slj@mtung.UUCP (S. Luke Jones) (09/19/86)
Well, Mr. Sevener, you have managed to change the subject from Heinlein to effects of nuclear war, without even admitting you were dead wrong in your assertions about Heinlein's supposed desire for a nuclear war. Congratulations. > Here are some references for you: > Dr. Martyn M. Caldwell, ... National Academy of Sciences ... > B.W. Boville ... Dr. Fred Ikle ... a UN-sponsored scientific > conference ... establish the importance of > the ozone layer. No need to list so many sources explaining how important ozone is. Having had on various occasions both a sunburn and a high-school biology class, I'm willing to stipulate its importance. No problem. > Next point, its destruction in nuclear war: > The 1975 National Academy of Sciences Report, "Longterm Worldwide > Effects of Multiple Nuclear-Weapons Detonations" found that > the explosion of 10,000 megatons of nuclear weapons ... reduce > the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere, where the report > assumes that the explosions would occur, by anything from 30 > to 70%, and that it would reduce it in the Southern Hemisphere by > anything from 20 to 40%. Here, on the other hand, I'm surprised you didn't supply five sources. Eleven years is quite an age for such politically-charged research, wouldn't you think? Imagine: these guys did such impeccable research that nobody in the entire world thinks it would be worthwhile to replicate it, not in 11 years, even as presidents, general secretaries, and SALT treaties came and went. Also, I'm intrigued by the choice of 10,000 megatons for the nuclear exchange. What happens if only 1,000 megatons are detonated? Is the ozone depletion linear, i.e., would that figure result in a depletion of only 3-7 percent? Most importantly, what does a given percent of depletion in the ozone layer translate to in terms of increased radiation at sea level? After all, it isn't ozone we're worried in, but rather the effects of its absence. So tell me about that, instead. > These facts are cited by "Fate of the Earth" by Jonathan Schell. > I would recommend you read it. > tim sevener whuxn!orb The "facts" you say were cited are, I hope, that those findings were printed. I would be hesitant to consider the findings themselves "facts" without a great mass of supporting evidence. Evolution or Cell Theory could reasonably considered a "fact" but a single study only 11 years old really doesn't qualify yet, does it? [Mr. Sevener then followed-up again to the same posting, although this time he explicitly changed the subject line to reflect his desire to get the argument back into the realm of the fuzzy and away from the black-and-white world of quoting Heinlein. Black- and-white if you're quoting accurately, that is.] I asked >> Speaking of pseudo-science, what Archangel handed you this privy >> information about what would happen after an all-out nuclear war? >> Would I be wrong to surmise the source's politics are to the left >> of, say, Edward Teller? Does he say "millions and billions" a lot >> and publish most of his articles these days in that world-famous >> technical journal called PARADE Magazine? and the reply came back > Well, Mr. Jones, the findings by Carl Sagan and a team of a hundred > scientists of a "Nuclear Winter Effect" have just been confirmed > by the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS study projected > less of a temperature drop than the TTAPS study ... Indeed. I imagine it did. > ... but it still projected a pronounced Nuclear Winter effect. > > So far the Nuclear Winter effect has yet to be effectively > refuted by any knowledgeable scientific group. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Where will you find a "knowledgeable scientific group" willing to state that a sufficient quantity of atmospheric dust and smoke would NOT result in pronounced cooling due to a greater albedo increasing the amount of sunlight reflected away from the earth? Nowhere. But if, say, Edward Teller says that it would take X bombs and is thus unlikely while Carl Sagan or Bob Stadler says it would take only Y bombs and is thus quite a threat, who should one believe? I propose, as a least hypothesis, that we disbelieve Sagan (note I do not suggest blanket acceptance of what Teller says) because he has demonstrated sufficient contempt for the scientific method that he no longer is qualified to wrap himself in it and deliver his opinions, ex cathedra, as a capital-S Scientist. What kind of Scientist announces his findings in PARADE magazine prior to their publication in a reputable scientific journal? It is a poor scientist indeed who arouses the interest of the lay public in his results to prevent the (or, to give Sagan the benefit of the doubt, which I do not think he deserves, "at the expense of") objective review thereof by his peers. My personal favorite tactic was the choice of the term "Nuclear Winter," almost perfectly suited to appeal to the emotions rather than reason, over more accurate, if perhaps more boring, terms such as "Particulate Winter" or "Albedo Winter". Sagan spent much of his book "Broca's Brain" explaining how poor a scientist Velikovskiy was; how much better here was Sagan himself? -- O "I used to bull-eye Womp Rats in my T-16 O OOO O in Beggar's Canyon back home, and they're OO O OO not much bigger than that." OOOO OOO OOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO S. Luke Jones (...ihnp4!mtung!slj) OOOOOOOOOOOOO AT&T Information Systems OOOOOOO Middletown, NJ, U.S.A.
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/22/86)
> S. Luke Jones replies to my citation: > > Next point, its [ the ozone layer's] destruction in nuclear war: > > The 1975 National Academy of Sciences Report, "Longterm Worldwide > > Effects of Multiple Nuclear-Weapons Detonations" found that > > the explosion of 10,000 megatons of nuclear weapons ... reduce > > the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere, where the report > > assumes that the explosions would occur, by anything from 30 > > to 70%, and that it would reduce it in the Southern Hemisphere by > > anything from 20 to 40%. > > Here, on the other hand, I'm surprised you didn't supply five > sources. Eleven years is quite an age for such politically-charged > research, wouldn't you think? Imagine: these guys did such > impeccable research that nobody in the entire world thinks it would > be worthwhile to replicate it, not in 11 years, even as presidents, > general secretaries, and SALT treaties came and went. > I don't think you understand the nature of either the NAS report cited nor the TTAPS study. Neither the NAS report nor the TTAPS study and later NAS assessment of the "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis of the TTAPS study were the products of *one* piece of research or one scientist. The 1975 NAS report was a compendium of research done on the effects of nuclear weapons. For your information there *has* been new research done on the effects of manmade products on the ozone layer and actual NASA measurements of the ozone layer. The major impact on the ozone layer from nuclear war is from nitric oxides which would be released into the stratosphere. Similar nitric oxides are currently being released into the atmosphere more indirectly from agricultural use of these substances. Dr. McElroy is a physicist at Harvard's Center for Earth and Planetary Physics interviewed by Jonathan Schell for "Fate of the Earth" for the latest assessments of damage to the ozone layer from the release of nitric oxides in a nuclear war: "In the years after the NAS report of 1975, the estimates of harm were lowered, but since about 1977 they have risen again. At present, it is estimated that a doubling of nitrous oxide in the troposphere, which becomes nitric oxide - one of the substances that deplete ozone- after it reaches the stratosphere, would bring about a 15% reduction in the ozone. That is a higher estimate for the nitrous-oxide effect than the one made in 1975. However, a nuclear holocaust would inject nitric oxide directly into the stratosphere, and in amounts much greater than would be produced, indirectly, by the twofold increase in nitrous oxide, and no one has done any study of the consequences for the ozone of these larger amounts in the light of the knowledge acquired since 1975. But my guess is that the figures would not have changed radically, and that the estimates for ozone reduction given in 1975 would not be far off." In 1981, NASA reported that ozone in the higher part of the ozone layer had decreased at the rate of 1/2 % a year over the past decade. Which indicates that the ozone layer *is* affected by human interjection of substances into the atmosphere and would probably be affected by the release of nitric oxides in a nuclear war. If you are skeptical I suggest you read the original report by the National Academy of Sciences, or Jonathan Schell's book, "The Fate of the Earth". tim sevener whuxn!orb