Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 26 October 2009

Nuclear weapons
Background
Nuclear explosion History Warfare Design Testing Delivery Yield Effects Workers Ethics Arsenals Target selection Arms race Blackmail Espionage Proliferation Disarmament Terrorism Umbrella Opposition Winter
Nuclear-armed states
NPT recognized United States Russia United Kingdom France China Others India Israel (undeclared) Pakistan North Korea Former South Africa Belarus Kazakhstan Ukraine
v t e

Nuclear winter is a predicted climatic effect of nuclear war. Severely cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or years would be caused by detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons, especially over flammable targets such as cities, where large amounts of smoke and soot would be ejected into the Earth's stratosphere.

Similar climatic effects can be caused by a comet or asteroid impact, also sometimes termed an impact winter, or of a supervolcano eruption, known as a volcanic winter.

Mechanism

The nuclear winter scenario predicts that the huge fires caused by nuclear explosions (particularly from burning urban areas) would loft massive amounts of dark smoke and aerosol particles from the fires into the upper troposphere / stratosphere. At 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) above the Earth's surface, the absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke, lifting it into the stratosphere where the smoke would persist for years, with no rain to wash it out. This would block out much of the sun's light from reaching the surface, causing surface temperatures to drop drastically.

Consequences

Climatic effects

A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers.

Ozone depletion

A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade. The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Column ozone losses could exceed 20% globally, 25-45% at mid-latitudes, and 50-70% at northern high latitudes persisting for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5 additional years. Column ozone amounts would remain near or below 220 Dobson units at all altitudes even after three years, constituting an extra-tropical “ozone hole”. Human health ailments like cataracts and skin cancer, as well as damage to plants, animals and ecosystems at mid-latitudes would likely rise sharply as ozone levels decreased and allowed more harmful UV light to reach Earth, according to the PNAS study. This study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted in the 1980s following a full-scale nuclear war. The missing piece back then was that the models at the time could not account for the rise of the smoke plume and consequent heating of the stratosphere.

Recent modeling

Based on new work published in 2007 and 2008 by some of the pioneers of nuclear winter research who worked on the original studies, several things can now be said about this topic.

New Science:

• A minor nuclear war (such as between India and Pakistan or in the Middle East), with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. This is only 0.03% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal.
• This same scenario would produce global ozone depletion, because the heating of the stratosphere would enhance the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.
• A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet.
• The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

New Modelling

The climatic effects of smoke from fires started by nuclear war depend on the amount of smoke. For 50 nuclear weapons dropped on two countries, on the targets that would produce the maximum amount of smoke, about 5 megatons (Tg) of black smoke would be produced, accounting for the amount emitted from the fires and the amount immediately washed out in rain. As the smoke is lofted into the stratosphere, it would be transported around the world by the prevailing winds.

Two scenarios of war between the two superpowers who still maintain large nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia were calculated. In one scenario, 50 Tg of black smoke would be produced and in another, 150 Tg of black smoke would be produced. The number of nuclear weapons required to produce this much smoke depends on the targets, but there are enough weapons in the current arsenals to produce either amount. In fact, there are only so many targets, once they are all hit by weapons, additional weapons would not produce much more smoke at all.

Even after the current nuclear weapons reduction treaty between these superpowers is played out in 2012, with each having about 2,000 weapons, 150 Tg of smoke could still be produced. These new results were made possible by the use of a state-of-the-art general circulation model of the climate.

For the first time a complete calculation of not only atmospheric but also oceanic circulation was conducted, including the entire atmosphere from the surface up through the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere, to an elevation of 80 kilometers (50 miles). Previous calculations had not been run for the 10 year simulations here, and had not allowed the smoke to be lofted into the upper stratosphere, where it would persist for many years. The climate response to the above scenarios was calculated.

Compared to the global warming observed for the past century, all three scenarios show massive cooling. Compared to the climate change for the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1,000 years, the famous hockey stick diagram, the climate change from any of these scenarios is unprecedented.

Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the 5 Tg case (a war between India and Pakistan) would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (approximately 1600-1850). This would be essentially take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. Larger amounts of smoke would produce larger climate changes, and for the 150 Tg case produce a true nuclear winter, making agriculture impossible for years. In both cases, new climate model simulations show that the effects would last for more than a decade.

2007 study on global nuclear war

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in July 2007, Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences, used current climate models to look at the consequences of a global nuclear war involving most or all of the world's current nuclear arsenals (which the authors described as being only about a third the size of the world's arsenals twenty years earlier). The authors used a global circulation model, ModelE from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which they noted "has been tested extensively in global warming experiments and to examine the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate." The model was used to investigate the effects of a war involving the entire current global nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 150 Tg of smoke into the atmosphere (1 Tg is equal to 10 grams), as well as a war involving about one third of the current nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 50 Tg of smoke. In the 150 Tg case they found that:

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.

In addition, they found that this cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%. As for the 50 Tg case involving 1/3 of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude", but that "the time scale of response is about the same." They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that "this period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."

Kuwait wells in the first Gulf War

The burning of 526 Kuwaiti oil wells during the Persian Gulf War showed the effects of vast emissions of particulate matter into the atmosphere in a geographically limited area; directly underneath the smoke plume constrained model calculations suggested that daytime temperature may have dropped by ~10°C within ~200 km of the source.

Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°-6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared."

The 2007 study discussed above noted that modern computer models have been applied to the Kuwait oil fires, finding that individual smoke plumes are not able to loft smoke into the stratosphere, but that smoke from fires covering a large area, like some forest fires or the burning of cities that would be expected to follow a nuclear strike, would loft significant amounts of smoke into the stratosphere:

Stenchikov et al. conducted detailed, high-resolution smoke plume simulations with the RAMS regional climate model and showed that individual plumes, such as those from the Kuwait oil fires in 1991, would not be expected to loft into the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, because they become diluted. However, much larger plumes, such as would be generated by city fires, produce large, undiluted mass motion that results in smoke lofting. New large eddy simulation model results at much higher resolution also give similar lofting to our results, and no small scale response that would inhibit the lofting .

History

Early work

In 1974, John Hampson suggested that a full-scale nuclear exchange could result in depletion of the ozone shield, possibly subjecting the earth to ultraviolet radiation for a year or more. In 1975, the United States National Research Council (NRC) reported on ozone depletion following nuclear war, judging that the effect of dust would probably be slight climatic cooling.

1982

In 1981, William J. Moran began discussions and research in the NRC on the dust effects of a large exchange of nuclear warheads. An NRC study panel on the topic met in December 1981 and April 1982.

As part of a study launched in 1980 by Ambio, a journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Paul Crutzen and John Birks circulated a draft paper in early 1982 with the first quantitative evidence of alterations in short-term climate after a nuclear war. In 1982, a special issue of Ambio devoted to the possible environmental consequences of nuclear war included a paper by Crutzen and Birks presenting the nuclear winter scenario. They showed that smoke injected into the atmosphere by fires in cities, forests and petroleum reserves could prevent up to 99% of sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface, with major climatic consequences. An important implication of their work was that a "first strike" nuclear attack would have severe consequences for the perpetrator.

1983

In 1982, the Russian atmospheric scientist Georgy Golitsyn, after becoming aware of the work of the Swedish Academy and, in particular, papers by N.P.Bochkov and E.I.Chazov, applied his research on dust-storms to the situation following a nuclear catastrophe. His conclusion that the atmosphere would be heated and that the surface of the planet would cool were published in The Herald of the Academy of Sciences in September 1983. Vladimir Alexandrov and G. I. Stenchikov published a mathematical model of the climatic consequences of nuclear war.

In 1982 astrophysicist Carl Sagan and his colleagues undertook a computational modeling study of the atmospheric consequences of nuclear war, publishing their first results that year. The final report, known as the TTAPS study from the initials of the authors' surnames, was published in Science in December 1983. The phrase "nuclear winter" was coined by Sagan and one of his co-authors, Richard Turco. To calculate the effects of dust, they used a simplified two-dimensional model of the Earth's atmosphere, assuming a solid, smooth Earth and constant conditions at a given latitude.

1986

In 1984 the WMO commissioned Georgy Golitsyn and N. A. Phillips to review the state of the science. They found that studies generally assumed a scenario that half of the world's nuclear weapons would be used, ~5000 Mt, destroying approximately 1,000 cities, and creating large quantities of carbonaceous smoke - 1–2 × 10 grams being mostly likely, with a range of 0.2 – 6.4 × 10 grams (NAS; TTAPS assumed 2.25 × 10). The smoke resulting would be largely opaque to solar radiation but transparent to infra-red, thus cooling by blocking sunlight but not causing warming from enhancing the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of the smoke can be much greater than unity. Forest fires resulting from non-urban targets could increase aerosol production further. Dust from near-surface explosions against hardened targets also contributes; each Mt-equivalent of explosion could release up to 5 million tons of dust, but most would quickly fall out; high altitude dust is estimated at 0.1-1 million tons per Mt-equivalent of explosion. Burning of crude oil could also contribute substantially.

The 1-D radiative-convective models used in these studies produced a range of results, with coolings up to 15-42 °C between 14 and 35 days after the war, with a "baseline" of about 20 °C. Somewhat more sophisticated calculations using 3-D GCMs (Alexandrov and Stenchikov (1983); Covey, Schneider and Thompson (1984); which would be considered primitive by modern standards) produced similar results: temperature drops of between 20 and 40 °C, though with regional variations.

All calculations show large heating (up to 80 °C) at the top of the smoke layer at about 10 km; this implies a substantial modification of the circulation there and the possibility of advection of the cloud into low latitudes and the southern hemisphere.

The report made no attempt to compare the likely human impacts of the post-war cooling to the direct deaths from explosions.

1990

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 using a three-dimensional model:

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 between 3° and 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 between 2 and 6°C

• Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface.

Scientific debate

The TTAPS study was widely reported and criticized in the media. Later model runs in some cases predicted less severe effects, but continued to support the overall conclusion of significant global cooling. Recent studies (2006) substantiate that smoke from urban firestorms in a regional war would lead to long lasting global cooling but in a less dramatic manner than the nuclear winter scenario, while a 2007 study of the effects of global nuclear war supported the conclusion that it would lead to full-scale nuclear winter.. The concept of "nuclear winter" is based on long-term climate models. Meanwhile, the careful numerical simulation of the initial stage of the process, done by Muzafarov and Utyuzhnikov in 1995 , showed the effect of smoke following on a large-scale fire is local rather than global.

Policy implications

In contrast to the obvious direct dangers of nuclear warfare, there is no clear evidence that the indirect dangers of nuclear winter made any substantial difference to policy.

In response to the comment "In the 1980s, you warned about the unprecedented dangers of nuclear weapons and took very daring steps to reverse the arms race," in an interview in 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev said "Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act in that situation."

Criticism of nuclear winter theory

Scientific criticisms

The original work by Sagan and others was criticized as a "myth" and "discredited theory" in the 1987 book Nuclear War Survival Skills, a civil defense manual by Cresson Kearny for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Kearny described nuclear winter mostly as a propaganda story, and said the maximum estimated temperature drop would be only about by 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and that this amount of cooling would last only a few days (though he did not address the question of whether a lesser amount of global cooling might linger for years, or whether there might be greater localized cooling in agricultural areas, as predicted by the 2007 study). He suggested that a global nuclear war would indeed result in millions of deaths from hunger, but primarily due to cessation of international food supplies, rather than due to climate changes.

Kearny, who was not a climate scientist himself, based his conclusions almost entirely on the 1986 paper "Nuclear Winter Reappraised" by Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider. However, a 1988 article by Brian Martin in Science and Public Policy states that although their paper concluded the effects would be less severe then originally thought, with the authors describing these effects as a "nuclear autumn", other statements by Thompson and Schneider show that they "resisted the interpretation that this means a rejection of the basic points made about nuclear winter". In addition, the authors of the 2007 study state that "because of the use of the term 'nuclear autumn' by Thompson and Schneider , even though the authors made clear that the climatic consequences would be large, in policy circles the theory of nuclear winter is considered by some to have been exaggerated and disproved . In 2007 Schneider emphasized the danger of serious climate changes from a limited nuclear war of the kind analyzed in the 2006 study below, saying "The sun is much stronger in the tropics than it is in mid-latitudes. Therefore, a much more limited war could have a much larger effect, because you are putting the smoke in the worst possible place."

Freeman Dyson said that while the political impacts of the “nuclear winter” theory being taken seriously by policy makers was appealing to him, he described the science behind it as “half baked” and ”a sloppy piece of work, full of gaps and unjustified assumptions”. Dyson speculated that scientists promoting the theory were more influenced by personal experience rather than objective calculations. His belief was that the planets relatively wet atmosphere would quickly mitigate the atmospheric dust and soot produced from a nuclear war.

Claims of KGB Involvement

In Pete Earley's book Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America after the End of the Cold War, the claims of Sergei Tretyakov that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter" are examined. Tretyakov, a former Colonel in the Russian KGB/SVR that defected to the United States in 2000, says during the 1970s the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles in Western Europe. The plan, under KGB Director Yuri Andropov, aimed at fostering popular opposition to the deployment included a massive disinformation campaign involving false scientific reports from the Soviet Russian Academy of Sciences and funding to European anti-nuclear and peace groups opposed to arms proliferation. The Soviet propaganda was then distributed to sources within environmental, peace, anti-nuclear, and disarmament groups including the publication Ambio. Claims of KGB involvement have existed for years fueled in part by the strange disappearance of Vladimir Alexandrov, the man who created the mathematical model for the Nuclear Winter theory in 1985. According to Nigel West, Sergei Tretyakov's account exposes Nuclear Winter "as a gigantic fraud, and a classic example of KGB ‘‘active measures.’’"

See also

• Doomsday device
• Nuclear darkness
• Nuclear summer
• Nuclear weapon
• Impact event
• Supervolcano
• Volcanic winter

References

• Budyko, M. I., G. S. Golitsyn, Y. A. Izrael Global Climatic Catastrophes Springer, 99 pages, September 1988, ISBN 0-387-18647-6
• Paul J. Crutzen and John W. Birks, The Atmosphere After a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon, Ambio, Vol 11, No 2-3, p 114, 1982.
• Golitsyn, G.S. and Phillips, N.A. WCRP, Possible climatic consequences of a major nuclear war, WCP-113, WMO/TD #99, 1986.
• R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, C. Sagan, Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions, Science, V. 222, No; 4630, December 23, 1983.
• Mark A. Harwell Nuclear Winter: The Human and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War Springer, 179 pages , November 1984, ISBN 0-387-96093-7
• Mills, Michael J., Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Douglas E. Kinnison, Rolando R. Garcia, 2008, "Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict," PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.0710058105.
• N. N. Moiseev, Man, nature and the future of civilization: "nuclear winter" and the problem of a "permissible threshold" Novosti Press Agency Pub. House, Moscow, 92 pages, January 1986, ASIN B0007B9FHG
• Guide to Nuclear Winter Study Papers, 1972-1993. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
• Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Owen B. Toon, Charles Bardeen, and Richard P. Turco, 2007a: Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atm. Chem. Phys., 7, 2003-2012.
• Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007b: Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:10.1029/2006JD008235.
• Toon, Owen B., Richard P. Turco, Alan Robock, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007a: Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism. Atm. Chem. Phys., 7, 1973-2002.
• Toon, Owen B., Alan Robock, Richard P. Turco, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007b: Consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts. Science, 315, 1224-1225.
• Toon, Owen B., Alan Robock, Richard P. Turco, 2008: Environmental consequences of nuclear war. Physics Today, December, 37-42.
• Turco, R.P., Toon, A.B., Ackerman, T.P., Pollack, J.B., Sagan, C. (TTAPS) (1990) "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter", Science, volume 247, pp. 167-168, January.

Footnotes

1. Comet Caused Nuclear Winter
2. A Fiery Death for Dinosaurs?
3. Supervolcanoes could trigger global freeze
4. Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate, Science Daily, December 11, 2006
5. The published papers that were first presented at the AGU Meeting.
6. Mills et al., 2008, "Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict," PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.0710058105.
7. Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict: Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock
8. ^ Abstract on Journal of Geophysical Research website
9. ^ paper available online from Rutgers University website
10. Environmental effects from burning oil wells in Kuwait by K. A. Browning, R. J. Allam, S. P. Ballard, R. T. H. Barnes, D. A. Bennetts, R. H. Maryon, P. J. Mason, D. McKenna, J. F. B. Mitchell, C. A. Senior, A. Slingo & F. B. Smith, Nature Publishing Group, 30 May 1991
11. Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. p. 257.
12. In-situ observations of mid-latitude forest fire plumes deep in the stratosphere
13. EO Newsroom: New Images - Smoke Soars to Stratospheric Heights
14. Observations of Boreal Forest Fire Smoke in the Stratosphere
15. Fromm et al., 2006, Smoke in the Stratosphere: What Wildfires have Taught Us About Nuclear Winter, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-04
16. Stenchikov et al., 2006, Regional Simulations of Stratospheric Lofting of Smoke Plumes, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-05
17. Regional Climate Simulations over North America: Interaction of Local Processes with Improved Large-Scale Flow
18. Jensen, 2006, Lofting of Smoke Plumes Generated by Regional Nuclear Conflicts, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-06
19. ^ Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions, The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange, Washington D.C., National Academy Press, 1985
20. J.Hampson, "Photochemical war on the atmosphere", Nature, 1974, 250:189-191
21. National Research Council, Long-term worldwide effects of multiple nuclear weapons detonations, Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences, 1975, p.38
22. P.Crutzen and J.Birks, "The atmosphere after a nuclear war: Twilight at noon", Ambio, 11, 1982, 114-125
23. Chazov, E.I., Vartanian, M.E., "Effects on human behaviour," in Petersen J., ed., The Aftermath: The Human and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear War, New York: Ambio, Pantheon Books, 1983, pp.155-63
24. Vladimir Gubarev, "Tea Drinking in The Academy. Academician G. S. Golitsyn: Agitations Of The Sea And Earth", Science and Life, No.3, 2001 (in Russian)
25. Interview with G.I.Golitsyn
26. Alexandrov, V. V. and G. I. Stenchikov (1983): "On the modeling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war" The Proceeding of Appl. Mathematics, 21 p., The Computing Center of the AS USSR, Moscow.
27. O.B.Toon, T.B.Pollack, T.P.Ackerman, C.P.McKay, and M.S.Liu, "Evolution of an impact generated dust cloud and its effects on the atmosphere", Geological Society of America Special Papers, 190:198-200, 1982
28. R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan, "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions", Science, vol. 23, December 1983, Vol. 222. no. 4630, pp. 1283 - 1292
29. US Military History Companion
30. "Nuclear Winter Theorists Pull Back" The New York Times, January 23, 1990
31. ^ Nuclear winter: science and politics
32. Does Anybody Remember The Nuclear Winter?
33. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD): Abstracts, by O. B. Toon, R. P. Turco, A. Robock, C. Bardeen, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2006.
34. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD): Abstracts, by A. Robock, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B. Toon, C. Bardeen, R. P. Turcos, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2006
35. ^ Numerical modeling of convective columns above a large fire in the atmosphere, High Temperature, 1995, 33 (4), pp. 588-595, by I.F. Muzafarov, S.V. Utyuzhnikov,
36. Mikhail Gorbachev explains what's rotten in Russia
37. ^ Kearny, Cresson (1987). Nuclear War Survival Skills. Cave Junction, OR: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. pp. 17–19. ISBN 0-942487-01-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authorlik= ignored (help)
38. Stephen H. Schneider, letter, Wall Street Journal, 25 November 1986.
39. 'Severe global-scale nuclear war effects reaffirmed', statement resulting from SCOPE-ENUWAR workshop in Bangkok, 9-12 February 1987.
40. Climate scientist Stephen Schneider describes chilling consequences of a nuclear war
41. Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions. Pg 258-262
42. Pete Earley, "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War", Penguin Books, 2007, ISBN-13 978-0-399-15439-3, pages 169-177
43. A 1985 Time magazine account of Alexandrov's disappearance
44. West, Nigel(2008) 'A Review of: “The New Kind of Russian Defector”', International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 21:4, 793 — 796

External links

• The Encyclopedia of Earth, Nuclear Winter Lead Author: Alan Robock. Last Updated: July 31, 2008
• Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War, the 1983 study conducted by TTAPS.
• Nuclear Winter Simulation Animation
• New studies of climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflict from Alan Robock, including links to new studies published in 2007.

• Nuclear weapons
• Climatology
• Climate forcing agents
• Environmental disasters
• Environmental issues with nuclear technology