols. The recent studies linked in the article support bombs producing plenty of aerosol. That satisfies the burden of proof, and requires that you provide some contrary evidence.
- This is perhaps the longst-discussion-per-word-of-edits that I have engaged in. Please sign your posts and put them in a sensible order (one block of text at a time, without removing formatting). Michaelbusch 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, your original post is esentially a scientifically nonsense statement that demands Negative Proof!
"This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."
"Finding a flaw in a model is equivalent to providing an alternate model, because you have then fixed the model and changed it. I did not dance around it. It seemed obvious."
Absurd! That is like my stating: "Hey! your car is on fire!" And claiming that has fixed you car. You are arguing I have to be able to repair your car in order to prove it was flawed when it caught on fire. All I have to do to prove your car is on fire is prove your car is on fire. Again, you are adding conditons that violate the burden of proof and the Scientific Method.
"Primitive computer + good program = accurate model. Fast computer + bad program = inaccruate model. This also seemed obvious. "
And is there a single professional climatologist alive today who would stake his reputation on any climatological model ran on an early 80's model Cray? I think that is also obvious. These are the very same computers climatologist used for forecasting in the early 80's and no one would consider those early programs and hardware models to be anything but simplistic and useless by modern standards. 24.50.255.57 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find your reasoning confusing, particularly given the 2006 studies referenced in the article. Note that you wouldn't stake your reputation on a model run today on a 1980's computer, but if you had done the runs in the 1980's you would be perfectly justified in doing so, provided the models were accurate to the level you claimed. However, we have long since passed Wikipedia's jurisdiction, so I will stop here. Michaelbusch 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Assuming you did not have the foresight of 2006, that statement would be reasonable. We, however, have this foreknowledge and are speaking from the vantage of the present. Hence the caveat I included in the OP "By modern standards" 24.50.255.57 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
