- Joined
- Nov 17, 2019
I'm sure you've all heard, at one point or another, that a nuclear war between the US and Russia (or, if you were alive back then, the USSR) would lead to a nuclear winter/nuclear twilight. The soot ejected into the Atmosphere by the blasts and subsequent fires would partly block out the sun, resulting in a catastrophic temperature drop globally that would lead to crop failures and starvation. This perception is entirely based on a few studies made in the early 80s that were widely propagated by people like Carl Sagan and then picked up by the media because, of course, screaming doomsday is good for sales. This perception is also totally wrong, but where did it come from?
In 1983, the first results of a study were released by four scientists (R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan). It then became widely known as the TTAPS study based on the initials of the researcher's last names, becoming known world wide because of its apocalyptic vision. The computer model used in this study was highly flawed. It didn't take geography, winds, seasons or anything that makes a planet a planet into account EXCEPT atmospheric density. An even more egregious flaw was that they used data obtained from Hiroshima, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Dresden to predict the amount of soot and debris firestorms generated by nuclear blasts (or conventional firebombs) would hurl into the atmosphere. Those among you who have ever been in a modern city might already start to realize where the problem is: Dresden, not to mention the Japanese cities, all consisted of highly flammable materials. This simply isn't true for the cities that would be targeted in any nuclear war. In fact, it isn't even clear if there would be any firestorms at all.
Because of these flaws, even their most tame simulations (only 100 megatons dropped in total) led to temperatures dropping below freezing in summer for many months. A more "realistic", 5000 MT scenario spelled nigh-certain extinction. Nothing would survive. The last humans would freeze to death covering in holes.
Now, the scientists obviously knew the limitations of their model: They discussed them in their study, but that didn't stop Sagan from sending the entire world into panic mode with his "science popularization" bullshit. The media ate it, and for months after the publication of TTAPS's initial results, all that was talked about was this new concept of a nuclear winter and how WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE. Sagan himself gave several interviews calling for nuclear disarmament
In 1985-6 a couple of more serious studies were released on the subject of a nuclear winter, namely by the Scientific Committee for Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Using more accurate models, they reached far less apocalyptic conclusions, ordering climate effects into acute (first 30 days post war) and chronic (years post war). A 6'500 MT exchange, which TTAPS considered extinction-inducing, would have resulted in an acute drop from 20 C to 10 C for a few days during summer before temperatures returned to normal in around 1-3 months. Bad? Sure, but nothing compared to the effects the simple disruption of supply chains would have caused. I guess dying because the food trucks stop coming is not as exciting as dying of hypothermia or something.
An authoritative study done by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), again assuming a 6'500 MT exchange, was the final nail in the coffin for TTAPS's scientific credibility. Here's a table of their results:
Sagan defended his fearmongering by saying something along the lines of "well it's better to consider the worst of all scenarios, we're playing with the future of our species here after all".
This is a very poor excuse. Nuclear War is bad. Everyone knows that. 100 of millions would die in the following collapse of society, but not because of some bogus nuclear winter but because of the simple fact that that supply chains and health services would pretty much cease to exist.
Sagan, a supposed "popularizer" of science, did what no scientist should by using obviously shitty data to prove a point and push his own agenda. It reveals much about his personal cynicism, because he clearly thought that "these retards need to get spooked by some scary doomsday scenario like the dumb sheep they are because only I know what's best for them", when the prospect of nuclear war should be scary enough on its own.
In 1983, the first results of a study were released by four scientists (R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan). It then became widely known as the TTAPS study based on the initials of the researcher's last names, becoming known world wide because of its apocalyptic vision. The computer model used in this study was highly flawed. It didn't take geography, winds, seasons or anything that makes a planet a planet into account EXCEPT atmospheric density. An even more egregious flaw was that they used data obtained from Hiroshima, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Dresden to predict the amount of soot and debris firestorms generated by nuclear blasts (or conventional firebombs) would hurl into the atmosphere. Those among you who have ever been in a modern city might already start to realize where the problem is: Dresden, not to mention the Japanese cities, all consisted of highly flammable materials. This simply isn't true for the cities that would be targeted in any nuclear war. In fact, it isn't even clear if there would be any firestorms at all.
Because of these flaws, even their most tame simulations (only 100 megatons dropped in total) led to temperatures dropping below freezing in summer for many months. A more "realistic", 5000 MT scenario spelled nigh-certain extinction. Nothing would survive. The last humans would freeze to death covering in holes.
Now, the scientists obviously knew the limitations of their model: They discussed them in their study, but that didn't stop Sagan from sending the entire world into panic mode with his "science popularization" bullshit. The media ate it, and for months after the publication of TTAPS's initial results, all that was talked about was this new concept of a nuclear winter and how WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE. Sagan himself gave several interviews calling for nuclear disarmament
In 1985-6 a couple of more serious studies were released on the subject of a nuclear winter, namely by the Scientific Committee for Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Using more accurate models, they reached far less apocalyptic conclusions, ordering climate effects into acute (first 30 days post war) and chronic (years post war). A 6'500 MT exchange, which TTAPS considered extinction-inducing, would have resulted in an acute drop from 20 C to 10 C for a few days during summer before temperatures returned to normal in around 1-3 months. Bad? Sure, but nothing compared to the effects the simple disruption of supply chains would have caused. I guess dying because the food trucks stop coming is not as exciting as dying of hypothermia or something.
An authoritative study done by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), again assuming a 6'500 MT exchange, was the final nail in the coffin for TTAPS's scientific credibility. Here's a table of their results:
Sagan defended his fearmongering by saying something along the lines of "well it's better to consider the worst of all scenarios, we're playing with the future of our species here after all".
This is a very poor excuse. Nuclear War is bad. Everyone knows that. 100 of millions would die in the following collapse of society, but not because of some bogus nuclear winter but because of the simple fact that that supply chains and health services would pretty much cease to exist.
Sagan, a supposed "popularizer" of science, did what no scientist should by using obviously shitty data to prove a point and push his own agenda. It reveals much about his personal cynicism, because he clearly thought that "these retards need to get spooked by some scary doomsday scenario like the dumb sheep they are because only I know what's best for them", when the prospect of nuclear war should be scary enough on its own.
