ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator @MIT-MC.ARPA) (12/07/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, November 18, 1985 6:57PM Volume 5, Issue 23 Today's Topics: developments in Nuclear Winter theory ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 06:41:14 PST From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: developments in Nuclear Winter theory In the course of catching up on recent issues of Science, I ran across two papers on nuclear winter whose contents might be of interest to ARMS-D. They influence predictions in opposite directions. In the 18 Oct 1985 issue, Malone et al describe some work in more detailed modelling of the atmospheric effects of massive amounts of smoke. The heating of smoke particles by sunlight turns out to be significant, and the general effect is that it makes things worse. First, it induces convection that lifts the smoke to higher altitudes, where its lifetime is longer. Second, it tends to make the tropopause move downward below the smoke, effectively isolating the smoke from most forms of weather and hence prolonging its lifetime further. There are a couple of effects that operate the other way -- high-altitude smoke shading low-altitude smoke, and positive feedback in smoke removal as falling smoke densities reduce heating effects -- but the net effect is greater smoke persistence. As with other aspects of nuclear winter, the effects are much weaker if war occurs in January rather than in July. In the 2 Aug 1985 issue, we have Small and Bush, "Smoke Production from Multiple Nuclear Explosions in Nonurban Areas". This is a fairly detailed study of how much smoke is likely to be generated from fires well away from cities. The original nuclear winter studies credited wildland fires with about half the smoke production. This study looked in detail at vegetation types, burnable mass, fire spread, etc. in the neighborhood of probable wildland targets. The general conclusion is that the amount of smoke from wildland fires has been overestimated by a factor of 10-100. There are several major reasons: 1. Probable targets are not uniformly distributed. In particular, most of them are located in croplands or grasslands rather than forests. 2. Croplands are seldom flammable. Croplands burn well only between ripening and harvesting, which is a period of circa two weeks. Furthermore, planting and harvesting times are staggered, so only a fraction of total cropland acreage is flammable at any time. 3. Fuel must in general be dried before ignition, which reduces the ignition radius. Weather heavily influences moisture content. The climate of target areas thus alters smoke production. 4. Ignition areas for strikes against closely-spaced targets, such as silos in missile fields, often overlap. So will ignition areas for multiple strikes against the same target. 5. US Forest Service data indicates that conditions favoring major spreading of fires are actually fairly uncommon. The vision of continent- spanning forest fires is totally unrealistic. Fire spread is likely to increase total burned area by only a few percent even in summer. 6. Smoke emission varies with fire intensity, although the details of the variation can only be roughly estimated right now. The final estimates are 3e12 g of smoke in July, and about a tenth of that in January. Worst-case calculations give upper limits of about 1e13 g. The earlier nuclear-winter studies assumed 1e14 or more. Numbers and sizes of weapons are similar. The paper also noted other effects, outside the domain of the detailed study, that would reduce things still further. Wildland fires seldom lift their smoke very high. The study assumed complete burning of the biomass in ignition areas, which is unrealistic. A substantial fraction of smoke particles are too small to be optically active. They also note that the distribution of smoke is markedly non-uniform. For one thing, wildland military facilities tend to be clumped, which encourages violent local weather patterns that could alter the net effect. For another thing, the 14% of targets that are in forested areas account for a disproportionate fraction of the smoke production, and most of those are in the Soviet Union. Their overall conclusion was that smoke from wildland-area targets is not sufficient to produce more than minor cooling, whose impact would be fairly insignificant compared to the other effects of nuclear war. Nuclear winter is plausible only as a result of attacks on urban areas. Oh yes, *both* of these studies were funded by the Defence Nuclear Agency (i.e. DoD), with DOE participation in the first one as well. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************