Nuclear Winter Myths

12/21/23, 2:49 AM (4) Debunked: Nuclear Winter and Radioactive Fallout myths - Nuclear winter is out of date science
science - and most radioactivity is go…
Debunked: Nuclear Winter and Radioactive Fallout myths - Nuclear winter

is out of date science - and most radioactivity is gone in hours to days -
and most of what is left is very localized
There are many online pages and websites that seem very authoritative that say that even a limited nuclear
war, say between India and Pakistan, would plunge the Earth into a ‘Nuclear winter’ with no crops able to grow,
no plants, no animals, and people soon starving to extinction. This is based on outdated science. A couple of
scientists continue to model effects of five teratons of soot in the upper atmosphere but their explanations of
how it gets there are unconvincing.
The basic error here is that it's only the mushroom cloud goes up to the stratosphere. That's just a cloud, water
vapour, it's not made up of dust, or not much especially for an airburst.
The smoke and ash in those studies come from the fires that burn in cities after the explosions.
But by then there isn't any updraft left from the explosion. So it just spreads out like forest fires.
Those can spread for a few hundred kilometers, even for thousands of kilometers from Africa to the Amazon
for instance, but as soon as it encounters rain it rains out.
Yes as with a big forest fire there would be a few days or weeks when it’s very dark,
Video . Brazil Fires: Sao Paulo Goes Dark as Smoke from Amazon Fires Blankets City
But plants don’t die of a few days of darkness.
In most places it will soon rain and then that washes away the soot and dirt.
Then - especially for an airburst, most of the radioactive elements are very shortlived - many with half lives of
seconds to minutes.
So it is very radioactive to start with but after a couple of days most of the radioactivity is gone.
For instance both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are thriving cities and people were living there again soon after the
nuclear explosions.
If a nuclear bomb landed in your area and you survived, within 24 hours you could go out of doors relatively
safely to get rescue etc.
I am very much in favour of nuclear disarmament. I think that the UK should even disarm unilaterally, see my Is
Corbyn Right About The Bomb?- Op Ed . But I think people need to know the truth in any topic like this and
make decisions based on truth.
I think it is important to speak up when a view is widely publicized that just about all scientists believe to be
false, based on poorly supported research that they think will lead politicians to desired actions. Even if it has
good political effects.
The nuclear winter scenario is scaring people unnecessarily who are afraid that even a small nuclear war could
plunge us all into a deep freeze. No, it would not, and the research suggesting this is fundamentally flawed
and based on out of date ideas
Upvote
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Debunked-Nuclear-Winter-and-Radioactive-Fallout-myths-Nuclear-winter-is-out-of-date-science-and-most-ra… 1/35
12/21/23, 2:49 AM (4) Debunked: Nuclear Winter and Radioactive Fallout myths - Nuclear winter is out of date science - and most radioactivity is go…
The bombs themselves would throw some material up very high, right up into the stratosphere. But there isn’t
anything like enough of that, a nuclear explosion is not nearly as powerful as a volcano, even a ground burst
can’t excavate much and can’t send much material up to the stratosphere, and that wasn’t the nuclear winter
hypothesis.
The nuclear winter hypothesis was that the nuclear bombs would start fires in the cities. It’s about soot from
fires. It depends on cities being combustible and burning as a firestorm. By the time the buildings are on fire,
with the updraft from the bomb long over, it is just like any fire in a city.
The effects of smoke from a nuclear bomb would be like the smoke from the Dresden fire bombing in WWII.
Or the Kuwaiti oil fires, or the forest fires we get every year. Soot from those fires doesn’t go into the
stratosphere.
The older nuclear winter models predicted that the Kuwaiti oil fires would harm agriculture over much of Asia
but they only had local short term effects. There were many who were skeptical all along, but the Kuwaiti oil
fires persreisuaded nearly all of the ones who still thought it was possible that their models were wrong.
There are a couple of notable remaining supporters of nuclear winter, Robock and Toon, but their predictions
are regarded as incorrect by the others due to fundamental flaws in the assumptions his models are based on.
Robock and Toon haven’t explained how the soot gets into the stratosphere in their modeling.
That’s why other experts don’t take their papers seriously as a possible outcome of a nuclear war. Because they
don’t say how the soot can get up into the upper atmosphere and nobody can find a way to get it up there in
enough quantities to matter.
Please if scared about the Ukraine war see
. No point in a surprise nuclear first strike as it’s impossible to win that way - and NATO’s article 5 is defensive
not retaliatory - IMHO much of the Twitter / social media panic is based on not understanding these points
. Exceptionally unlikely that Russia uses a very small tactical nuke against Ukraine and no risk of them attacking
NATO - CIA director Burns said the CIA do NOT see practical evidence for concern about nukes, just Russian
rhetoric (bluffs)
. Putin bluffs, and everyone talks about how NOT to have a world war - nobody wants a world war for the same
reason you don't want it - and no increased risk
If concerned about EMPs, we have had numerous air bursts, nuclear test, some dropped from planes, they did
not cause noticeable EMPs. To get an EMP the air burst would have to be detonated high in the atmosphere
but even then the effects would be far less than people have made it out to be.
See my:
BLOG: Heightened fear of EMP attacks is largely based on a potboiler science fiction thriller, not science - and
grid is naturally hardened against them, more than previously thought
SUMMARY
The nuclear winter predictions date back to some predictions in a 1983 paper, “Climate and Smoke: An
Appraisal of Nuclear Winter” based on work from the 1970s in their limited crude models on slow
computers (by modern standards) with hardly any memory, just kilobytes.
Sagan wasn’t involved in the research though he understood it well. He added his name to it to help with
acceptance of the paper.
When Carl Sagan Warned the World About Nuclear Winter

Before the official report came out, the popular scientist took to the presses to paint a dire pictur…
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-carl-sagan-warned-world-about-nucl…
They tried to model what would happen to the soot from fires in cities during a nuclear war. They concluded
that it would be lofted so high into the atmosphere that it would get above all the normal weather and linger
there for a decade, nearly blocking out the sun completely world wide.
Their predictions were so dramatic that a 'nuclear winter' is an understatement. Average world temperature
-25 C. You are talking about the ocean freezing even right to the tropics, for ten years. It's no wonder that they
gave it that name. It had the support by highly respected scientist. One of the authors of the original paper
was Carl Sagan.
But the models were based on flawed assumptions. Even at the time they were questioned. Nowadays just
about all scientists involved, including ones that supported the hypothesis originally, are agreed that it would
have little effect. It might no effect on temperature at all, except for a brief reduction of temperature locally
during the fire itself as it turns day to night temporarily - since after all we have large areas burnt in wildfires
every year with no effect.
The scientists who did the nuclear winter work realized they had made a mistake in the modeling after the
Kuwaiti oil fires. When the oil fields were left burning by the retreating troops, they predicted dire
consequences for agriculture througout Asia. Instead it shaded out a small part of the gulf area with a slight
reduction of temperature (similar to night time) for the duration of the fires (several months).
This showed that there was something wrong with their models. After looking into it in more detail they
decided that the soot doesn't rise nearly as high as they predicted in the atmosphere, and it tends to get
washed out within days by rain.
The combined effect is that the darkening is temporary and local instead of long term and global.
So, nearly all scientists agreed on this, but Robock and Toon published a paper in Physics Today in which he
claimed that an all out exchange between Pakistan and India, of, say, 100 nuclear weapons would cool the
Earth on average by a few degrees.
The science in this paper was good except that he started it already pre-loaded with soot in the upper
atmosphere. Remember the very reason the early models got discredited is because soot doesn’t rise as high
as expected in the Kuwaiti oil fires. Nor does it with wildfires or the fires from the Dreden bombing - and
Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t have fire storms at all.
This paper doesn’t even discuss this question. It simply pre-loads the atmosphere with soot in the upper
atmosphere, and from then on it follows the consequences. But that is the very point at contention - whether
the soot would end up so high in the atmosphere. Everyone is agreed that there would be serious
consequences if this happened but the evidence is that it can’t get there after the fires started in a nuclear war.
To make it worse, Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking have fallen behind this prediction. You might think this
means it must be right. But far from it. These two scientists are the ones I most often have to debunk - they are
just awful when it comes to fake doomsdays. They are okay within their own field of speciality - but outside it,
they are not r, sadly.
Stephen Hawking often promotes bizarre, even ridiculous fake doomsdays based on out of date or junk
science, and Michio Kaku is worse, he just makes stuff up from his imagination, much like a script writer for
Star Trek.
The thing is - neither of them are specialists in nuclear war. They are both busy people who don’t seem to have
the time to research things they come across in detail. They come across this paper on nuclear weapons that
we've been talking about. They know no more about it than anyone else. But they find the idea compelling
because they want the world to be in danger for whatever reason and jump on stories that say it is at risk. In
the case of Stephen Hawking it is because he wants humans to go into space and colonize other planets and
he thinks if he can prove to us that our planet is in danger we are more likely to do human space missions and
eventually colonize other planets. For Michio Kaku I don’t know why he does it.
Anyway for whatever reason they have both become gullible to junk science in fields outside their own
specialitiy and say things that they would never say in their own area of expertise. If junk science plays to their
beliefs or expectations they lose all critical thought. In the case of Michio Kaku then he also says things that
just don’t make sense, misusing ideas of basic physics, such as confusing solar storms with radiation (i.e.
confusing protons with gamma rays).
For Stephen Hawking see
Debunked: Despite Stephen Hawking’s great expertise in quantum mechanics and general relativity,
he made many wild and unscientific predictions of the world ending based on topics he never studied
For Michio Kaku
my answer to Is Michio Kaku a credible scientist?
Here is a video with clips in which both of them claim that a nuclear war would lead to a nuclear winter, it’s not
true, based on out of date or junk science:
So, on to the detailed debunk
NO NUCLEAR WINTER
This was the big bug bear during the cold war. Carl Sagan and others calculated that an all out nuclear war,
both the explosions themselves and the firestorms they created, would put so much dust into the upper
atmosphere that it would cool the entire Earth for several years afterwards in a nuclear winter.
The idea of a nuclear winter goes back to a 1983 paper predicting an average world temperature of -25 C
following a global nuclear war. This is for an all out exchange of the nuclear weapons of US and Russia during
the cold war.
This is based on work with early primitive 1D models and very low resolution 3D models and based on many
assumptions about how smoke from the fires would move in the atmosphere. These models had a lot of
influence on thinking about the cold war and were widely respected and believed at the time, by the likes of
Carl Sagan etc. Carl Sagan is a co-author.
Here is an early interview with him warning about the potentially serious effects and saying that scientists had
come together and were in general agreement about it.
However later their models were proved to be wrong with the Kuwaiti oil fires which did not behave as they
predicted. Even at the time there was a fair bit of skepticism with some scientists writing that they thought that
the ones who proposed a nuclear winter were politically motivated. Not that they were deceiptful of course,
just that perhaps they were more easily persuaded by not such strong evidence due to their political
persuasions about nuclear war.
For instance there is a very skeptical paper from 1986, published in Nature, just 3 years after the Sagan paper:
Emanuel, K. A. "Nuclear winter: Towards a scientific exercise. " Nature 319.6051 (1986): 259-259. He says
that following a model by Golding the soot would rise at 20 cm / second which is enough so that even in dry
air, water would condense out and wash the soot out of the atmosphere before it got high enough to become
a continent wide pall in the upper atmosphere (the moisture would condense out similarly to the way
cummulus clouds form above rising air on a sunny day).
Seitz was another early skeptic, writing in the same year (1986) :
“As the science progressed and more authentic sophistication was achieved in newer and more elegant
models, the postulated effects headed downhill. By 1986, these worst-case effects had melted down from a
year of arctic darkness to warmer temperatures than the cool months in Palm Beach ! A new paradigm
of broken clouds and cool spots had emerged. The once global hard frost had retreated back to the
northern tundra . Mr. Sagan's elaborate conjecture had fallen prey to Murphy's lesser-known Second
Law: If everything MUST go wrong, don't bet on it.”
Those views were not widely accepted at the time. But eventually just about everyone, including Carl Sagan,
came to change their views on nuclear winter, within six years of him writing that.
So what happened?
Well - their calculations turned out to be accurate for asteroid impacts. This is a significant issue though not an
extinction causing one, for large asteroid impacts. They are also accurate for supervolcanoes which lift large
amounts of ash into the upper atmosphere, not enough to cause a nuclear winter but enough for a
supervolcano autumn. Their models are still accepted for both those scenarios.
But several things happened to cast doubt on their calculations for nuclear weapons.
First it’s important to realize, their models are not based on the idea of the immediate effects of the nuclear
weapons. The explosion itself doesn’t loft anything like enough material to be of concern. That makes it
different from an asteroid impact or volcanic eruption.
Their model was instead based on the idea that the nuclear weapons would cause large scale fire storms in
urban areas. They predicted that this soot, from ordinary fires, but very large ones, would be lofted up into the
upper atmosphere. This is what they later came to realize was based on flawed reasoning and over simple
models.
In particular, when the Iraqis retreated after their invasion of Kuwait in 1991, they set many oil wells alight.
Kuwaiti oil fires - Wikipedia

Oil wells burned by the Iraqi military during the Gulf War Smoke plumes from a…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires
These created dense black smoke that turned day to night over large areas
As reported for instance in the Baltimore times:
Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan says Saddam Hussein's orders to torch Kuwaiti oil wells, if carried
far enough, could unleash smoke clouds that would disrupt agriculture across South Asia and darken skies
around the world.
"You need a very small lowering of the average temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere to have serious
consequences for agriculture," Sagan said.
Scientists in Maryland and Colorado say such a disaster would require fires at hundreds of wells burning for
months, but they agreed the potential exists in Kuwait for a "very catastrophic" environmental event.
Saddam Hussein of course did set the oil wells alight - and hundreds of them too. At the time then there were
worries they would burn for five years.
And there were 610 fires (others say 750) burnt uncontrolled from February through to May 1991 at which
point the thousands of fire fighters had their equipment in place and began to put them out. Here is how they
did it:
Longer video here
To begin with there were a lot of days when it was totally dark. And when you could see the sky it didn’t last
for more than a few minutes and it was total darknes again.
It was exactly the sort of scenario they had predicted for a nuclear winter, and they’d have expected at least
major cooling effects and immense disruption of agriculture over most of Asia.
But it didn’t have the widespread effects the scientists had expected. As Carl Sagan wrote in his Demon
Haunted World, page 257:
"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.”
This book was published in 1995.
The Demon-Haunted World - Wikipedia

1995 book by Carl Sagan The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in th…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
For more about this background see the section in Wikidia’s Carl Sagan - Scientific and critical thinking
advocacy
This lead to them re-evaluating the models that lead to the nuclear winter prediction, which were rather crude,
making many assumptions and approximations. They couldn’t be right to have got the predictions about the
Kuwaiti oil fires so very wrong.
The conclusion nowadays is that nuclear weapons most likely would not cause firestorms in cities, if they did,
the smoke would rarely reach higher than 4 km. Also much more of Earth burns in wild fires every year without
putting us into a nuclear winter scenario.
Also modern nuclear bombs are smaller than they used to be. Both US and Russia have eliminated all bombs
of more than one megaton. Only China has them now, with about 50 of them. To get the dust high enough for
nuclear winter, above 70,000 feet you’d need bombs with yields much more than a megaton. Modern bombs
would only throw the debris up to 60,000 to 70,000 feet which means the debris will rain to Earth within hours
or days close to the point of impact. (from Allen E Hall's answer to In a total nuclear exchange where the entire
worlds arsenals are used, how long would the nuclear winter last and would we survive? )
For a complete list of the nuclear weapons with their yields, see
Russian nuclear forces, 2017
US nuclear forces, 2018
linked to from the World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile report
Our nuclear arsenals are also much smaller than they were at the time of the nuclear winter calculations.
Though - even with multi-megaton bombs, still, they mainly just lift rather small quantities of dust into the
upper atmosphere and would not lift the vast amounts of soot which would come from the later firestorm.
So in short, nuclear winter was based on poor science, as it turned out (refuted by the Kuwaiti fires), and
probably even at the height of the cold war, we would not have been plunged into a nuclear winter. As it is
now, certainly not.
NUCLEAR WINTER, NUCLEAR AUTUMN, OR NO GLOBAL CLIMATE

EFFECTS?
So in short, nowadays most scientists who have researched into this say that even at the height of the cold
war, we would not have been plunged into a nuclear winter.
Here is the New York Times retro report on nuclear winter.
This is a paper about the suggestion mentioned towards the end of that report, that even a confrontation
between Pakistan and India with 100 15 kt nuclear weapons (50 on each side) involved could have global
effects .
". Our calculations show that global ozone losses of 20%–50% over populated areas, levels unprecedented in
human history, would accompany the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years. We
calculate summer enhancements in UV indices of 30%–80% over midlatitudes, suggesting widespread
damage to human health, agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Killing frosts would reduce
growing seasons by 10–40 days per year for 5 years. Surface temperatures would be reduced for more than
25 years due to thermal inertia and albedo effects in the ocean and expanded sea ice. The combined cooling
and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear
famine."
So that is the polar opposite of those who say it would have no effect at all.. So, we have views at both ends of
the spectrum here.
LIMITATIONS OF THE ROBOK AND TOON PAPER - THEY INJECT 5

MILLION TONS OF SOOT INTO UPPER TROPOSPHERE BUT DON’T
EXPLAIN HOW IT GETS THERE
In our standard calculation, we inject 5 Tg of black carbon on 15 May into one column of grid boxes at 30◦N,
70◦E. We place the black carbon in the model layers that correspond to the upper troposphere (300–150
mb).
. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts
[5 Tg = 5 million tons]
Another paper uses some observations of some soot rising to high altitudes above forest fires to claim that
much of the soot from a nuclear exchange would rise to that height. But forest fires don’t put enough soot
high enough in the atmosphere to have long term effects. Their reasoning is here. Atmospheric effects and
societal consequences of regional scale
This part was never modeled.
The Robok andToon paper is based on a model of a limited exchange of nuclear weapons (say for Pakistan and
India) - and this model was 3D and quite detailed. However they didn't model the actual fires themselves, or
the way the cities burn, or lofting of soot into the atmosphere or the interactions of the soot with water vapour
iran the atmosphere.
They just started their model with the atmosphere pre-loaded with soot and then ran it forward. It gets its data
about the soot in the upper atmosphere from those earlier pre-Kuwaiti fire simulations which were unable to
predict the Kuwaiti oil fires soot correctly.
See Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering
It’s an accurate bit of research based on those assumptions. They did study what would happen if the
atmosphere was pre-loaded in that way.
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Debunked-Nuclear-Winter-and-Radioactive-Fallout-myths-Nuclear-winter-is-out-of-date-science-and-most-r… 10/35
What they don’t do is explain how a nuclear war could lead to such a scenario. That is the very point that lead
Carl Sagan and the others to revise their models.
So - it has been way over reported as saying more than it does. It just says what would happen if the early
views on the soot in the upper atmosphere were correct. It is simply not relevant if those views are incorrect as
the other scientists say. It does not attempt an explanation of what happened during the Kuwaiti oil fires.
WHAT WOULD REALY HAPPEN? SOME OF THE FIRES WOULD BURN FOR A
VERY SHORT TIME - THEY DIDN’T COMBINE TO A FIRESTORM IN
NAGASAKI WHICH IS LARGELY WOOD AND PAPER - ANALYSIS BY
WILLIAM COHEN
The situation is complicated. Though many fires would break out in cities, some of them may burn for only a
short time. This section is based largely on remarks by William Cohen in his 2007 book
Would they combine together to make a firestorm? They didn't for Nagasaki which was a city built largely of
wood and paper, which would not be permitted with a modern city. That suggests that an airburst like the one
for Nagasaki would not produce a firestsorm.
They did for Hiroshima but that is probably for other reasons such as widespread use of charcoal burners, as
noted in a report back in 1951 .
But then they might be ground burst weapons, so what difference does that make? What would the end result
be in the atmosphere of the complex pattern of many different fires? What would the vertical distribution be?
So, there might not even be extensive fires. If there are, then going by the example of the Kuwait fires then
most of the carbon was distributed in the first few kilometers and did not reach the stratosphere.
Also water vapour is another complicating factor.
The fires themselves produce water vapour during combustion and more is taken in from the atmosphere and
lofted high where it may form clouds, which then will tend to keep the surface warmer than it would be.
Also once the fires stop - and unlike the Kuwaiti oil fires they would not burn for months but be over in a short
while like any other large fire (weeks at most if forests catch fire) - the excess moisture rains out taking soot
and dust with it.
The smoke wouldn’t be convected upwards but after an intense firestorm it is blown more horizontally
If the heat output is great enough and the atmosphere has sufficient conditional instability, then the models
suggest that vigorous convective storms can be triggered that can transport smoke, debris, and water
substance into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
Stratospheric injection of smoke from burning urban areas, however, is probably relatively little. Turco et al.
(1990) estimate as much as 10% of the smoke will reach the stratosphere but this is probably on the high
side.
First of all, the intense burning period following a bombing is likely to last only a few hours and only a few
targets will have sufficiently concentrated fuels and sufficiently unstable atmosphere to support
stratospheric penetrating convection. Even intense firestorms such as occurred over Dresden, Germany
during World War II are likely to transport only a small proportion of the smoke produced into the
stratosphere.
Firestorms are intense fires that produce vigorous whirling winds on the scale of tens of kilometers. The
strong winds associated with firestorms ventilate the fires, thereby strengthening them. Tripoli’s (1986)
simulation of such an urban firestorm revealed, however, that the cyclostrophic reduction in pressure
associated with the rapidly rotating storm created vertical pressure gradients that weakened the storm’s
updrafts, and, as a result, the smoke plume was detrained at lower levels.
Moreover, the weaker updrafts increase the time that scavenging processes will operate in the rising
updrafts, and increase the efficiency of precipitation processes and wet removal of smoke. We will address
the scavenging issue more directly in the next subsection. In summary, it appears that the bulk of the smoke
from wide-spread nuclear warfare will be deposited below the middle troposphere, probably in the range of
4 to 6 km
Text copy / pasted from here
. Human impacts on weather and climate
And if forests do catch fire as a result of the nuclear bombs- then it is like the forest fires we get every year -
and they do not cause global winter, or indeed, have any widespread cooling effect at all, even when they are
extensive and rage for weeks.
The whole thing is very complex. Here is William Cohen talking about it in his 2007 book . He is one of the
experts who started off by supporting Carl Sagan’s nuclear winter models but doesn't any more. (Many of the
pages are made available for public viewing via google books through that link - enough to get a good idea of
his main points).
He mentions other information about large scale fires such as the Dresden bombing and forest fires which
again do not inject large amounts of soot into the stratosphere.
SOME SCIENTISTS THINK SOME FORM OF NUCLEAR AUTUMN IS

POSSIBLE, MANY THINK THERE WOULD BE NO GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE EFFECTS
So in short it's a wide ranging debate. Some think that some form of a "nuclear autumn" is possible. Many
think that there would be no global climate effects at all.
The idea of a true nuclear winter, turning summer into winter, is no longer on the table, except for Alan Robok,
who as far as I know has not given a good reason based on modern views of how fire plumes work for their
pre-loading of the upper atmosphere, the main point at contention.
It's still not a literal doomsday if there is a nuclear autumn. It's rather similar to the idea of a volcanic winter
after a super volcano, where you'd need to grow different crops, adapted for a colder climate until the
temperatures recover. I don't mean that in the sense it is easy of course, but it is possible.
It is a very similar situation to the situation after a supervolcano, so I cover that in the section What really
happens if Yellowstone erupts as a supervolcano, or if some other supervolcano erupts?
But many would say that it wouldn’t even lead to a nuclear autumn. Just a local cooling for as long as the fires
last, like the Kuwaiti case, and that as soon as the soot rains out, the whole thing is over.
RECENT SCATHING PAPER ABOUT THE NUCLEAR WINTER IDEA BY SEITZ

There is a scathing paper in Nature from 2011 with some of the history by Seitz who as we saw was an early
skeptic.
Seitz, Russell. "Nuclear winter was and is debatable." Nature 475.7354 (2011): 37-37.
For instance see the section:
"As the truth slowly emerged, private skepticism turned often to public outrage, and not just among the
"hawks." Prof. George Rathjens of MIT, chairman of the Council for a Livable World, offered this judgement:
Nuclear Winter is the worst example of the misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory." "
He is quoting from this paragraph by Goerge Rathjens published in 1986:
"But in February 1986, NCAR's Dr. Schneider quietly informed a gathering at the NASA-Ames Laboratory
that Nuclear Winter had succumbed to scientific progress and that, "in a severe" 6,500-megaton
strategicexchange, "The Day After" might witness July temperatures upwards of 50-plus degrees Fahrenheit
in mid-America. The depths of Nuclear Winter could no longer easily be distinguished from the coolest days
of summer."
See also Allen E Hall's answer to In a total nuclear exchange where the entire worlds arsenals are used, how
long would the nuclear winter last and would we survive?
There are lots of cites to follow up in the Wikipedia page on Nuclear Winter which will help. See it's Criticism
and debate section.
MODELING THE FIRES - 2018 PAPER BY REISNER FINDS THAT NOT MUCH
SOOT WOULD RISE TO THE UPPER TROPOSPHERE AFTER A CITY FIRE
FROM A NUCLEAR BOMB
A 2018 paper looked into modeling the firestorms from a regional nuclear exchange using the same scenario
as Toon et al.
Their conclusion is:
“Our analysis demonstrates that the probability of significant global cooling from a limited exchange
scenario as envisioned in previous studies is highly unlikely, a conclusion supported by examination of
natural analogs, such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions.”
I.e. the conclusion is similar to that of William Cohen that signfiicant global cooling is highly unlikely as
supported by natural analogs such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions.
Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On

Detailed Source Calculations
This paper models that part of the process and concludes that most of the soot would not get above the
weather and would just rain out (as happened with the Kuwaiti oil fires). The impact on global temperatures
would be small and last five years. Nothing resembling a nuclear winter.
Toon et al raised a number of issues iwth Reisner et al's model - but they then went back and did new model
runs answering their objections, which came to the same conclusion of not enough soot in the upper
atmosphere for a nuclear winter, and that's basically where it stands
Reisner continue to say not much soot would get into the upper atmosphere after answering all the objections
Toon et al made
Toon et all haven't yet replied again. I’ve done an expanded version of this section covering the discussion as it
continued. It’s in a comment at the end of this blog post because it’s quite long, and detailed. See:
. MODELS BY MILLS AND STENKE
It’s reasonable to continue studying this and hopefully questions will be resolved in the near future because
Congress has initiated a major study to look into it in detail. This will be able to access classified information
from nuclear tests etc and will last for 18 months.. Congress Mandates Studies on Nuclear War
PUBLIC HEAR ONLY ONE SIDE OF THIS RESEARCH

Some of the proponents of this nuclear winter idea do say that it might not be very likely. Lundquist put it like
this:
“I think it’s important to let policy makers know that there could be very big consequences to political
choices,” she says. “So even if it’s not very likely, it could be devastating.”
. Nuclear winter is still a hot topic as a new arms race heats up
Arms Control who are generally good on nuclear weapons just support Toon et all uncritically, don’t mention
the reservations other scientists have with their work or mention that critics say that wildfires and volcanic
eruptions don’t behave as they predict.
The climate disruption predicted by the Robock-Toon study has been independently confirmed in separate
studies done by climatologists Michael Mills and Andrea Stenke each of whom considered the same limited
war scenario but used a different climate model.
. The Humanitarian Consequences Of Nuclear War
The studies by MIlls and Stenke they mention both assumed millions of tons of soot injected into the upper
atmosphere at the start of the model and so don’t resolve this question about how it gets there. (see end of
this blog post)
WHAT ABOUT RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

The entire southern hemisphere is a nuclear free zone,
The worst of the radiation is so short lived it is over in half an hour,

The longer lived radiation needs to be cleaned up and avoided too - risks increased cancers and
other health effects
The levels of radiation that kill people quickly are soon finished with.
The blue areas here are nuclear free. If we did have a global nuclear war - then there would be no nuclear
bombs in those areas at all. Also the harshest radiation is over quickly, the lethal radiation is mostly over
within half an hour.
The idea that nuclear weapons would cause a nuclear winter has been shown to be false.
RADIATION FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS WAY OVER EXAGGERATED

Also in science fiction and popular imagination the radiation from nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than
it is in reality.
Hiroshima was restored to a city again in two years. The panorama at the top was taken in 1947 two years after
the bombing.
More panoramas here
Panoramic photos found of Hiroshima’s reconstruction

by Masami Nishimoto, Senior Staff Writer Valuable negatives of panoramic…
http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/?p=13611
See also
. Recovery time from a nuclear disaster
After all this is modern Hiroshima, many people live there. 1.2 million living in Hiroshima.
. Hiroshima - Wikipedia
Here is Hiroshima showing the Atomic Bomb dome, which they preserve without reconstructing it as a
memorial for the nukes..
. Atomic Bomb Dome and Motoyaso River, Hiroshima, Northwest view 20190417 1.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
It is kept as a peace memorial
. Hiroshima Peace Memorial - Wikipedia
Video: Hiroshima City of Peace
The most dangerous radiation is in the form of short lived isotopes which decay over time periods of seconds,
to months.
If you are close to the blast then you need to get shelter within half an hour to survive the radiation hazards,
and if further away you need to find shelter within three hours.
. Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War
Most of the radiation decays rapidly, but there would be local hot spots that would be dangerous for one to
five years after the attack. Take your geiger counter with you! Or more likely, evacuate to a place that has not
been attacked.
WHAT DO YOU DO IF HIT BY A NUCLEAR BOMB?

Yes you can survive a nuclear bomb, many surivived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they didn't even know what
it was. Obviously not if you are at ground zero but if you are a bit away. The idea that you can't survive is
wrong - a widely believed urban myth. With the right precautions it is no different from any other explosion.
I grew up at the height of the cold war when the UK was the target of Russian nuclear bombs and we felt they
might attack us at any moment. We had instructions like this if you looked up what to do if there was a nuclear
explosion. Nowadays it is online.
If you see a nuclear explosion, the first thing that happens is the blast wave.
If the blast wave hasn’t hit you yet, take cover behind anything that would give protection.
Watch out for flying glass, any windows likely to break and debris will be blown your way as well,
away from the explosion.
You have only seconds to react as the blast wave will arrive seconds later (unless it is a large distant explosion
could be up to half a minute later).
Ducking and covering also helps to protect your exposed skin from heat / sun burn.
This is an old advice film, which is still valid today for the very first thing you have to do:
That is a 1951 film - they didn’t know about the fallout risks at that point so they only have step 1. See Duck
and cover - Wikipedia
1. When you see the explosion, duck and cover
2. Once the shock wave is over you have 10-15 minutes to get to shelter until the radioactive fallout falls
from the sky
3. Get as far away from any outer walls as you can and treat any dust contaminated clothes as radioactive
materials
4. Stay indoors for at least 24 hours and drink only bottled water or water collected before the fallout and
food not contaminated with fallout
5. Expect largest humanitarian relief operation in human history.
So it’s
1. Duck and cover
2. Once the blast is over get to cover quickly. You have 10 to 15 minutes, as that is how long it is before
the fallout starts falling
Get - inside a building, as far away from the outside walls as possible. Ideally in an inside room.
3. Once inside the building, don't leave for at least 24 hours (unless you have to e.g. building on fire).
If any of your clothes have been covered in fallout, remove them and treat them as radioactive
materials. If any fallout got onto your skin wash it off or clean it off.
This obviously only applies if you were not able to get into shelter before the fallout began.
4. Only drink botttled water (unless you collected some water before the fallout began)
Only eat food that has not been exposed to the fallout.
Don't leave the building to get food. The worst radioactivity is in the first few minutes after the fallout and
through to the first few hours.
This is because with an air burst most of the radioactive atoms have very short half-lives and become safe
within a few tens of minutes. The worst radioactivity is over in hours. There is some long lasting radioactivity as
well e.g. caesium, but so long as you aren't eating radioactive food, then it is not going to harm you much. We
have radioactive materials in our bodies already - the potassium particularly - so you don't die from just a
small dose of radioactivity.
You need to stay indoors for at least 24 hours.
It is better to wait for several days if you can. Wait for instructions as you should be a focus of an immense
emergency relief operation from the rest of the world - remember half off the world is a nuclear free zone.
Those are the basic instructions.
. Nuclear Explosion
IODINE PILLS DON’T PROTECT AGAINST RADIATION FROM A NUKE -

THEY ARE FOR A SPECIAL SITUATION SUCH AS CHILDREN DRINKING
MILK FROM COWS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO RADIATION FROM A
NULCEAR REACTOR - IN MOST CASES GETTING INDOORS WITHIN 15 OR
20 MINUTES FOR PROTECTION FROM FALLOUT - AND THEN EVACUATION
- IS THE WAY TO STAY PROTECTED
It is reasonable for Zelensky to ask for help with drugs that can protect civilians against radiation just in case.
Because you need to prepare even for the exceptionally unlikely in a war situation.
However, iodine pills do nothing to protect you from external radiation instead you have 10 to 15 minutes to
get indoors after a nuclear attack to protect yourself from fallout. The fallout is just radioactive dust falling
from the sky - which loses most of its radioactivity within a day or two so if you can get indoors quickly you
won’t risk radiation sickness.
There are drugs too to treat radiation sickneses after you get it.
But the iodine pills are for a different situation. They protect your thyroid gland from cancer years leter, and
you take it if you have consumed food with radioactive iodine in it, either immediately before or soon after.
You aren’t protected by taking iodine long before you are exposed and it can be harmful if you have an
overactive thyroid.
Iodine also has to have time to get into the food chain. You are less likely to get it from vegetables as most
people wash vegetables which would wash away the iodine dust - the main risk is from milk from cows that
grazed on grass with radioactive iodine.
So it’s not an especially likely scenario so long as we know that food is potentially contaminated before we eat
it. It’s not going to affect food you bought or that got to the shops before the leak.
See:
Jackson is an international expert and researcher on developing medical countermeasures against radiation
sickness.
“Potassium iodide pills treat internal radiation exposure, not external radiation exposure, which is the
predominant cause of acute radiation sickness in a nuclear incident,” she said.
An example of potassium iodide pills’ intended use would be for children who ingested milk from cows
grazing in a contaminated field.
. As Ukraine nuclear fears spur demand for iodine pills, one expert says don’t waste your money - WTOP News
Evacuation is the most effective protective measure in the event of a radiological emergency because it
protects the whole body (including the thyroid gland and other organs) from all radionuclides and all
exposure pathways.
However, in situations when evacuation is not feasible, in-place sheltering is substituted as an effective
protective action. In addition, administering potassium iodide is a reasonable, prudent, and inexpensive
supplement to both evacuation and sheltering. When the population is evacuated out of the area, and
potentially contaminated foodstuffs are interdicted, the risk from further radioactive iodine exposure to the
thyroid gland is essentially eliminated.
, Frequently Asked Questions About Potassium Iodide
Most radioactive iodine comes from the nuclear tests. But half is gone in 8 days.
Iodine-131, called “I-131,” which exposes the thyroid gland for about 2 months after each nuclear test, was
the most important harmful radioactive material (isotope) in global fallout. People exposed to I-131,
especially during childhood, may have an increased risk of thyroid disease, including thyroid cancer many
years later. Thyroid cancer is uncommon and is usually curable.
. Radioactive Fallout from Global Weapons Testing
Thyroid cancer is very rare and is treatable too.
I-131 breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere and environment
Exposure was highest in the first few days after each nuclear test explosion
Most exposure occurred through drinking fresh milk
People received little exposure from eating fruits and leafy vegetables as compared to drinking
fresh milk because although I-131 was deposited on fruits and leafy vegetables, the I-131 in fallout
was deposited only on the surface; people generally wash or peel fruits and leafy vegetables
Thyroid cancer is uncommon, usually curable, and approximately 2 to 3 times more common in
women
. I-131 Radiation Exposure from Fallout
NO BIRTH DEFECTS
With Chernobyl there was no increase in genetic changes in children of parents
QUOTE There is no "additional DNA damage" in children born to parents who were exposed to radiation
from the Chernobyl explosion before they were conceived.
Chernobyl radiation damage 'not passed to children'

A study found no mutations associated with a parent's exposure in the 1986…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56846728
There were some health effects of Chernobyl on children who were affected by the radiation itself - i.e. who
were children at the time, as for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that's not surprising.
How Nuclear Disaster Has Affected the Children of a Region

The children affected by the Chernobyl meltdown are known as the Children of…
https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-children-of-chernobyl-2861027
This is caused by the fallout / dust from the accident and they could have prevented it by being faster at
responding to the disaster and telling the local people immediately to stay indoors to avoid being affected by
the dust.
Instead, the USSR did nothing for 24 hours after the accident and didn't tell the international community for
much longer - this was a time of Soviet era secrecy.
QUOTE Meanwhile, life went on as usual for almost a day in the neighboring town of Pripyat. Aside from the
sight of trucks cleaning the streets with foam, there were initially few signs of the disaster unfolding just
miles away.
QUOTE It wasn’t until the next day, April 27, when the government began evacuations of Pripyat’s 50,000
residents. Residents were told they would be away for just a few days, so they took very little with them.
Most would never return to their homes.
Soviet Secrecy
QUOTE It took days for Soviet leadership to inform the international community that the disaster had
occurred. The Soviet government made no official statement about the global-scale accident until Swedish
leaders demanded an explanation when operators of a nuclear power plant in Stockholm registered
unusually high radiation levels near their plant.
Chernobyl: Disaster, Response & Fallout | HISTORY

Chernobyl is a nuclear power plant in Ukraine that was the site of the worst…
https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/chernobyl
LONG TERM EFECTS - NOT AN UNINHABITABLE EARTH!

A nuclear war would kill millions, directly and indirectly - but it does not leave the Earth by any means
uninhabitable and most of the World’s population would surely survive. If you are in one of the nuclear free
zones, then you’d be hardly affected at all.
The main long term effects would be from longer lived isotopes like caesium. Here in the UK we got iodine,
cesium and strontium isotopes on our hills after the Chernobyl reactor explosion. Of those only caesium-137
was still a concern two decades later, but for more than two decades afterwards, the sheep farmers from the
worst affected areas - from a reactor explosion 3,000 miles away - had to test their sheep with geiger counters
before they could sell the meat. Sheep farmers still stuck under a Chernobyl cloud
So - after a nuclear war there’d be restrictions like that over regions far from the war zones. We’d need Geiger
counters for quite some time surely. But it would not make us extinct. The main issue would be an increased
risk of cancer from eating radioactive food. So we’d need to be careful about food grown in the areas most
affected by the fallout. And for a long period, for years, perhaps decades, we might need to be careful about
meat from animals grazing on the grass affected by the fallout.
GROUND BURST ATTACKS

All that is for an air burst. However the earlier airburst weapons were replaced by smaller yield ground burst
weapons which would target silos and weapons facilities in a first strike. If the nuclear weapon detonates on or
below the ground, as it would in attacks on missile silos, then it can make the soil and other debris radioactive
with longer lived isotopes as for the Castle Bravo atomic test which made areas of the Marshall islands
uninhabitable even years later.
In areas affected by this type of hazard you would need to stay in the shelters for days through to weeks and
then once you could leave your shelters, it would still be as unhinhabitable in parts as the Marshall Islands.
After a first strike which targetted weapons silos - then the second strike would be worse in its effect, because
assuming all weapons were launched in the first strike, there would be no weapons silos to target, so then they
would target industrial and military targets, many of which would be close to cities. They would be smaller
bombs but designed for ground bursts. This would lead to more radiation locally and longer lived radiation,
however less radiation globally.
These revised scenarios based on military targets rather than civilian ones would of course still have huge
effects as many would be targetted at cities and millions would be killed. Also because they are ground bursts,
they would lead lead to more radiation effects locally, needing to stay in shelters for weeks and after you can
leave your shelter, large parts of the country would be uninhabitable like the Marshall Islands due to long lived
radioactiivty. But it's not a worldwide doomsday. Countries not involved in the conflict would not be much
affected. A
Some hot spots would have long term radioactivity if they had been hit by ground burst weapons.
HYDROGEN AIR BURSTS ARE RELATIVELY CLEAN

Also though modern weapons have a higher yield, its important to realize that hydrogen bombs actually cause
much less nuclear fallout compared to their mass. The hydrogen part of the explosion is nuclear fusion and
produces almost no nuclear fallout.
Usually atmospheric tests were done on the ground or on towers and most of the worst radioactivity would
come from dirt caught up in the explosion - atmospheric is a broad term and means any test that releases
substantial amounts of radioactivity to the atmosphere. If their test was done higher in the atmosphere then it
would have much less radioactivity than most past atmospheric tests.
That's because there isn't much in a nuclear weapon itself that can generate long lived radiation - it's from the
ground or the sea. Any nuclear weapon in the atmosphere would contribute to the C14 in the atmosphere as a
result of irradiation of Nitrogen. Remember we have had lots of radioactivity already from atmospheric testing
in the past, hundreds of megatons.
It would surely lead to an increase in global C14, not sure what else. With a hydrogen bomb most of the
explosion is due to fusion of hydrogen to helium which is relatively clean. So in terms of radioactive fallout
then exploding a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere is not such a big concern as you'd think.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested, the Tsar Bomba by the Russians, yield 50 Mt was a hydrogen bomb
exploded at a height of 4 km in the atmosphere. That’s far larger than anything North Korea is likely to test,
and it was exploded in the air above a remote area of Russia, much closer to populated areas than a remote
area in the Pacific. Though it was very powerful, it was relatively clean because most of the effects were due to
nuclear fusion, which does not produce any radioactive byproducts, fusing hydrogen to helium.
For background see:
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia
Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia
Tsar Bomba - Wikipedia
This is a video of one of many atmospheric tests of hydrogen bombs done by the UK. I don’t think that many
people know this, but we were only the third state to develop nuclear weapons, after the US and Russia, and
before France and China. See List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia
So, the UK did many nuclear weapons tests in the early years.
To find out more about the UK series of hydrogen bomb atmospheric tests: Operation Grapple - Wikipedia
NOT TRUE THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH BOMBS TO KILL EVERYONE MANY
TIMES OVER
All the bombs in the world detonated for maximum total area would cover 1/3 of the land area of the US.
Allan Hill has a good calculation here
If you take every weapon in existence today, approximately 6500 megatons between 15,000 warheads with
an average yield of 433 KT, and put a single bomb in its own 100 square mile grid… one bomb per grid (10
miles x 10 miles), you will contain >95% of the destructive force of each bomb on average within the grid it
is in. This means the total landmass to receive a destructive force from all the world's nuclear bombs is an
area of 1.5 million square miles. Not quite half of the United States and 1/38 of the world's total land mass….
that's it!
In truth it would be far less. A higher concentration of detonations would take place over military targets
and would be likely 10–30 times greater in concentration over those areas. If they were used in war it is
unlikely more than 40% would get used even in a total war situation. So the actual area of intense
destruction in a nuclear war is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 square miles or 1/384 to 1/192 of
the world’s land mass.
YOU HAVE A SLIGHTLY RADIOACTIVE BODY ALREADY - ALL PLANTS AND

ANIMALS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SLIGHTLY RADIOACTIVE BECAUSE WE
RELY ON POTASSIUM (E.G. FOR ATP USED FOR ENERGY)
Also a certain level of radioactivity is normal in the environment. Indeed we have always had slightly
radioactive bodies long before nuclear testing, all animals do
There are many other radioactive elements in our body but potassium is the highest contribution to our
natural radioactivity.
. Are our bodies naturally radioactive? - Health Physics Society
Amongst other interesting titbits of information on that page, we eat on average 1/15,000 of an ounce of
uranium every day in our food though only one or two percent is absorbed by the gut - which is then excreted
in our urine or our hair.
So we all have uranium in our hair, though some have perhaps a hundred times more than others depending
on how much uranium you have in your food.
Most of the radioactivity though is from potassium-40. Each gram of potassium has 30 decays a second,
approx (30 Becquerels) The potassium-40 activity of one gram of potassium
There are much lower amounts from Thorium, Uranium and other radioactive elements.
An adult human has between 4000 and 5000 potassium 40 decays per second. About 11% of those produce
gamma rays which can get out of rocks and bodies, the remaining 89% produce fast electrons (beta decay)
which don’t get out easily and can’t be detected. So, that’s 400 to 500 gamma rays emitted per second.
. Radioactivity : Potassium 40
Not only is the human body radioactive, you can actually measure the radioactivity of our bodies with sensitive
detectors. Indeed, the best way to measure your total potassium content of your body is to use a very sensitive
radiation detector to measure the gamma radiation emitted by your body from potassium 40 (though this is
also very expensive and rarely done)
We have small amounts of radioactivity in our bodies including uranium excreted in your hair
Some is essential like potassium
used inside cells in place of sodium in salt
Potassium is slightly radioactive
Your body emits 400 - 500 gamma rays per second
Our bodies are adapted to these small amounts of radioactivity
. DAPA Measurement Toolkit
There's controversial research suggesting that low doses of radiation might actually be good for us, promoting
cell repair.
See Could Small Amounts of Radiation Be Good For You? It’s Complicated.
. Are our bodies radioactive?
There are much lower amounts from Thorium, Uranium and other radioactive elements.
There's controversial research suggesting that low doses of radiation might actually be good for us, promoting
cell repair.
See Could Small Amounts of Radiation Be Good For You? It’s Complicated.
. Are our bodies radioactive?
A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF COBALT BOMBS COULD MAKE THE WORLD

CLOSE TO UNINHABITABLE FOR HUMANS FOR DECADES - IF THAT WAS
YOUR OBJECTIVE - BUT NATURALLY ENOUGH NOBODY IS DEVELOPING
THEM
Theoretically a very large number of cobalt bombs could get close to making us extinct, but nobody is
developing them and it's unlikely they would make us extinct in practice as the distribution would be patchy,
and you could escape underground or in domed areas with the ground cleared of cobalt.
A cobalt bomb would be enough for some post apocalyptic fiction movies - but nobody is developing them,
not surprisingly. : Debunked: No, Russia is NOT building a cobalt bomb - NO WAY to make the entire East
coast of the US uninhabitable for decades - and closest to a true “doomsday” weapon but it wouldn’t work and
nobody has made one
REITERATION - I THINK KNOWING THIS DOES NOT MAKE NUCLEAR WAR

MORE LIKELY
As I said in the intro, the after effect of a nuclear war is horrific enough without needing to add in nuclear
winter to make it even more horrific as a deterrent. I don't agree with Alan Hall on is conclusion that it makes
nuclear war more likely to know that it doesn't cause nuclear winter.
I also think myself that if one country was to drop a nuclear weapon on another and the other one didn't
retaliate today - that it is very different from the case of the US and Japan.
With Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the military leaders in the US, didn't realize the full horror of what they were
doing. They also had got innured to levels of civilian casualties that nowadays would be unacceptable through
such things as fire bombing of Dresden. They thought of it as just another fire bombing like the others done
before.
Also they had already done carpet bombing of many cities in Japan. Indeed an earlier attack on Tokyo was
more devastating than Hiroshima.
If anyone did the equivalent of the fire bombing of Dresden in the present day political climate - they would
find themselves isolated, with universal condemnation from all the other countries. Also we are much more
interconnected now. In the modern world such an isolated country can't survive long, it would be a political
disaster for them, lose all their influence in the world. Would the US have any power in the UN or have any
political say in negotiations, any moral clout at all if it had dropped a nuclear weapon on another country
either without nuclear weapons, or one that didn’t retaliate? Or would the Russia either?
They would surely also get really strong united trade embargoes as well, as other countries would do whatever
they could to express there disapproval and not to align with them in any way at all.
If the other country has nuclear weapons and retaliates it's different. So it makes a big difference if both sides
in the conflict have used nuclear weapons. I think that makes the most logical response of any leader to first
not do a first strike, and second, not to retaliate in kind if another country drops a nuclear weapon on you.
Whether a leader of a country with nuclear weapons would be so logical in the heat of a war I don't know, but
there are at least some people prepared to say they wouldn't launch nuclear weapons in any circumstances. If
Jeremy Corbyn gets elected as PM of the UK in some future election, we will have such a leader here,
Also, why would nuclear weapons be treated differently from fire bombing? The US could easily threaten to
firebomb any city in the world as a deterrent, and we’d think that was a horrific thing to do. So why is it treated
as acceptable to threaten to drop nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
Also Ward Wilson with examples from our recent past including the bombing of London, of German cities and
of the Japanese cities suggests that bombing cities has never worked as a deterrent. He disputes the idea that
the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war with Japan. He thinks it was the Russian involvement
that did that and that the Japanese leaders only ceased on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a face saving way of
acknowledging defeat, that they were defeated because of inconcievable technology rather than because of
the Russians. They rarely even mentioned the destruction of cities before then.
See his
THE MYTH OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
Anyway - so hopefully at some point we achieve total nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, it’s good to know it
can’t make us extinct and that those who live in nuclear free zones would be hardly affected at all even after a
global nuclear war involving all the nuclear weapon holding states. Which hopefully also can eventually
become a strong incentive for other countries to develop nuclear weapon free areas. I of course am strongly in
favour of a nuclear weapon free Europe for instance. If we can get the idea accepted generally that nuclear
weapon free zones make you safer, and that possessing nuclear weapons or relying on protection by a nuclear
weapon owning state does not make you safer, we’d be well on the way to total nuclear disarmament I think.
UN NEGOTIATIONS TO ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The UN is going to start negotiating a new treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons. 123 nations have signed it,
the main exceptions, apart from Australia, are the nuclear weapon holding nations. Basically the nations that
currently have nuclear weapons are just about the only ones who think they help preserve peace. So - far from
being widely accepted as maintaining peace or desirable, the idea that we should hold nuclear weapons is not
the norm at all. The majority of nations don’t want them and don’t want anyone else to have them either and
don’t feel they need their protection.
Based on that, I think there is a real prospect of eventual total nuclear disarmament but somehow the small
number of nuclear weapon holding states have to get on board with it as well, and get involved in measures
for serious arms reductions once more.
UN votes to start negotiating treaty to ban nuclear weapons
SEE ALSO
Allen E Hall's answer to Who would win in a war between Russia and the US?
Also some of the sources discussed in the Wikipedia article:
6 Criticism and debate
6.1 Critical response to the more modern papers
For more debunks like this see the: List of the articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
If you need help - message me of course and comment on any of these posts -
Also oure Facebook group Doomsday Debunked has been set up to help anyone who is scared by these
fake doomsdays.
1.5K viewsView 29 upvotesView 1 share
Adding comments disabled
Jacob Coutts · 1y
don’t worry i already debunked the myths with my Cold War understandings because nuclear winter
happens with firestorms not the yield of a nuke because nuclear attacks has to be scattered and hit a
different target far from the first strike target and it has to with material of everything
Ando Ew · 4y
Maybe they very pessimistic when they thought nuclear weapons could cause a nuclear winter like 100
nuclear bombs that each had the power of 500 megatons where used at once.
Robert Walker · 1y
It’s not a worst case scenario, it just can’t happen at all. They assume 5 gigatons of soot in the
upper atmosphere but haven’t explained how it can get there.
Robert Walker · 1y
Please if scared about the Ukraine war see . No point in a surprise nuclear first strike as it’s impossible to
win that way - and NATO’s article 5 is defensive not retaliatory - IMHO much of the Twitter / social
media panic is based on not understanding these points Calculation to show that it is impo… (more)
Robert Walker · 2y
SERIES OF PAPERS WHERE TOON ET AL SUGGEST WAYS TO GET 5 GIGATONS OF SOOT INTO THE
STRATOSPHERE FROM FIRES AFTER A NUCLEAR WAR - AND THE MODELLERS REISNER ET ALL
TRY OUT THOSE IDEAS AND THEY REPEATEDLY FAIL
First there isn’t much controversy about what happens once the 5 gigatons is already in the
stratosphere. Also everyone agrees the fires would produce lots of soot.
But then so do wildfires. The big question is how would the soot get into the stratosphere? If it stays
further down in the atmosphere like the soot from wilidfires it will rain out in weeks.
Modeling the soot rising from burning cities is far more challenging and that's where it fails, nobody has
found a way to get it up there even with very detailed models.
MODELS BY MILLS AND STENKE CONFIRMS THE TOON ET AL FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE
SOOT IS ALREADY IN THE STRATOSPHERE
Mills et al’s paper is just available as an abstract. It confirms Toon et al for what happens after 5 million
tons of soot is injected into the upper atmosphere. But doesn’t say how it would get there.
. Multi-Decadal Global Cooling and Unprecedented Ozone Loss Following a Regional Nuclear Conflict
They hope their paper will motivate elmination of nuclear weapons.
Knowledge of the impacts of 100 small nuclear weapons should motivate the elimination of the more
than 17,000 nuclear weapons that exist today.
There’s another model by Stenke:
. Climate and chemistry effects of a regional scale nuclear conflict
Full text of paper here
It says
The strong lofting of super-heated plumes has been confirmed using a three-dimensional cloud-scale
model with interactive dynamics, microphysics, and radiative transfer, although a nested-grid
mesoscale model would be desirable to close the gap between the large-scale transport, the plume-
scale dynamics, and the smoke particle microphysics (E. J. Jensen, personal communication, 2013)
MODELING THE FIRES - 2018 PAPER BY REISNER FINDS THAT NOT MUCH SOOT WOULD RISE TO
THE UPPER TROPOSPHERE AFTER A CITY FIRE FROM A NUCLEAR BOMB - AND SIGNIFICANT
COOLING HIGHLY UNLIKELY - AND REPLY FROM TOON AND REPLY TO TOON FROM REISNER
(EXPANDED AND UPDATED)
A 2018 paper looked into modeling the firestorms from a regional nuclear exchange using the same
scenario as Toon et al.
Their conclusion is:
“Our analysis demonstrates that the probability of significant global cooling from a limited
exchange scenario as envisioned in previous studies is highly unlikely, a conclusion supported by
examination of natural analogs, such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions.”
I.e. the conclusion is similar to that of Cotton that signfiicant global cooling is highly unlikely as
supported by natural analogs such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions.
. Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed
Source Calculations
This paper models that part of the process and concludes that most of the soot would not get above
the weather and would just rain out (as happened with the Kuwaiti oil fires). The impact on global
temperatures would be small and last five years. Nothing resembling a nuclear winter
The abstract says:
We expand this scenario by modeling the processes that lead to production of black carbon, in order
to refine the black carbon forcing estimates of these previous studies. When the Earth system model
is initiated with 5 × 109 kg of black carbon in the upper troposphere (approximately from 9 to 13 km),
the impact on climate variables such as global temperature and precipitation in our simulations is
similar to that predicted by previously published work.
Impact of million ons of soot at a height of 9 to 13 km is similar to previous work.
However, while our thorough simulations of the firestorm produce about 3.7 × 10^9 kg of black
carbon, we find that the vast majority of the black carbon never reaches an altitude above weather
systems (approximately 12 km).
However simulation of the firestorm, though it produces 3.7 million tons of soot, the vast majority of it
never gets above 12 km.
Therefore, our Earth system model simulations conducted with model-informed atmospheric
distributions of black carbon produce significantly lower global climatic impacts than assessed in prior
studies, as the carbon at lower altitudes is more quickly removed from the atmosphere.
So the soot is quickly removed reducing climate impacts.
In addition, our model ensembles indicate that statistically significant effects on global surface
temperatures are limited to the first 5 years and are much smaller in magnitude than those shown in
earlier works. None of the simulations produced a nuclear winter effect.
None of the simulations produce a nuclear winter effect.
We find that the effects on global surface temperatures are not uniform and are concentrated
primarily around the highest arctic latitudes, dramatically reducing the global impact on human
health and agriculture compared with that reported by earlier studies.
Most of the reduction in temperature happens in the highest Arctic latitudes, dramatically reducing
impact on human health and agriculture.
Our analysis demonstrates that the probability of significant global cooling from a limited exchange
scenario as envisioned in previous studies is highly unlikely, a conclusion supported by examination of
natural analogs, such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions.
Lundquist and Robock are researching into this stage of the process but haven’t published their
research yet.
Toon et al did a reply to Reisner et al. Toon et al’s basic objection is that Reisner et al didn’t simulate a
firestorm and they say that they assume less carbon content than in developing world cities like India
and Pakistan.
In summary, Reisner et al. (2018) modeled afire in an area with much different characteristics than
consid-ered in our studies including the following:
1. targeting a sparsely populated suburb surrounding a country club, not a city center;
2. having a fuel load that is more than an order of magnitude less than any of the 100 urban areas
ofPakistan or India considered by Robock et al. (2007) and Mills et al. (2014);
3. omitting factors known to be important to smoke lofting (e.g., latent heat release); and
4. failing to model the full duration of the event
. doi/pdf/10.1029/2019JD030777
Replying to those points, Reisner et al did two new models including one with a carbon load similar to
that used by Toon et al.
They say that a firestorm is unlikely in India and Pakistan because of the large amount of concrete and
the rubble would suppress the fires.
They say that the fires would happen in a ring - with fires near the center suppressed by the shock
waves. Nagasaki didn’t have a firestorm. Hiroshima did, but it produced much less soot than you’d get if
all the wood burned. They say that Toon et all over estimate by a factor of 10 to 100 the amount of soot
would be produced by assuming 1% of the wood turns to soot. Toon et all use a factor of 1% for wood
and 6–10% for petroleum products - they say observations of biomass burning come up with values of
0.04 to 0.1%.
They say that in the case of Hiroshima there was a firestorm but a significant amount of soot rained out
as black rain from the pyrocumulus cloud. Nagasaki didn’t have a firestorm.
They say that the Pakistan and India buildings seem to have concrete buildings mixed with green
recreational buildings similar to their model.
They also say the fire is self limiting, first the fires reduce oxygen, and then the upward transfer of heat
stabilizes the atmosphere, so that the lifting of soot wouldn’t last that long.
Robock et al said that more soot gets into the atmosphere from wildfires citing an example of a fire in
British Columbia.
Moreover, numerous conflagrations in forestfires with fuel densitiessimilar to those assumed by

Reisner et al. have produced smoke plumes that reached into the stratosphere In 2017 a fire in British
Columbia produced a stratospheric smoke pall that was observed by satellites for 8 months. . Aircraft
studies have shown that debris from recentfires is common in the lower stratosphere
Reisner et al say those were unusual conditions and the soot content of the plume was low.
Finally, the large 2017 stratospheric smoke injection is a special case that is useful to inform processes
and conditions that that led to the large pyrocumulonimbus penetrating the stratosphere. For
example, the stratospheric plume self-lofted to 27km, much lower than nuclear winter simulations
that predict a rise of over 50 km and was attributed with a low BC content (~2%).
Extrapolating this unique event to nuclear winter requires much better understanding of the post
blast urban fire emissions, their BC content, and injection mechanisms. Without rigorous analysis like
Reisner et al have initiated, discussions regarding nuclear winter plausibility are premature.
. Reply to Comment by Robock et al. on “Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapon Exchange: An
Improved Assessment Based on Detailed Source Calculations” (Journal Article) | DOE PAGES
There’s a summary of the two views here with background and they are working to reduce the
uncertainties.
Jon Reisner gave a seminar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research on 12 November 2019 in
which he discussed the need to reduce the uncertainties and appealed to the community for help to
do this (Reisner 2019 ). Work is underway at LANL to upgrade HIGRAD-FIRETEC to run faster, and to
include detailed chemical kinetics (the formation of black carbon), probability density functions for
the mean temperature and its variation within a grid cell, pyro-cumulus formation and the release of
latent heat. Validation tests with other fire models and field data are being carried out, as well as tests
on modern building materials to see if they will burn.
. The Impact of a Regional Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan: Two Views
They continue
However, until these problems are resolved, from a disarmament point of view, the precautionary
principle is, in situations of such high stakes involving millions of deaths, there is an obligation to
assume a worst-case scenario. Such a scenario would include the possibility that a limited nuclear
conflict could cause a Nuclear Winter by leading to a broader nuclear conflict.
That is reasonable from the standpoint of the precautionary principle but from the point of view of
people scared of nuclear winter, then it’s low confidence and unlikely.
Reisner et al say
Without rigorous analysis like Reisner et al have initiated, discussions regarding nuclear winter
plausibility are premature.
It’s reasonable to continue studying this and hopefully this will be resolved in the near future.
MAJOR STUDY INITIATED BY CONGRESS TO TURN CLASSIFIED INFORMATION INTO DATA /

ASSUMPTIONS THE MODELLERS CAN USE FOR BETTER MODELING OF THE SOOT
Congress has initiated a major study to run for 18 months to look into these issues and assess current
models - this will be able to access classified information from nuclear tests etc.
The new study mandate from Congress calls for “an evaluation of the non-fallout atmospheric effects
of plausible scenarios for nuclear war, ranging from low-quantity regional exchanges to large-scale
exchanges between major powers.” The study is to assess current models of nuclear explosions with
respect to fires, atmospheric transport of gases from nuclear war-related explosions, and the
consequences of soot and other debris on weather, agriculture, and long-term ecosystem viability.
The law requires that the secretary of defense and director of national intelligence provide the study
group with information relating to relevant nuclear war scenarios and that the final report be
submitted in an unclassified form with an optional classified annex.
. Congress Mandates Studies on Nuclear War
Congress initiated an independent study on the environmental effects of a nuclear war and this is in
progress right now.
This is in progress right now as of June 2023:
. independent-study-on-potential-environmental-effects-of-nuclear-war
So we should have that soon which hopefully will clarify things a lot. The National Academy of Sciences
studies are generally very good.
It was announced in April 2021 and was supposed to take 18 months it's clearly a bit over schedule and
it’s only just started.
They are currently at the stage of gathering information. They should have finished by now on the
original timetable so something must have delayed it and if they are just starting it maybe some time to
finish original estimate 18 months. It will provide information to guide models based on classified
information not released.
It's about non-fallout effects (such as the soot)
QUOTE The study will consider non-fallout atmospheric, terrestrial, and marine effects and their
consequences, including changes in climate and weather patterns, airborne particulate concentrations,
stratospheric ozone, agriculture, and their impacts on ecosystems.
The classified stage will
QUOTE Evaluate the modeling and assumptions that may be used to generate the source terms for
particulates and other material released or mobilized into the atmosphere as a result of nuclear
detonations.
QUOTE The unclassified summary of the interim report will use a parametric approach to present results,
and will not include information about specific scenarios.
So they will look at various past data on the nuclear bombs US set off - and the measurements that the
US made of them. They won't release information about individual bombs but they will give numbers
for the amount of soot and particles that you get and how that depends on the size of the bomb and
whatever other things they found relevant - e..g air burst, ground burst, detonated in the sea whatever.
They don't say that there I'm just expanding on what it likely means.
It then ends with a list of recommendations for modellers on how to improve their models.
So it won't necessarily do any models itself, doesn't seem it will but the modellers will have much better
information to use.

Nuclear Winter Myths

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Winter Myths

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/21/23, 2:49 AM (4) Debunked: Nuclear Winter and Radioactive Fallout myths - Nuclear winter is out of date science

science - and most radioactivity is go…

Debunked: Nuclear Winter and Radioactive Fallout myths - Nuclear winter

But plants don’t die of a few days of darkness.

make decisions based on truth.

Please if scared about the Ukraine war see

When Carl Sagan Warned the World About Nuclear Winter

For Stephen Hawking see

For Michio Kaku

my answer to Is Michio Kaku a credible scientist?

So, on to the detailed debunk

Law: If everything MUST go wrong, don't bet on it.”

Kuwaiti oil fires - Wikipedia

As reported for instance in the Baltimore times:

Longer video here

Haunted World, page 257:

This book was published in 1995.

The Demon-Haunted World - Wikipedia

Russian nuclear forces, 2017

US nuclear forces, 2018

linked to from the World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile report

NUCLEAR WINTER, NUCLEAR AUTUMN, OR NO GLOBAL CLIMATE

Here is the New York Times retro report on nuclear winter.

LIMITATIONS OF THE ROBOK AND TOON PAPER - THEY INJECT 5

. Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts

This part was never modeled.

See Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering

Also water vapour is another complicating factor.

Text copy / pasted from here

. Human impacts on weather and climate

SOME SCIENTISTS THINK SOME FORM OF NUCLEAR AUTUMN IS

RECENT SCATHING PAPER ABOUT THE NUCLEAR WINTER IDEA BY SEITZ

For instance see the section:

He is quoting from this paragraph by Goerge Rathjens published in 1986:

and debate section.

Their conclusion is:

Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On

. MODELS BY MILLS AND STENKE

PUBLIC HEAR ONLY ONE SIDE OF THIS RESEARCH

. Nuclear winter is still a hot topic as a new arms race heats up

. The Humanitarian Consequences Of Nuclear War

WHAT ABOUT RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

The worst of the radiation is so short lived it is over in half an hour,

other health effects

RADIATION FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS WAY OVER EXAGGERATED

More panoramas here

Panoramic photos found of Hiroshima’s reconstruction

. Recovery time from a nuclear disaster

It is kept as a peace memorial

. Hiroshima Peace Memorial - Wikipedia

Video: Hiroshima City of Peace

. Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War

WHAT DO YOU DO IF HIT BY A NUCLEAR BOMB?

1. When you see the explosion, duck and cover

5. Expect largest humanitarian relief operation in human history.

1. Duck and cover

You need to stay indoors for at least 24 hours.

Those are the basic instructions.

IODINE PILLS DON’T PROTECT AGAINST RADIATION FROM A NUKE -

, Frequently Asked Questions About Potassium Iodide

. Radioactive Fallout from Global Weapons Testing

Thyroid cancer is very rare and is treatable too.

I-131 breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere and environment