Talk:Nuclear winter/Archive 1

Definition of large-scale
The introduction is unclear in that it leaves for the reader to decide what large-scale means. The reader may interpret this as being of a 10,000 device detonation level whilst a quantity 100 times smaller may initate a nuclear winter. The point is not to state an arbitrary threshold but to define the scale and clarify the range of nations and their level of involvement that studies show may lead to nuclear winter. The reader cannot be presumed to know this and it needs to be stated explicitly. For instance an allout India / Pakistan conflict or a Russia / U.S. conflict involving 100 or so. Perhaps also a list of current nuclear weapons states with the ability to initiate nuclear winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pardilla (talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we don't have a clear definition of what amount of cooling would qualify as "nuclear winter"--the explosion of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would cause dangerous cooling of a few degrees, but I don't know if all scientists would use the term "nuclear winter" for this. Unless we have a reliable source that gives a specific definition of nuclear winter in terms of amount of cooling, I think it's better to just leave it as "large-scale". Hypnosifl (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias
This article seems a little one-sided. It barely focuses on criticism and when it does it dismisses it out of hand. I'm new to Wikipedia, so should I just try and edit it? Or do I consult the article writer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagoras (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are very welcome to contribute. No one "owns" this article per WP:OWN. But you must follow WP rules, such WP:Verifiability and so on.Biophys (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You should go ahead and try to edit, but make sure that any criticisms you add are backed up by reliable sources. As with subjects like global warming and evolutionary biology, there is a lot of criticism of the subject by nonscientists with a political agenda, but the article should primarily reflect mainstream scholarship. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article simply lacks a full-scale "Criticism and support" section for the original Sagan's theory (there are numerous secondary sources about that). Such section must be created per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If there were criticisms of Sagan's original theory which have been dealt with or discredited by later studies, NPOV does not really require us to include them as they would be of historical interest only (the articles on global warming and evolutionary biology don't include the complete intellectual history of these ideas either), although people are certainly free to add information on this history if they find decent sources. Criticisms which climate experts would still see as holding some water should be included, of course. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I added a little bit material on this subject. Everything is sourced to reliable secondary sources per WP:verifiability, which is especially important for discussion of controversial subjects like that one.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kuwait
Whats Up Cuz: I read the article referenced in the Kuwaiti oil fires section, and decided to add some qualifications. First, the authors themselves state explicitly that differences in plume height and duration make analogies to nuclear winter inappropriate. This may be good reason to remove this section from the Nuclear Winter article entirely, but for now I have included this proviso. Second, I added language to more clearly highlight the fact that this study is based on modelling, rather than hard temperature data. I have no beef with the scientific bona fides of climate modelling, which for all I know are terrific, but model data is importantly different from empirical data, and I personally didn't catch the distinction the first time I read the wiki section. I think these edits better should inform the reader. 68.33.214.51 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record: The name might stem from 1983, but the concept that a nuclear war would cause massive cooling effects actually dates to well before that. There's a science fiction story by Poul Anderson, "Tomorrow's Children" published ca. 1948, set just after a nuclear war. In the opening pages, a character thinks of how the dust and smoke thrown into the atmosphere by the recent nuclear war is cooling the climate, and speculates it may even kick off an ice age. Whether Anderson thought of this himself, or picked it up from an article in a scientific journal is anybody's guess...

Malcolm Farmer, Monday, July 8, 2002

Removing the following statement from the article:


 * ''The term "nuclear winter" was first coined by the 1983 "TTAPS" study (from the initials of the last names of its authors, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and

Carl Sagan).

That's bullshit; the term was in widespread use at least as far back as the the early 70s (e.g. in the Illuminatus trilogy) and IMO probably was coined as far back as the manhattan project. Mkweise 01:08 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

TTAPS was based on three basic assumptions, which in my opinion are quite flawed:

1. Nuclear war would lead to massive wildfires across the globe. Studies suggest that such would not be the case; one study ("The Effects of Nuclear War") asserts that ''"Some believe that firestorms in the U.S. or Soviet cities are unlikely because the density of flammable materials (fuel loading) is too low – the ignition of a firestorm is thought to require a fuel loading of at least 8 lbs/sq. ft. (Hamburg had 32), compared to fuel loading of 2 lbs/sq. ft. in a typical U.S. suburb and 5 lbs/sq. ft. in a neighborhood of two story brick rowhouses." ''

2. These massive wildfires would lead to massive injection of submicron dust into the stratosphere. There is no evidence to suggest this would be the case; this phenomenon does not occur even in the largest of forest fires. This assumption is also clearly dependant on the first assumption.

3. This massive amount of stratospheric submicron dust would remain stratospheric for years. This relies on over-pessimistic estimates of atmospheric self-clearing mechanisms, and of course is utterly dependant on the first and second assumptions being correct.

thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification about Nuclear summer. It didn't sound right to me when I stumbled upon the entry. The reason I linked it was for individuals more learned in the subject to make a judgment. - ILFoxtrot  7/20/05

Krakatoa
The 1883 erruption of Krakatoa should be mentioned, the 200 megaton blast reduced global temperatures and changed weather patterns for about 5 years.


 * But... did it? Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows the t record. William M. Connolley 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Rv crit
I rv'd 65.'s additions of criticism. Some of it might have been Fair Enough, but some was definitely Too Far, and all was unsourced. In particular:
 * The theory of nuclear winter is most easily criticized as a political or emotional appeal with little grounding in good science. For example, a figure cited by Sagan was that a 5,000 megaton nuclear detonation or exchange could cause a global temperature drop of 35 degrees Celsius for three months. However, ice ages affected the Earth's temperature by only 10 degrees Celsius, meaning the projected 'winter' effect from even a relatively limited nuclear confrontation would be roughly three and a half times more powerful than an ice age.

is quite unreasonable. Sentence 1 is junk: the science is listed in the article. The reasons for a 30-ish degree T drop have been listed, and are well grounded. Unlike this para, which is totally sourceless. William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Volcano Ash - Nuclear Weapon Ash
I recall my physics teacher stating that a nuclear winter was not possible with the world's current nuclear armament. The largest nuclear weapon detonated was only 50 megatons, compared to the erruption of Mount St. Hellens which was over 300 megatons showing how meager our weapons are still compared to natural phenomena. Even with the sheer amount of warheads we have, it's not enough to cause a winter.

The great power of volcanos is inside the mountain. The nuclear explosion above ground will stir up a lot of smoke and soot and this done by many nuclear explosions (1000s of megatons) could stir incredible amount into the atmosphere. A human 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The ash from firestorms after a nuclear attack would in fact be the cause of a nuclear winter. Whereas a nuke's shockwave rebound sends the mushroom cloud skyward, high into the atmosphere, firestorms create immense heat thermals that carry the particles into the upper atmosphere, where they are carried on fast moving air currents, and dissipate only very gradually. Such firestorms occurred in the Great Fire of London,the 1871 Great Chicago Fire, Hamburg and Dresden during WW2, the Oakland Firestorm of 1991 in California, USA, and the 2003 Canberra bushfires in Australia, to name but a few, but these are single cities; a large scale conflict, which arguably is the kind that must be considered, as retaliation could escalate any small strike, would create firestorms in many cities.
 * The destructive capability of nuclear weapons and volcanic eruptions are not in any but the most basic way relative to the the amounts of airborne ash each creates, and the two relationships are quite different; to compare them is folly.


 * Tambora's explosion was around 1Gt and caused the Year Without a Summer nihil 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are bigger (up to 100 MT) weapons, and the big nuke states have literally THOUSANDS of nukes. Any MAD scenario assumes that a large number of them would be released in one massive wave and counterwave approach. MadMaxDog 05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no, the largest nuclear device ever exploded was the USSR's Tsar Bomba and it was only 50MT. The largest nukes ever fielded was by the USSR and they were 20MT.  These large nukes are almost entirely decomissioned now.  Much smaller 100KT class devices are state of the art.  Increasing accuracy of missiles have made large nukes obselete and largely unnecessary.


 * wish more of this was _in the actual article_ as this is what I came here to check on. 71.103.118.165 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Tsar Bomba was a 100MT design; it's just that the later stages were crippled to reduce fallout, as your linked article says. And of course, Teller-Ulam designs don't really have an upper limit - it's just that for military purposes, a couple megatons is enough, and the more accurate your delivery platforms, the less you need. --24.184.131.16 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you count on 10 000 nukes (5 000 in Russia and 5 000 in USA), each of 100 kt, you would get 1 Gt of explosive spread over a wide area. That has an impact of some sort. Ferred 12:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are airburst weapons that would not loft the material a Tambora-style eruption did. Plus many weapons would be duds or themselves wiped out in the exchange. Apples != Oranges


 * The energy released by burning cities is many fold greater than the energy released by the weapons detonated. The effects of nuclear winter stem from the firestorms which build hours after the blasts.  Comparing the energy of the weapons themselves to those of large volcanic eruptions misses this point.  In addition, volcanoes produce scattering sulfate aerosols, while the smoke following a nuclear war would be highly absorbing, and much more effective per unit mass at attenuating sunlight.  The dust or ash produced from either a volcano or a nuclear war would be short-lived and inconsequential compared to the smaller smoke particles from a nuclear war, or sulfate particles from a volcano.   Pokeysan (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should go in the 'Mechanism' section. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there are sources rather than speculation. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

TTAPS 1983 was changed by the three-dimensional TTAPS 1990
Apparently, no three-dimensional model calculated temperatures of as cold as -40C's.In 1990, in a paper entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter", TTAPS give a more detailed description of the short- and long-term atmospheric effects of a nuclear war (TTAPS 1990).

The 1990 TTAPS yields different results as it uses a three-dimensional model. These are the new results:

First 1 to 3 months: 10 to 25 % of soot injected is immediately removed by precipitation, while the rest is transported over the globe in 1 to 2 weeks. SCOPE figures for July smoke injection: 22° C drop in mid-latitudes. 10° C drop in humid climates. 75 % decrease in rainfall in mid-latitudes. Light level reduction of 0 % in low latitudes to 90 % in high smoke injection areas. SCOPE figures for winter smoke injection: Temperature drops of 3° to 4° C. Following 1 to 3 years: 25 to 40 % of injected smoke is stabilised in atmosphere (NCAR). Smoke stabilised for approximately 1 year. Land temperatures of several degrees below normal. Ocean surface temperature drops of 2° to 6° C. Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface

http://home.freeuk.net/tomlyons/chapter4.htm

The results of the 1983 TTAPS could be dismissed as this more accurate and exact description was provided by the TTAPS authors.

Also,it is implied in one of the last paragraphs that the studies of Covey, Schneider and thompson as well as other 3-d studies yielded results of temperatures between -15 and -42C, although with regional variations. The studies of Stenchikov and Aleksandrov are described as similar. That is apparently incorrect. One of the links of the article points out this:

Covey, Schneider and Thompson, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), using a three-dimensional global circulation model (GCM)10,11 have predicted temperature drops to about -15ºC (5ºF) in continental interiors of the Northern Hemisphere. Their model also indicates that the blanket might spread worldwide within a few weeks. Similar work in the Soviet Union has been done with similar results11.

http://www.the-spa.com/jon.roland/vri/nwaos.htm#11

The temperatures of the studies of covey, schneider and thompson, as well as the studies of alexsandrov and stenchikov produced temperatures as cold as -15C in continental interiors. They did not reach -40's or 30's.

Some changes could be made in the article.The TTAPS 1983 became obsolete with the better studied three-dimensional model and the studies of schneider, thompson, covey and the russian authors stenchikov and aleksandrov did not yield results as low as -40C's. That's inaccurate, no three-dimensional study gave those results.

User:Mario Lopez 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sign with ~ . You aren't Mario Lopez; you could become User:Mario Lopez. -40 etc: from the WCRP report: since I added this, I know its in there. William M. Connolley 10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. It is in the WCRP report that analyzed the 1983 TTAPS, but not the aleksandrov and stenchinov report or the covey, schneider or thompson report. No three-dimensional model gave result of -40'Cs. If I am wrong, can you provide me with a link, that shows a three-dimensional studies with temperatures as low as 40'Cs, please? Also, the TTAPS 1990 should be added and the relevance of the 1983 dismissed as the last one is more accurate.

User:Mario Lopez 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you're not User:ML yet. See the button in the top right that says "register"? You want to do that. At the moment you're just anon 68.160.124.2.
 * Anyway: I've never read TTAPS 1990. If youn have, feel free to add from it. Bear in mind that a lot of this article is historical - its *what people thought at the time*. So yes, subsequent research overwrites earlier stuff but its still very relevant for this page. William M. Connolley 16:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What does "TTAPS" stand for? –xenotalk 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now it stands for the authors initials, this should be introduced somehow before using the TTAPS acronym as if the reader should be familiar with it. –xenotalk  21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article now says it, but not at the first mention. You could use your super-powers to edit through protection to fix that up - it isn't controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How's this? –xenotalk 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased
IT makes no mention how this theory has been debunked or even critcisms:

three sources that debunk it and there isn't even a criticism section wow...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19860601faessay7798/starley-l-thompson-stephen-h-schneider/nuclear-winter-reappraised.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html

http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm--Jerluvsthecubs 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The criticism has now substance. I have put your second reference into the article an reflected its content appropriately.

More criticisms.

1987 New York Times - SCIENCE AND POLITICS: 'NUCLEAR WINTER' CLASH

1990 New York Times - Nuclear Winter Theorists Pull Back "Even Dr. Richard P. Turco, the physicist who coined the phrase nuclear winter, discounts the idea."

2006 American Thinker - Climate of Fear: From Nuclear Winter to Global Warming

HommieDaKlown (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dyson quote
The Dyson quote is unsourced. Looking for it, I find it seems to originate in Michael Crichton speech, which isn't good enough. Can an yone source the Feynmann bit? William M. Connolley 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like MC cribbed it from here but omitted to quote it exactly, which is poor form. I don't think thats desperately reliable either.

More to the point, this is supposed to be in the "scientific debate" section. These are just private mutterings

William M. Connolley 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting... http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html contains I wrote to the individuals quoted by Seitz, referred to the specific quote and asked "Is this quote correct? Does Seitz's use of the quote give an accurate reflection of your past and present views?" Freeman Dyson, a physicist at Princeton University, was quoted by Seitz as saying about the TTAPS study, "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but I quite despair of setting the public record straight. I think I'm going to chicken out on this one: Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" Dyson in May 1987 responded "No" to each of my questions, adding "I don't believe I ever said what Russell Seitz said I said, but I can't prove it."

Nonsense Sentence
"Although the TTAPS study was widely quoted in the media, criticisms have not been supported by alternative model runs"

This sentence reads nonsensically. Please clean it up gramatically or I will delete it. Why is it necessary for critics to provide alternative models? This is not how Scientific Review works. I am not required to build a Corvette to be qualified to find fault in an Edsel.
 * Scientific reviews are usually based on substance and not rhetorics (even in lower case mode). Providing models and providing model runs may both provide substance, but are different approaches. Gabriel Kielland 09:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That still does not justify your statement. It is not necessary to provide an alternate model to establish a fundamental flaw in an existing one. The nonsence sentence argues that one MUST provide an alternative model and that simply is not required for the conditions of scientific review and criticism to be satisfied. That is simply not true and the nonsense sentence is equally false.

Simply put, criticisms do NOT have to be supported by alternative modeling runs. I don't have to engineer a working model of Corvette in order to expose the design flaws in an Edsel, all I have to do is demonstrate the flaws in the Edsel.

As stated previously, it is grammatical and scientific nonsense as written. Clean it up and make it something that is not gibberish and I will quit deleting it. Adding cites does not make the sentence less nonsensical, it is just an attmept to obfuscate. Trying to insist on the standard of proving a negative doese make it nonsense.

"Althought the School Paper article, stating Theodore 'Beaver' Cleaver is suspected of eating boogers, was widely quoted in the media, The Beaver's criticisms were not supported by his statements to the contary"

Now see how absurd it sounds?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one refuting it. To prove myself innocent of murder, I can prove something as simple as it was physically impossible for me to be in the same place at the time of the murder. For example: Demonstrating I was 900 miles away attending a class with 10 other people from work. I don't have to refute every possible point in the DA's case to establish my innocence. If I solidly refute one key point, the case collapses under its own weight. Science works by the same standard. By your standards, I would. This is not the way the real world works.

There is enough sloppy grammar on Wiki as it is. When I find it, I will fix it if it can be salvaged. When it is flat out non-sequitir, I will delete it.


 * I fail to see how the above discussion, while valid with regards to grammar, is applicable to the matter at hand. The reason that a criticism of nuclear winter (e.g. 'nuclear winter is impossible') needs to be supported by modeling is that there is no other way to justify the criticism.  Analytical physics is not sufficient for the task, and no-one is experimenting with nuclear winter.  To take the above example: how do you find fault with a car?  You drive it (experimentation) or demonstrate that it won't work properly (theory or modeling).  If you have none of these, your claim is unsupportable.  In this case, the burden of proof is on someone saying that nuclear winter is impossible, because those who say it is have convincing evidence (in the form of global atmospheric models) on their side.  If you can solidly refute one key point of the analysis, do so, but not here. Michaelbusch 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"The reason that a criticism of nuclear winter (e.g. 'nuclear winter is impossible') needs to be supported by modeling is that there is no other way to justify the criticism."

Sure there is, prove the model is insufficient or fundamentally flawed. The orginal TTAPS model is a laughibly primitive one dimensional model ran on a computer with less processing power than my PDA.

"To take the above example: how do you find fault with a car? You drive it (experimentation) or demonstrate that it won't work properly (theory or modeling).  If you have none of these, your claim is unsupportable."

And neither requires I build an alternate car to prove the first model was fundamentally flawed. Modeling is building another car.

"In this case, the burden of proof is on someone saying that nuclear winter is impossible, because those who say it is have convincing evidence (in the form of global atmospheric models) on their side.

Nonsense, this turns Scientific Method on its head.

If you can solidly refute one key point of the analysis, do so, but not here. Michaelbusch 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UT"

No, the burden of proof is [b]ALWAYS[/b] on those making the original claim. Claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordianry evidence. all I have to do is find fault with the evidence.
 * You are being disruptive and are violating numerous Wikipedia policies. The evidence for nuclear winter is the modeling.  If you can find flaws with the models, do so, but that would be equivalent to providing alternative models.  This discussion has gone past the point where it is suitable for Wikipedia.  Note: computer power != accurate model. Michaelbusch 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it." I suggest you study up on the concept of Burden of Proof

"Note: computer power != accurate model. Michaelbusch 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)"

Primitive 1983 computer power = primitive 1983 model. You are putting faith in a one dimensional (and primitive by modern meterological standards) model of a complex three dimensional phenomenon that could run on a modern PDA. Any one submitting such a primitive model today on on a similarly complex phenomenon as say, Global Warming, would be ran out of the scientific community on a rail.

"If you can find flaws with the models, do so, but that would be equivalent to providing alternative models."

How so? Please explain because you have danced around this point until now. Exactly why does one follow the other?
 * Finding a flaw in a model is equivalent to providing an alternate model, because you have then fixed the model and changed it. I did not dance around it.  It seemed obvious.
 * Primitive computer + good program = accurate model. Fast computer + bad program = inaccruate model.  This also seemed obvious.
 * Believe me, I know about burden of proof. The burden of proof for nuclear winter was satisfied by model runs combined with the global cooling resulting from aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions (e.g. Krakatoa and Pinatubo).  If you want to counter it, you have to explain why setting off a lot of bombs wouldn't produce a massive amount of aerosols.  The recent studies linked in the article support bombs producing plenty of aerosol.  That satisfies the burden of proof, and requires that you provide some contrary evidence.
 * This is perhaps the longst-discussion-per-word-of-edits that I have engaged in. Please sign your posts and put them in a sensible order (one block of text at a time, without removing formatting). Michaelbusch 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, your original post is esentially a scientifically nonsense statement that demands Negative Proof!

"This is fallacious reasoning because formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."

"Finding a flaw in a model is equivalent to providing an alternate model, because you have then fixed the model and changed it. I did not dance around it. It seemed obvious."

Absurd! That is like my stating: "Hey! your car is on fire!" And claiming that has fixed you car. You are arguing I have to be able to repair your car in order to prove it was flawed when it caught on fire. All I have to do to prove your car is on fire is prove your car is on fire. Again, you are adding conditons that violate the burden of proof and the Scientific Method.

"Primitive computer + good program = accurate model. Fast computer + bad program = inaccruate model. This also seemed obvious. "

And is there a single professional climatologist alive today who would stake his reputation on any climatological model ran on an early 80's model Cray? I think that is also obvious. These are the very same computers climatologist used for forecasting in the early 80's and no one would consider those early programs and hardware models to be anything but simplistic and useless by modern standards. 24.50.255.57 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I find your reasoning confusing, particularly given the 2006 studies referenced in the article. Note that you wouldn't stake your reputation on a model run today on a 1980's computer, but if you had done the runs in the 1980's you would be perfectly justified in doing so, provided the models were accurate to the level you claimed.  However, we have long since passed Wikipedia's jurisdiction, so I will stop here. Michaelbusch 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you did not have the foresight of 2006, that statement would be reasonable. We, however, have this foreknowledge and are speaking from the vantage of the present. Hence the caveat I included in the OP "By modern standards" 24.50.255.57 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake with percentages?
I found this sentence a bit strange : "Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface.". Unless someone has a source to back that up, I would guess a reduction in ozone with 50% would give an increase in surface UV radiation of 100%. I mean, it's pretty common that people fail to note the difference between 'increase to' and 'increase with'. So, does anyone have any sources or other input? 85.224.198.207 15:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

KGB disinformation
I've seen it claimed that the concept of nuclear winter originated in a massive KGB disinformation campaign initiated by Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. Can this claim be substantiated in any way? 99.129.198.212 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely, where you saw it. Where did you see it?  -- SEWilco (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is whole section dedicated to this in Pete Earley's book based on interview with former KGB defector Sergei Tretyakov. See 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 161-177. No doubt this has to be referenced in the article, especially that the book contains many new informations - for example G.S. Golitsyn mentioned in the WCRP Report from 1986 authored a similiar article much before "Ambio" touched this topic. His report, coauthored with Alexandrov and Moisyeyev, containing fictious mathematical models, and second report by Kiryl Kondradyev, are described as completely unscientifical, written by order from KGB and then circulated via agentural channels to "Ambio" editors to provoke them in ordering article from Crutzen. It's quite shocking that it was Golitsyn who later "reviewed" Sagan's article. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HDK and I seem to be having a revert war over the KGB. First of all, there are no sources for this beyond one book, written by a man with a book to sell. The text below provides no credible sources to check. There is no indication as to what these two Russian papers might be - not even their supposed names. The claim that a Russian created the model for NW in 1985 is implausible, since TTAPS was 1983 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Vladimir Alexandrov disappeared in 1985 while attending a Nuclear Winter conference in Madrid, he contributed to a computer model that describes nuclear winter in a Russian study that predates the TTAPS 1983 report and the Ambio article. Nikita Moiseyev and Georgy Golitsyn were also contributors to the same study. I will admit I don't read Russian and am having trouble finding additional information from this specific study and the prior study from Dr. Kirill Kondrayev. Supposedly Dr. Kirill Kondrayev had conducted an earlier study in the Karakum desert that the second study relied heavily upon. This first study was funded by the Aleksandr Voyeykov Main Geophysical Observatory and Leningrad University and the results were released and reported by the BBC but never peer reviewed. I'm still attempting to find both studies and hopefully and a article or transcript from the BBC.

The Soviet Union was well known to financially support anti-nuclear and disarmament groups. "In 1982, John McMahon, deputy director of the CIA, testified before Congress that the U.S.S.R. had channeled $100 million annually to the Western disarmament movement, and that such funds "enabled the movement to grow beyond its own capabilities."" CNN Article

HommieDaKlown (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That Vladimir Alexandrov disappeared is neither here nor there, except for him and his family. It tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the KGB funded NW or not. Even if you can find this other study, I'm not sure its going to help a lot... what you need is some kind of reliable source to demonstrate that the study was deliberately faked, or whatever. KK has a fair reputation in climate, so I rather doubt he would have allowed himself to be used. The fundamental problem is that the exciting claim you have is just coming from one book which is clearly in need of sensation to sell, and has no usable corroboration at all William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the disappearance alone is not enough. However I have provided the most reliable source to date. This is someone confirmed to be from the KGB and the SVR. It is no secret that critics of the Putin Government have been murdered and even the Russian government calls his actions treason, you conclude then that he is putting his life at risk to sell a book? He is considered a reliable enough source by the FBI and CIA to grant asylum, and award the largest resettlement package ever given to a defector before or since the cold war. Remember the old Soviet Regime was very oppressive, I do not doubt that if orders came down to draft a dramatic report that anyone would hesitate to do it for fear of retribution.


 * For some reason it seems that there is nearly no mention of the number of criticisms NW has received on the NW page.


 * HommieDaKlown (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the disappearance alone is not enough - no, the disappearence is totally irrelevant. What is it supposed to prove? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That the rumors of Russian KGB involvement have existed since at least 1985. Did you not read the section you reverted before reverting it or was it too cryptic? If not have a go at editing it to make it a bit more clear. I included this in there and cited an article. It is part of the history of Nuclear Winter, and should be included, just like a section for criticisms of NW and NW in popular culture, specifically the movie 'The Day After' should be in there. It would be like having an article on 9/11 and failing to include that there is a whole movement of crackpots that think it was an inside job. I think it is important to remain neutral but at least give the information and provide the facts. It is a fact that this former KGB/SVR Officer is making this claim, and he is someone with credibility.

HommieDaKlown (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The worst flaw of Tretyakov is that he got the timing wrong. Golitsyn was prompted to study NW by Crutzen's article in Ambio. This is confirmed by two interviews referenced under Grigory Golitsyn. If you don't read Russian, Babelfish can help enormously. Try . Golitsyn's main effort went into the 1986 study. The interview claims the study made it as far as an UN declaration. If so, this should be mentioned in the article. Tretyakov is however of no importance here. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims of KGB Involvement
In the book Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America after the End of the Cold War Sergei Tretyakov makes the claim that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter." Sergei, 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 cruise missiles in Western Europe. The plan, under KGB Director Yuri Andropov, aimed at fostering popular opposition to the deployment included a massive disinformation campaign requiring false scientific reports from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and funding to European anti-nuclear and peace groups opposed to arms proliferation. The Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, spearheaded the effort by funding and organizing demonstrations in Europe against the US bases. The KGB propagandists then went to work creating two different scientific studies to be released from the Main Geophysical Observatory and the Institute of Terrestrial Physics but never submitted for peer review. The second study, using the findings from the first, concluded that temperatures across Europe would plunge after the use of nuclear weapons in Germany from dirt launched into the atmosphere blocking the sun's rays. The Soviet propaganda was then distributed to sources within environmental, peace, anti-nuclear, and disarmament groups including the publication Ambio. The concept hit mainstream from there and propelled into popular culture with the help of Carl Sagan. The book goes on to mention that while Ambio was targeted that there is no evidence to suggest that Birks or Crutzen were aware of the KGB's goal. Claims of KGB involvement have existed for years fueled in part by the strange disappearance of Vladimir Alexandrov, the man that created created the mathematical model for the Nuclear Winter theory released in the study from the Institute of Terrestrial Physics, in 1985. Sergei Tretyakov's account seems to be the first credible source to confirm the matter.


 * The interesting part here is that nuclear winter was discussed bilaterally between USA and the Soviet Union. See . In connection with this Alexandrov disappeared, possibly murdered. He did not "create the model", but contributed. Discrediting Ambio here equals discrediting Nobe prize laureate Crutzen. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an awful lot of stuff at . Which bit do you mean? I searched for Soviet and found stuff dating from around 1984. Talking about it at that time would have been unsurprising. I don't understand the discrediting Ambio stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What lot of stuff are you talking about? This source only provides a list of "files" and "boxes". There are no texts from those files and boxes. Without knowing what a source tells, this is not a source. Even an unreliable source must provide some text.Biophys (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Harvard papers show two things. 1) NW was intensely debated during the 1980s. This article could be expanded on the political aspects, as an example of how a scientific discovery have successfully . 2) NW was a subject of a working group VIII within the US-USSR Joint Committee on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection: 1975-1990. What was the mandate of WG VIII in relation to NW? How was the reports of WG VIII received and used? I don't have the answers. Tretyakov is also obviously barking up the wrong tree.

On the "discrediting Ambio stuff": The 1982 article by Crutzen & Birks is said above to have come about by soviet propaganda distributed to Ambio. I think KGB also led some ESP research back then. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide an exact reference to the first paper abou Nuclear winter "theory"? As about claims of KGB disinformation, this is referenced to a reliable secondary source that satisfy WP:Verifiability. Hence it should be mentioned per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been really busy lately, sorry. I have been looking for the study done by Vladimir Alexandrov, Nikita Moiseyev and Georgy Golitsyn but so far have not had any luck. If someone finds it they should really update the history on NW to reflect their study and credit them, even if you don't believe in the KGB involvement their study played a role in the history of NW. HommieDaKlown (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The book tells that theory of Nuclear Winter was actually developed by Academician Kirill Kondratiev, who claimed that global warming is myth . That is something William M. Connolley should know very well.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Wow! Please see that about Kondratiev.Biophys (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I found two more articles somewhat related to the matter at hand. They talk about the Soviet/KGB funding of antinuclear movement in the west during the 1980s. The Times – 27 December 1994 and AIM Report May 1982 Certainly supporting evidence but I honestly don't think we will find another definitive source on the matter unless someone else that was a former KGB officer comes forward or the scientists themselves admit something. At this point we have only on former KGB/SVR Colonel confirming this story. Even if Biophys is able to find and decipher the first two soviet studies that will require a change in the history section but I do not believe it will help corroborate Sergei Tretyakov's claim. As far as I can tell he is the only source on the matter willing to speak publicaly about it. However it is my opinion that he  should be considered a reliable source considering his background and the fact he was granted asylum and a very sizable resettlement package.  HommieDaKlown (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who proposed first the Nuclear winter?
Since I can read Russian, let me intervene here. These Russian sources tell that it was Georgy Golitsyn and perhaps his colleagues who first developed the Nuclear winter theory in 1982 -beginning of 1983 . Golitsyn reported the theory at the first Meeting of "the Committee of Soviet Scientists in Defence of Peace, Against the Nuclear Threat" in May 1983.

Carl Sagan (a close friend of Golitsyn) published it only a few months later, apparently after personal communication with Golitsyn. The article in Ambio did not justify this theory and did not use words "Nuclear winter", if I understand correctly. Could anyone please provide a reference at the first scientific article where this theory has been published?Biophys (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kondratiev tells : Благодаря этому в 1960-е годы мы смогли осуществить 22 запуска больших высотных аэростатов (по 800 кг каждый). Запуски проводились с полигона, расположенного в среднем течении Волги. Главная задача заключалась при этом в сборе данных о вертикальных профилях (до высот 30-33 км) спектральной прозрачности атмосферы, о суммарной прямой солнечной радиации и о потоках коротковолнового излучения, распространяющегося вниз и вверх, при одновременном получении информации о свойствах аэрозолей. Массив данных, накопленных при выполнении данного проекта, уникален, а по результатам интерпретации этих данных было написано немало научных работ, в том числе и вышедшая в 1972 г. публикация ВМО "Радиационные процессы в атмосфере" (ВМО N 309).

X. Т. - Расскажите о некоторых результатах проекта.

К. Я. К.- Неожиданным результатом, полученным при обработке аэростатных данных, было открытие явления значительного поглощения солнечной радиации в стратосфере. Мы пришли тогда к выводу, что это явление связано с ядерными испытаниями, проводившимися в атмосфере в начале 1960-х годов. При взрывах образовывалось значительное количество двуокиси азота, которая сильно поглощает солнечную радиацию. Был сделан, в частности, вывод о "маленькой ядерной зиме". (I will translate this later).Biophys (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When these texts are translated do they give more information as to who first proposed the concept of nuclear winter? Did you find the first two Soviet Studies? HommieDaKlown (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forget about it. See also talk page of Georgy Golitsyn. Yes, I believe Russian scientists were the first per several Russian sources. The idea about climatic effects of dust clouds due to use of nuclear weapons was pretty old and circulated even before the Ambiene publications (the ambiene publications only repeated this idea without any proof). The really new discovery/claim were mathematical models which demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of global nuclear war (hence the "nuclear winter"). That was done in Science paper by Sagan and others, as well as in a Russian jurnal published a month earlier (Golitsyn also made an oral presentation a few months earlier).Biophys (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is supportable. Science long ago decided that priority goes with publication. TTAPS was '83 I think. Which Russian pubs predate this? Since TTAPS was *published* in 83 I presume they would have been working on it for several years previously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then this is simple. A source tells that paper by Golitsyn came earlier, but I have to check this. Also a report at an officail public meeting is usually regarded as sufficient to establish priority. On the other hand, we should not neccessarily tell: "this man X" was first. We can tell: "X published paper A", and "Y published paper B". In fact, Golitsyn and Sagan communicated with one another, according to Golitsyn.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly its simple if you can find a prior pub by G. OTOH his page currently says "When the "nuclear winter" scenario was first published in 1982, he applied his model to the issue and confirmed the results." which rather suggests he didn't originate it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts on this page
Looking in the history, there seems to be some edit warring going on with this article. All users seem to be either in violation of 3RR or dangerously close to it. Can we come to some agreement here?  D u s t i speak and be heard! 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I can help here, especially with regard to Russian language sources. I looked through the book by Comrade J and do not see anything that contradicts his version. If something contradicts his version, please state this here and let's discuss. I also looked "Nuclear war survival" manual by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They claim "Nuclear winter" to be a "discredited theory".Biophys (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "not contradicts" isn't good enough. Is there anything you have found that actually *supports* the claims it was deliberately developed as disinformation? Re Russians developing it first... that would be worth adding, if true. I'm slightly doubtful, because people tend to claim priority for their own nations stuff. We know the TTAPS '83 paper exists. Which Russian papers pre-date it? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We have two separate questions here. Let's start from the alleged disinformation. Right now I can see two reliable secondary sources about it: the book by Earley, and an article in CNN/Times. Both qualify WP:Source. Judging from your response, this disinformation claim was not specifically disputed by any other sources. Note that Tret'iakov is talking about something from his field of expertise, that is KGB operations. So he must be regarded as a top specialist in his field, just as Sagan is a top astrophysicist. Therefore, I belive this view must be included in the article per WP:NPOV. If you want to dispute reliability of these two sources, let's continue this discussion at talk page of WP:Verifiablity. Biophys (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC). Also note that Tretyakov or Earley do not dispute the scientific validity of the nuclear winter concept (that would be beyond their expertise). They only tell that a certain KGB operation has been executed and regarded an outstanding success.Biophys (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify. One can not consider the alledged KGB operation (I am not talking about the scientific theory!) "fringe" simply because no one disputed the claim about this KGB operation. Not only this is a "mainsteam" view on this subject right now, but this is the only existing view, because there are no other views about this KGB operation.Biophys (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem that you can see more clearly than me. If by CNN you mean, I don't find any mention of NW. Could you quote what you mean? As for trusting T... no, you don't trust spies, especially spies with a book to sell. This isn't a WP:RS. As to the second point (whatever it was) this theory is fringe because there is no mainstream view. Its just not a part of discussions on the subject William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Connolley, can we please stay Civil when discussing information here? The point of talking here is to work out the disputed issues in the article. For you to make some edits to the article and leave the edit summaries like you have isn't admin like. I suggest that you think twice before hitting save.  D u s t i complain/compliment 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you on about? And who is Mr Connolley? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am talking about this second source: from 1985: It tells: "The mystery of his disappearance has been compounded by the suspicions of some Western scientists that the nuclear winter scenario was promoted by Moscow to give antinuclear groups in the U.S. and Europe some fresh ammunition against America's arms buildup.. It tells that story  by Tretyakov is nothing special and has been suspected to be the case previously.Biophys (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to dispute your assertion that "this theory is fringe because there is no mainstream view". Please see WP:Fringe. It tells: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". "Fringe theory" is one that contradicts existing views on the subject. There is nothing on the subject of this KGB operation except this single reliable secondary source. By telling that "this theory is fringe because there is no mainstream view", you would call "fringe" any new scientific or another discovery published in reliable sources This is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:verifiability policies. "You do not trust spies" is not an argument. A typical Russian would tell: "You do not trust traitors".Biophys (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking, the source is reliable (a book published by a writer Earley) and the claim is new but not fringe (striktly speaking it is not even new since such "suspicions" existed befor, as clear from another source). There is nothing unusual in the claim. The KGB is famous for promoting various theories, such as John Kennedy assassination theories or a theory that AIDS was invented in US laboratories. One could even create a sourced List of KGB-promoted theories; so the nuclear winter theory would be only one of them.Biophys (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC) This is an obvious case. I do not think we need to go through RfCs and conflict resolution here.Biophys (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But this is just a claim by one person (note that Earley only reports Tretyakov's claim, he does not endorse it and in fact expresses some skepticism about it), there are no other forms of evidence to support it, and it is not discussed as a plausible possibility in any works by historians. Do you think that if one government official claimed that the government was in regular contact with aliens, that this would merit inclusion in a wikipedia article on extraterrestrial life? I think the answer is obviously no, and perhaps William M. Connolley would agree; if you think the answer is obviously yes, or if you think there is obviously some major difference between these cases (I don't see one), then probably RFC is necessary here. Hypnosifl (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Except in this case there is supporting evidence that the KGB did indeed fund and organize a peace offensive in the west during this time focusing primarily on antinuclear, anti arms, and environmental groups. That makes the claim really not that much of a stretch and very plausible. If those groups were receiving funds from the KGB then it would be wise to assume the KGB would have some degree of influence within those groups. So then we come down to the KGB exerting influence over the Soviet Union's own scientific institutions. This is the only part of the claim that cannot be substantiated by other sources at the moment. But you also seem to be completely overlooking the credibility of the person making the claim as well. It wasn't just a random low level government official, it was someone within the KGB and the SVR that held a bit of clout. The United States government decided he had enough credibility to grant him the largest resettlement package ever granted to any defector before or since the cold war. Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB General living n exile in the United States, had this to say about the KGB, "On the other hand -- and this is the other side of the Soviet intelligence, very important: perhaps I would describe it as the heart and soul of the Soviet intelligence -- was subversion. Not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies, to weaken the United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs. To make America more vulnerable to the anger and distrust of other peoples.  In that sense, the Soviet intelligence [was] really unparalleled. ... The [KGB] programs -- which would run all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, women's movements, trade union movements, campaigns against U.S. missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons, allegations that AIDS ... was invented by the CIA ... all sorts of forgeries and faked material -- [were] targeted at politicians, the academic community, at [the] public at large. ... It was really a worldwide campaign, often not only sponsored and funded, but conducted and manipulated by the KGB. And this was again part and parcel of this campaign to weaken [the] military, economic and psychological climate in the West." CNN An interview with retired KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin.  HommieDaKlown (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The interview with Oleg Kalugin says nothing about nuclear winter, so here you would be trying to "connect the dots" yourself based on some very broad statements he made (which don't even mention KGB involvement in 'environmental groups'). See No original research, which begins by saying:


 * Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hypnosyf, please answer one simple question. There is a source - the book that makes a reference to a notable specialist in KGB operations - Tretiakov (we have an article about him). Do you agree that this source satisfy WP:Verifiability? Yes or no, please. Remember: "verifiability, not truth". We only verify that Tretiakov made this claim; we do not judge if his claim is true or not. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought this question to Reliable sources/Noticeboard, so everyone is welcome to reply there as well.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a verifiable fact that Tretyakov makes this claim, but that does not mean it merits inclusion in an article which is about nuclear winter rather than about Tretyakov. To take a more extreme example, it is a verifiable fact that David Icke makes the claim that prominent world leaders are actually reptilian aliens, but this fact would not merit inclusion in the extraterrestrial life article or the reptile article. If a claim made by someone is itself a fringe claim, i.e. not accepted by experts in the field, then it probably does not belong in the article on the mainstream subject that the claim concerns--see FRINGE, as well as Neutral_point_of_view which says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Hypnosifl (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hypnosifl, Incorrect. I am not trying to "connect the dots". I am verifying portions of the original claim. See The Times – 27 December 1994, AIM Report May 1982, and CNN Opposition to The Bomb all of which have been linked by me on this discussion page at some point or another. The only portion of the story I cannot corroborate with another source at the present moment is the claim that the KGB exerted influence of over the Soviet Scientific institutions for false scientific studies. The Oleg Kalugin interview that I linked and quoted contained this, "all sorts of forgeries and faked material -- [were] targeted at politicians, the academic community, at [the] public at large" which doesn't specifically say nuclear winter but is certainly relevant.  HommieDaKlown (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But none of those articles even mention the words "nuclear winter"! So any attempt to use them to in any way support the claims that the Soviets invented nuclear winter as disinformation would indeed be the kind of attempt at synthesis which is ruled out by No original research when it says "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Hypnosifl (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hypnosifl, so you have admitted that the source is reliable. Good. Then we can move further. Now you tell this claim is "fringe" and should not be included per "due weight", because it is "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". What majority are you talking about? Can you provide at least one source that disputes Tretiakov's claim about the alleged KGB operation?. This is an intelligence matter (not science), so the relevant "comminity" that holds the "majority view" would be "intelligence community". There are no any sourced claims which dispute this Tretiakov assertion. So, his view IS the majority view.Biophys (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The source is reliable on the fact that he made the claim, not on the accuracy of the claim itself. It's "fringe" in the sense that you haven't shown any evidence that any historians or members of the intelligence community think there is good reason to trust the claim--even the author of the your sole reference, Earley, writes that the truth of the claim is "impossible to discern". And it's silly to say that the burden of proof is on the rest of us to prove that it's not widely held--if it is widely held, you should be able to find plenty of mainstream sources other than Tretyakov himself which discuss the claim and vouch for the likelihood that it's true. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with H, obviously, since thats what I've been saying all along. That HDK is quoting stuff like which say nothing at all about NW makes it clear how weak this thing is. yes we all know that the Soviets funded peace groups (well actually I don't, never having checked, but I'm prepared to go along with it for the discussion) but no that does not help establish the contrstruction of a fake NW theory. "verifiability, not truth" is the cry of POV pushers immemorial, and its wrong: there is due-weight as well. Just because something is verifiable - even true - doesn't mean it merits a place in wiki. It also has to be sufficiently notable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We never "prove" anything in WP. "Burden of proof" in WP only means finding proper sources.. There is a reliable source, so it should be included per WP:NPOV. If you can find another source that claims something opposite, you are welcome to inclide it. That is how it works. Of course this is a notable claim. I belive this is an obvious case of removing sourced and relevant content from WP, which is a violation of WP:NPOV policy. Do you agree this case to go to RfCs and conflict resolution?Biophys (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is not a reliable source for the substance of the claim itself, only for the fact that he made the claim. Lots of notable people have made unsubstantiated claims about all sorts of things without the claims meriting a mention (let along a large independent section like the one you added) in the wikipedia article about those things. And yes, as I said before I think this should go to RFC. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any source only makes certain claims. You said: "source for the substance of the claim itself". Are we looking for "The Truth?". We can use RfC for an article only for disagreements beteween two users, which is not the case if I understand correctly.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you think any claim by any notable person (even, say, the claims of David Icke which I mentioned as an extreme example earlier) should be put in the wikipedia article on that subject? Experts in the field have ways of judging the likelihood that claims in that field are actually true, such as independent corroboration from multiple trustworthy sources in the case of historical claims. The point of using reliable sources for the substance of claims (not for the mere fact that someone made them) is to show that historians/journalists/members of the intelligence community etc. have done the legwork of looking into the claim and verifying that there is good reason to believe it is likely to be true.


 * As for RFC procedures, see Dispute resolution. If there are only two parties involved then the suggestion is Third opinion, but that isn't the case here. We could do a "Request for comment", but it might also make sense to post something at FTN, since the point of that noticeboard is when some editors feel that fringe ideas are being given undue weight. Do you have a preference, or an alternative suggestion? Hypnosifl (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I would rather stop editing this article at all. I only tried to help HommieDaKlown because he is new in WP. But since my contribution was unhelpful (as William M. Connolley said), I would rather do something else. Could you also please stop following my edits in other articles? Let's save some nerves and time. Let's be mutually forthcoming. Sorry for wasting your time.Biophys (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I only tried to edit material of yours in other articles specifically related to these claims that nuclear winter was invented as a propaganda tool--if anyone else is interested, they were in Propaganda in the Soviet Union and Disinformation (please let me know if you have added similar material to other articles). I don't want people to be misled into thinking these claims are mainstream ones that are accepted as true by experts. Hypnosifl (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Biophys. Check your talk page. I dunno where to take this from here. so I guess they win this one until there is some sort of Russian FOIA HommieDaKlown (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there is WP:Dispute resolution process, and it is open for anyone.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An irrelevant chapter?
This article includes a chapter "Consequences of a regional nuclear war". How this is relevant to the "nuclear winter" concept? This is not an article about climate consequences of a nuclear war in general.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats an odd question. This *is* an article about the climate consequences of a nuclear war William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Then, we have here a significant content that is not "nuclear winter": damaging of the ozone layer, regional war, and so on. Then we should do the following. 1. Let's rename this article to stay exactly on the subject, that is Climatic consequences of nuclear war (including regional war, ozone layer, and so on). 2. Let's create a separate article Nuclear winter theory (obviously this is only a theory, not a real winter), and place all material about nuclear winter there. 3. Briefly mention Nuclear winter theory in main article Climatic consequences of nuclear war.Biophys (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regional nuclear war would cause global cooling effects which fall under the "nuclear winter" umbrella, and the term "nuclear winter" has long been used to encompass additional climatic effects beyond cooling, for example this page says:


 * This is a description of a Class III "Nominal" nuclear winter (taken from pages 194-195 of 'A Path No Man Thought'): "It carries in its wake significant cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C. At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. Months later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer." Hypnosifl (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you are telling that any climate changes due to nuclear war are called "nuclear winter"? That is fine, but then we must change several leading phrases in the article to explain this.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC) How about the following lead:
 * "Term Nuclear winter describes any hypothetical changes of global climate as a possible outcome of a large-scale nuclear war. It is thought that severely cold weather, depletion of the ozone layer, and other unfavorable conditions can be caused by detonating large numbers of nuclear weapons." And so on. Biophys (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I would say that "nuclear winter" refers primarily to the cooling effect, but it is common for scientists and journalists to also discuss other climatic effects when explaining what a nuclear winter would entail. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Then we need a separate article about the cooling ("winter") effects.Biophys (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why. The term nuclear winter refers primarily to the cooling effect, and it is the primary subject of discussion for the article. What exactly is the problem? The article on global warming discusses secondary effects other than warming itself in Global warming, for example. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see Biophys's comments here as anything but silly. None of this discussion is at all productive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"History"
I've revised the history section. Pielke and Cotton say that Turco and Birks presented the rudiments of the hypothesis in Ambio in 1982. The previous text for that section strongly implied that only the ozone effects were considered (but gave no source for that claim). Tediously, this affects the priority... see Talk:Georgy_Golitsyn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Priority of what? Yes, the idea that dust by the nuclear blasts can create cooling circulated long time prior to Ambio publication. However the work by Sagan (and perhaps Golitsyn) demonstrated for the first time (using a mathematical model} that consequences will be catastrophic enough to create the "nuclear winter". They also used term "nuclear winter" for the first time. Do you agree?Biophys (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Book by Pete Earley as source and alleged KGB disinformation
This dicussiion was moved from William talk page, because it is relevant to this article.Biophys (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to talk here. Sorry, but your arguments with regard to Tretiakov's claims are rather weak in my opinion. First, you said that the source is unreliable, although this is a third-party published book, and Tretiakov is an expert in KGB operations. Then, you said that claim is "fringe", although the claim does not contradict any existing knowledge on the subject (the nuclear winter theory may be correct and the claim about KGB promotion can be true at the same time). Would you please be willing to compromise and include this claim in some form, or you still insist that everything should be deleted? Thank you for the consideration. Biophys (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the book, and T's expertise: I think he has a book to sell. It needs to contain exciting claims. Whether its reliable or not is unknowable. T may well be an expert, but again we have no way of knowing if he knows any details of the NW stuff, if indeed they ever happened. Without any way of determining if the book is reliable or not, I'm not inclined to trust it on its own.


 * Fringe: yes indeed; because this is the first time the claim has surfaced. I don't think debating the exact meaning of the word "fringe" is going to help.
 * Your reduced version is still unacceptable to me. There are lots of problems with it (apart from the unreliability of the source, see above): for example: massive disinformation campaign requiring false scientific reports from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and funding to European anti-nuclear and peace groups opposed to arms proliferation. This mixes up the sci reports with peace groups, who are *completely irrelevant* for these purposes. You seem to believe that funding of peace groups would in some way corroborate or offer support to this theory. It wouldn't. And massive disinformation is obviously wrong: as I recall, you assert that 2 studies (which you cannot name) were done. How is this "massive"?
 * William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can agree that version you cited is not good. But that is not a problem. We can reduce, modify, and so on. Please propose any other version you like, and we can start from there (or I can make a different version). I asked if you agree to include this claim by Tretikaov in this article. Is your answer "no"? Based on your comments during a recent AfD discussion, I do not think we hold very different political views. The real disagreement here is about using sources. I believe that a new claim, which does not contradict the existing knowledge, should not be considered fringe just because an author had an occupation you regard dishonest. In fact, I do not like this Tretiakov too, to tell this politely, but for the reasons probably different from yours (he belonged to the Soviet "nomenklatura" and his book revelas very dirty although interesting secrets). Still, I belive this is a valid source. So, do your answer "no" or we can try to work this out? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have an absolute position. Its really up to you to come up with something that is close enough to acceptable to be worth working on. Fringe: again, I disagree on two counts (a) The existing position is that the theory is a genuine one, so your idea does contradict it (b) a totally new idea that contradicted nothing could still be fringe, or tiny-minority, or whatever. The real disagreement here is about using sources. Agreed, so lets stop arguing about fringe. T: I neither like nor dislike him, nor have much opinion re his occupation. I just consider his book an unreliable source. I'm not going to convince you about that, nor you me, though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Then I can try to work out something that might be acceptable for you. "Genuine theory" - what exactly do you mean? Do you mean a mathematical model used by Sagan? Do you mean the result that consequences are catastrophic? The idea about dust clouds was very old as far as I know.Biophys (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Genuine as in a result of scientific research, not motivated propaganda or disinformation William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But that is your personal interpretation. Does this specific claim of a KGB operation contradicts to anything in the Science article by Sagan? No, it does not. Does it contradict specificaly to anything in other sources? No. This is a new and non-controversial claim since it does not contradict anything we know about the nuclear winter.Biophys (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The research by Sagan and his colleagues was their genuine scientific research. Nobody, even Tretiakov, disputes that. Western scientists did not know about the plot, even if they were a part of the plot. That is how such operations work. The operation (if any) was conducted by Golitsyn who personally communicated with Sagan to discuss the "nuclear winter" theory. Golitsyn and his colleagues knowlingly helped Andropov simply because almost all high-ranking Soviet scientists had to follow orders from the Soviet government. Obviously, the claim by T. is not necessarily true. His claim only means KGB believed that "nuclear winter" was their achievement, and that is notable.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seitz
Im not happy with the Seitz section "A 1986 article by Russell Seitz ...". Basically, Seitz fabricated various quotes. We shouldn't be giving them countenance William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no clear evidence as to whether Seitz fabricated them, or whether he got the wording slightly wrong, or whether the scientists in question really said the quotes but didn't remember later (Dyson didn't unequivocally say Seitz's quote was wrong, and he had expressed some skepticism about early nuclear winter calculations elsewhere...I think there was a section with his thoughts on the matter in his book Infinite In All Directions). Hypnosifl (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ON THE CONTRARY: The devastating critical quotes from Dyson & Tsipsis  ( regarding what Alexandrov said in 1983) were es real as those from Feynman, McElroy, Rathjen's and the rest. Many of those interviews were recorded, and efforts to get them to recant by Sagan and his lawyers backfired- What Dyson told me was a paraphrase of a public lecture that subsequenlty appeared in his book >i> Infinite in All Directions , and, witness Martin's article, Tsipsis tortured denial of what Alexandrov freely said on the record also folded on journalistic cross examation.

I wasn't the only one who noticed- the apocalyptic hype and stonewalling proved too much for such politically sympathetic journals as The New Republic:

https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/07/history-of-climate-science-lessons.htm

and my recapitulation of the events of the Reagan years :

https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2016/04/nuclear-winter-wages-of-hype.html

passed muster in the fact-checked and libel-reviewed pages of  Nature in 2013

see link above.

Possible 'global cooling' link?
Having read the article on Global cooling, I have to wonder if the various nuclear weapons tests of the same period - late 1940s to early '60s - have anything to do with the mild cooling trend seen.

And yes, I realise France and China continued atmospheric nuclear testing, but that was in much lower numbers.

Just a thought.

195.26.62.238 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the main reason nuclear warfare is projected to cause a nuclear winter is that the massive fires in urban areas that had been bombed would loft a lot of soot into the stratosphere--absent the fires, I don't think the nuclear explosion itself would inject a significant amount of aerosal particles into the upper atmosphere, which is probably why scientists don't seem to argue that nuclear testing in deserts and so forth had anything to do with cooling. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the past, I've asked people involved with the construction of the aerosol datasets used to feed into the GCMs to explain the 60s cooling; their response is that the bomb tests are below the noise level William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
I'm not very happy with recent changes by TP. ''A nuclear explosion is like bringing a piece of the Sun to the Earth's surface for a fraction of a second. Like a giant match...'' is just over the top (and wrong, too). But I'm not convinced by the rest, either William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do try to be happy. It's an apt analogous introductory explanation for readers who do'nt understand nuclear physics. Also, articles are generally written for a mixed audience and not as doctoral dissertations. If you feel that any statements are doubtful then mark them with {fact} or {disputed} or such like. This article has been static for an extended period of time. How do you propose to add to and improve it specifically?--Theo Pardilla (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've hacked out the analogues section, since that was entirely WP:OR. You just can't do that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

use to delay Global Warming?
I realise that this is probably a stupid question, but has any reserch been done into the limited use of nuclear weapons in unpopulated areas to delay or counteract Global Warming? And if so, would it be worth including in the article? 58.170.7.120 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Using nukes would be an obviously bad idea. Other geoengineering ideas exist, though William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The result would be temporary all other things being equal, but in practice anthropogenic GHG emissions would decrease as a result of mass population reductions. Unpopulated areas, apart from perhaps forests don't have enough fuel for total atmospheric loadings required or enough fuel in a small area to ensure stratospheric lofting. To seriously propose such an idea, with the knowledge of its consequences, seems to me barking mad if not plain psychotic. The only way to stop global warming is to reduce the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, megaprojects and engineering not withstanding but thats a bit off topic. However this seems to be a not insignificant issue which is worthy of inclusion.--Theo Pardilla (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hacking at introduction
A lot of text has been removed from the introduction with no explanation except for a summary 'NPOV please' by anonymous. Please refrain from undocumented excisions, or give a more detailed explanation. --Theo Pardilla (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Explosion altitude issue
Nuclear devices can be exploded at altitudes that prevent the described heat/fire effects on the surface, but still yield extremely lethal/destructive blast and radiation effects. It is quite reasonable to consider this, and sua war with only/mostly such nuclear weapon use would not yield the huge amounts of soot/dust in the upper atmosphere and therefore no significant cooling effects. I've read the article and believe that this possibility is under-represented. Lastdingo (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) And the use of nuclear weapons at sea (at any depth and altitude) would also not cause nuclear winter. Lastdingo (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why cooling?
I do not completely understand why the smoke layer would lead to a cooling. I would rather expect a heating effect for following reasons: In contrast to this do natural clouds indeed lead to a cooling (as everyone can easily convince her or himself) since they reduce the absorption of sunlight. However, they also reduce the cooling overnight. So, why should a smoke layer in the upper troposphere lead to a cooling rather than a warming?--SiriusB (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Smoke is dark, thus a smoke-covered planet would absorb more sunlight than one with a clear atmosphere with white natural clouds. Earth as a whole would receive more heat from the Sun than without a smoke layer.
 * The temperature gradient in the atmosphere is mostly due to adiabatic pressure changes of rising or falling portions of air. Given a clear atmosphere, most of the heat is received by the ground that heats up the atmosphere (exception: The ozone layer that heats up the stratosphere from above). If the troposphere is covered with a smoke ceiling than it will be heated from above. In contrast to the more or less silent stratosphere there will still be large convection in the troposphere due to temperature differences between land and sea etc. This convection will lead to adiabatic heating of falling air volumes. If the smoke layer is heated to, let's say 0 °C (normal: -60 °C at about 12 km altitude) then a humid adiabatic gradient of about 6 °/km would lead to temperatures around 70 °C at sea-level, and even 120 °C if a dry adiabatic equation of state is assumed. A further warming might be due to large amounts of carbon dioxide released by the fire, but this might be a minor effect (currently we are talking about a couple of degrees by burning up all coal and petroleum).


 * If the atmos is heated from a smoke ceiling, then convection will largely cease, I think. So I don't think your second point is correct. As to the first point, I think the answer is "it depends". Aerosol is also reflective William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your first point will probably be correct for a long-term covering. However, during the first weeks there are probably large temperature differences between land and ocean and between different latitudes. This might act as a motor for convection. The temperature differences might even increase in either case (cooling or heating) since the ocean temperatures change much slower than the continental temperatures. As far as I remember there has been a discussion whether the burning oil wells in Kuwait 1991 might cause a cooling, and I remotely remember that also a warming has been discussed due to the very dark color of the smoke (in contrast to e.g. volcanic material that is often very bright and has already proven to cause climate coolings in the past). However, the overall effects appeared to be too small to be significant.


 * Even if the convection ceases quickle the temperature development largely depends on the cloud albedo. If it is low and the cloud gets warm, it will heat the ground by thermal radiation. In any case, the cloud will slow down the loss of heat from the lower atmosphere and the ground in a similar (but probably much stronger) way as natural clouds at night.--SiriusB (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1991 Kuwait cooling was significant. The article says -10° from models, but the link is broken. |This other source says -4° regionally from modelling. There was also monitoring at the time. Maybe there is a reference in www.archive.org? The article Kuwaiti oil fires is clearly deficient on the subject. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

References to world war 2
Under Consequences / Climatic effects, the article states '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 then 'the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country'. Now, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties, something like 70 million people got killed under ww2, so if between 2.6 and 16.7 million people would be killed, per country, in a small, regional war, this would mean an average of 9 million per country, that is eight countries with nuclear weapons, meaning it's no longer a small-scale, regional war. Rkarlsba (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a point. But the numbers are indeed in the cited article William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Text
The following text, I think, was not neutral and also contains uncited analysis. It is important that the scientific questions be kept separate from the policy debates, and also the policy debates be described in the article, not participated in. This is not to say that I am unconvinced by the implications; but surely, whether or not American and Russian nuclear behavior will "set an example" in a meaningful way is a matter of opinion. Mark Foskey (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * New Policy Implications:


 * The only way to eliminate the possibility of this climatic catastrophe is to eliminate the nuclear weapons. If they exist, they can be used.
 * The spread of nuclear weapons to new emerging states threatens not only the people of those countries, but the entire planet.
 * Rapid reduction of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals will set an example for the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used and are not needed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Foskey (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks. It certainly doesn't belong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Commented out the following text from Policy Implications because of the same reasons.


 * Since the 1980s, the number of nuclear weapons in the world has decreased to 1/3 of the peak number of more than 70,000. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability, and urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans. The current and projected American and Russian nuclear arsenals can still produce nuclear winter. Only nuclear disarmament will prevent the possibility of a nuclear environmental catastrophe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.126.183 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The rest of the "policy implication" text has now been removed by William M. Connolley:
 * The work on nuclear winter in the 1980s, and the realization that both direct and indirect effects of nuclear war would be a global catastrophe, led to the end of arms race and the end of the Cold War. 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."
 * What is your agenda, mr Connolley? Gabriel Kielland (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an evil kitten-killer, obviously. Though I do have a doctorate. In this case, I simply don't believe that the indirect consequences (nuke winter) weighed very heavily in any ones mind compared to the far more obvious direct consequences (being killed by blast, radiation or fallout). Nor does the text adequately source the idea that the indirect consequences significantly affected the end of the arms race William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

GK added, which definitely mentions NW, but is it reliable, and how definitive? It definitely can't be used to source we-disarmed-because-of nuke-winter. It only gets mentionned twice! Clearly it wasn't a major concern. It sez: "Th e fi ndings showed that dust and dirt would rise very high into the air and would create a “greenhouse eff ect” lasting for a relatively long time. As a result, the global climate would change signifi - cantly due to a “nuclear winter”. Th ese fi ndings shocked the population of our country and especially the military, and aff ected perceptions of the nuclear doctrine. In particular, our military leadership expected to obtain at least some positive eff ects from the use of nuclear weapons, but there were no benefi ts from them at all. All these facts were disclosed to public and widely discussed in mass media. As you remember, the struggle for peace was our main objective, and I fully supported it. Mr. Alexandrov’s research results were the best arguments in our struggle for peace." So, first off, it is garbled: a GHE would warm, not cool. Second, is it reliable? Would we use it in an article on international politics to source the assertion that "the struggle for peace was our main objective"? I doubt it. So why should anything else be reliable? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious facts - India-Pakistan 0.03% of nuclear arsenal? SORT reduction having no effect?
''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. The scenario where India-Pakistan or such smaller nuclear conflict, using 50 hiroshima-sized bombs is said to be 0.03% of world nuclear arsenal. Yet, its taken to produce 5Tg of black smoke, while the scenario of a major nuclear conflict like that of USA and Russia, using (almost) all nuclear arsenal produces 150Tg (so roughly 3%) - also looking at the data on the nuclear arsenal of india and pakistan. There's a few different numbers given in other articles in wiki, but, order of magnitude seems - again, about 3%, rather than to 0.03% of the current arsenal. The article states the all-out scenario is dealing with the expected lowering of the arsenal by 2012 because of the SORT treaty, so a better comparison in the context seems with that future figure, which is stated in the wiki to be 30%-50% less (hence doubling, or tripling the rough 3% figure). The figure of 0.03% seems rather strange, is it a conjecture of the author of this wiki article or is it stated in the report itself? Or perhaps conflation of 0.03 multiplier, which is the same as 3%? Perhaps the 0.03% figure is given as comparing the yield of a 50 hiroshima-sized explosions with total nuclear yield of today? Another bizzare factoid stated in the article is: ''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. Some explanation would be rather interesting, that roughly halving the arsenal has exactly zero effect on the, well, effects? While at the same time, the 50Tg scenario is described, much more intuitively, as using a third of the arsenal: ''..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.. What a bizzare behavior, halving has no effect, but taking a third of the arsenal scales perfectly linearly? If true this would I believe warrant some further explanation, perhaps there is some interesting treshold of nuclear war effects in play. However, it seems more likely to me that the author of that part of the wiki article misunderstood the source, and that the source is examining the post-SORT figures of about half of current arsenal all along. I don't know anything about the origin of these strange figures (that's one of the things thats bothering me about it as well), so I won't change them without asking. Aryah (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Two controversial issues that need to be resolved.
Again, removing the section regarding possible KGB involvement is intellectual dishonesty and biased.


 * 1) In consideration that the TTAPS report was not peer-reviewed, this transforms the entire issue from being one of science to one of politics.  Given such consideration, it must further be remembered that Carl Sagan was operating outside of his professional purview as a scientist and was acting as a political activist.  This places greater weight on peer-reviewed criticisms of the nuclear winter theory.


 * 1) The accusations made by Sergei Tretyakov, a person who is operating within his professional purview as a high-ranking KGB operative that defects, carries greater weight than a political activist.  The unique nature of the informational source requires a unique evaluating standard.  His testimony is of an intelligence-nature and should be evaluated by the standards of the intelligence community and his commentary should be treated as a reliable second-hand source.  Social science (the grand heading under which political science exists) is not a pure experimental science.  Expert testimony does carry greater weight than in the physical sciences.

This controversy can be easily resolved by a confirmation from the BBC in having an article from Dr. Kirill Kondroyev (Кирилл Яковлевич Кондратьев, also see the Russian Wikipedia page ) who was a well-regarded Russian scientist and/or by discovering his paper written sometime in late-March to early-May of 1982 (immediately after the NATO Pershing II decision). Tretyakov's claims that Dr. Kondroyev's career happens to skyrocket in 1982, where he is appointed to the Soviet Academy of Sciences and becomes the head of ecological research at St. Petersburg Lake Research Institute, strongly corroborates that he was a KGB co-optee.

Pcrume (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the question is, how seriously do you want to push all this? Its been done to death before, so I can't really be bothered to refute you yet. If you turn into a real person who learns how to sign your posts instead of letting other people do it for you, we might take you seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This all just sounds like sleight of hand to me. Carl Sagan is a sneaky scientist operating outside his mandate and Tretyakov is an honest to goodness upstanding KGB operative just doing his job, which is obviously beyond the comprehension of a mere scientist? (Unsigned)


 * Because Sagan's work was not peer-reviewed, you have to look at it as an anti-nuclear paper, NOT as a product of scientific research. What Sagan ended up doing was make something up and turn it into a supposedly full-blown scientific theory that supposedly has consensus in the scientific community. If a distinguished scientist made up a junk theory that said that you had to liquidate your entire net worth and give it to him, would you?  People believe him because of the other work he did that gave him fame.  But that's NOT how science is done.  My point is Sagan's work doesn't elevate his paper beyond rapproach, which puts him on the same level as Tretyakov, whose disclosure needs to be evaluated.  I'm not saying that it should be believed, but it does force us to reconsider the issue.  Maybe we'll learn that he's full of it and that the "nuclear winter" hypothesis is sound, or maybe we'll learn that he's right.  Pcrume


 * OK, you've learnt to sign your name. Splendid. Now, rad up above on ST, which we've already done t death William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut me a little bit of slack with not signing my name. I'm rarely involved with Wiki although I should do it more often, and this is the first time I've actually engaged in a wiki discussion.  I'm responding to this discussion by editing the thread, I don't know if that's the right way to go about doing it.  However I can be a quick learner.


 * I've read through this entire discussion forum and my point still stands. The original science on nuclear winter was not peer reviewed, therefore it was not science according to the standards of the field that Sagan wrote about; regardless of how distinguished his reputation is in writing it.  Carl Sagan was not acting within his purview as an astronomer but acting as a anti-nuclear political activist.  This changes Sagan's paper from hard physical science to what could graciously be called social science or possibly more accurately as political propaganda.  Considering this, the rules of social science evidence allows for expert testimony on the activities of an opposing nation while he was in a position to know the facts, and therefore ST's testimony should be allowed.


 * My point is that: 1) we are not a position to arbitrate what constitutes rules of evidence for the social sciences, 2) the public needs to be aware of ST's testimony given the possible weight of its implications in relation to the nuclear winter theory, 3) there needs to be renewed hard scientific research into the consequences of all warfare, and nuclear warfare in particular, and 4) we need to consider consequences at their appropriate scales and not blow things out of proportion.


 * I'm not in favor of nuclear war. But having inaccurate information makes defense and counter-measure planning impossible, or worse it may deter people from utilizing survival strategies that could save their lives simply because they mistakenly believed it to be beyond their means to survive.  Why bother with building a 24-hour to 3-month fallout shelter if the world will go through a nuclear winter that supposedly lasts a thousand years?  That's not to say that the fallout wouldn't be bad, but if its more survivable than people think, they need to know in order to prepare their survival strategies properly.  Pcrume


 * 2) and 3) It's a WP article. The world at large will scarcely be affected by it. You don't decide whether or not to build a shelter depending on what gets onto a WP page. Scientists don't plan the focus of their research based on WP. You are arguing for the inclusion of material that is more likely to make people decide it is ok to go ahead and nuke something, so what is the danger to people if it isn't included? We might not nuke something we should? So enough of the 'smoking mushroom cloud' stuff, eh? As for your legitimate concern 1) why the info should be in the article, see WP:V, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, etc we not only can decide what is notable and verifiable and within the consensus of the scientific community, we -must- decide. 4) I would ask you to elaborate on this, and perhaps consider it in relation to 2 and 3. Anarchangel (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all of my concerns are legitimate. You're contradicting yourself here.  On the one hand you deride WP by saying its unimportant and then you end your thought by saying that it is.  Which is it?  I'd like to err on the side that it IS important.  If it's so unimportant, then why object to ST's inclusion?  WP advertises itself as the world's most extensive encyclopedia.  As a professionally trained social scientist, I can tell you right now that the media is notorious for depending on WP.  They'll never admit it, but they often use WP as a launching point for other forms of research.  You speak of consensus within the scientific community, but the consensus is that the original research on the Nuclear Winter hypothesis was not peer-reviewed and therefore it should not fall within the guise of pure science; despite the information coming from a scientist.  That throws the issue from the court of hard science to social science.  Pure science only relies on quantitative data while social science includes qualitative data.  The ST's testimony would legitimately fall within this latter category as an expert witness.   The only reason that I have seen thus far for opposing the inclusion of this information is that it presents a moral hazard to society.  But the greater moral hazard is when we start censoring the truth all in the name of security.  Before long, all we have are a web of lies and that in itself is the greatest moral hazard of all.  Pcrume

Of interest: Talk:Soviet-run_peace_movements_in_the_West. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)