Dear Albert‹Having been at Livermore Lab with Teller from mid-1960s on, I don¹t know where you are getting the idea that Teller was an advocate of nuclear explosives for weather or climate modification. I do recall getting a call to come to Teller¹s office one day in the 1970s during a drought affecting the western US to address a suggestion by a colleague that perhaps a nuclear explosion could be used to break the California drought, with a follow-on questions about whether a GCM model could be used to help in understanding this idea (the latter answer was easy‹no, not nearly at that time).
Teller being very interested in order-of-magnitude estimates of phenomena as a way of considering possibilities, I made three order of magnitude estimates of the amount of energy involved in the drought to address the first question: (a) Taking roughly the area of California and amount of rain deficit, I multiplied by the heat released upon condensation (so to cause evaporation as well) and got something like, as I recall, a few times 10^21 calories (apologies for the old units); (b) Namias suggested the drought was caused by an ocean temperature anomaly, so I multiplied the area (I think it was 2000 by 2000 km) times a mixed layer depth and something like 2 C SST anomaly and got, again as I recall, something like a few times 10^21 calories; and (c) Some suggested the drought was persisting because of the excess snow cover over the Great Plains and Midwest, so I estimated an area, an albedo change, and a typical level of insolation, and got, again as I recall, something like a few times 10^21 calories. Somehow, a few times 10^21 calories seemed a good number to use in thinking about a potential nuclear intervention (forgetting at this point all the other potential problems‹might it even work was the question). So, I went and got the energy release for a nuclear explosion. A one Mt nuclear explosion is 10^15 calories. One can¹t go to bigger explosions because those carry most of the heat, etc. up into the stratosphere so it would seem hard to be affecting the causes of the drought (perhaps by affecting the atmospheric circulation) by putting energy into the stratosphere. When up in Teller¹s office, I did the above calculations on a blackboard for Teller and colleagues, and then we talked a bit. Even if one assumes some sort process with 100% efficiency (very unlikely), one is 6 orders of magnitude off. Then assume one could use 1% somehow to trigger a 100% efficient transfer, and one is still at 10^4 Mt; this amount is not very different than the magnitude of all nuclear weapons of both superpowers at the time. With that result, the conversation was over and I never heard any other idea on this come up (there was actually a suggestion in the 1960s, as I recall, that one could use nuclear explosions to melt Arctic sea ice by creating a fog, but I don¹t think he ever was an advocate of that, or even an estimate of magnitude as I have done). Now, Teller was an advocate for at least some period of using nuclear explosives to move dirt around to make a port or canal, etc., but as far as I recall he was not an advocate of using nuclear explosives to change the weather and climate (and I knew him basically from mid-1960s on). Best, Mike PS‹I might add also that a large hurricane processes (i.e., shifts energy between latent, kinetic, and potential forms) a few megaton¹s worth of energy every minute, dissipating several percent of that amount (and still causing widespread damage over large areas). The energy content of such a big storm is huge, not at all something one could really disturb in any controlled way with a nuclear explosion (and this is before considering a whole range of other issues about doing so). On 9/30/12 11:56 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio" <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if Alan could clarify a bit his point no. 2: > > "The TTAPS model had no heat capacity at the surface, so it was a model of the > response in a continental interior. I think what you plotted was our global > average response. The globe is 70% ocean. So the global average response > would be more than 10 times smaller than the middle of a continent." > > I do recognise the issue of the shading impact of nuclear explosion dust > clouds having huge impact on the continental interiors, but not globally. > However, what is the effect on the overall oceanic albedo as the oceans do > have plenty of supersaturated air masses that are highly aerosol deficient. > Could supply of nuclei for condensation create new clouds and cloud whitening > effects to the extent Stephen Salter's ideas. Was the cloud whitening and > cloud formation over oceans included in your simulations? Or was it just the > dust shade? > > How about wind drift, surely nuclear war does not stop the winds and these > will scatter nuclear dust much like volcanic dust? I agree that local effects > of pulverising mountains for dust clouds are severe, and one of the problems > is that most tall mountains reside on the western edges of continents, leading > to dust fall and biggest effects to highly populated areas. > > Professor Teller was always an advocate of thermonuclear explosives for > weather or climate modification. Would you consider it a possibility to > ameliorate the worst heat waves or supersaturated ocean air by nuclear devises > when heat trapping water vapour builds up dangerously high in the air as > climate gets ever warmer? > > Note that biological systems are sensitive to weather extremes, not very much > to the rising average temperatures? > > (1.) Can we manage 2 - 4 - 6- 8- 10 degree warmer climate by occasional > explosions when system is most overheated to allow the biological systems to > recuperate. Not continuously suppressing the temperature, but when the weather > is too hot for organisms and ecosystems. > > (2.) Can we remove supersaturated water vapour from the atmosphere, say above > the Pacific Ocean, by explosions providing seeding nucleation centres to (i) > flush water out and hence reduce its greenhouse gas impact, and (ii) to > generate sunlight reflecting clouds or cloud brightening above oceans whenever > air is supersaturated. > > I became intrigued to Alan's response as I could not see these issues > addressed in his reply. I do recognise the accumulation of radiochemicals in > each explosion, which is a major issue but if there is an immediate threat to > ecosystems and evidence of them dying in heat, or lack of rain, would these > measures be agreeable by rise in cesium and iodine. > > Regards, > > Albert > > > > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:13:55 -0400 > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives Here¹s my take on the > exchange: > > It seems to me the core of the difference in the use and interpretation of a > metaphor to describe scientific results‹and arguing over this can > unfortunately obscure the significance of the scientific work. > > Russell is doing what scientists often do, namely taking words literally. So, > TTAPS did project freezing of the whole world‹I don¹t recall them saying that > it was just the center of continents, etc.--with temperature predicted to go > way below zero (and the accompanying article on the ecological response did > take the TTAPS results directly). That is what Russell is saying is meant by > the phrase ³nuclear winter.² When the 3-D models were run, etc., the results > were variously called a ³nuclear autumn,² ³nuclear drought,² etc., so the > literal result of TTAPS description was indeed modified in the SCOPE > assessment. > > But the SCOPE assessment, in addition to describing the very sizeable climatic > disruptions, also reiterated that the direct effects of such an exchange would > be horrific (this was generally previously understood) and also spent time on > a point not well developed at the time, namely that the likely disruption of > the emerging global economy (in medicines, grains, fertilizer, energy, > financial markets, and more) would also lead to horrific consequences, and > this was whether there was a climatic effect or not. Together, the various > dire outcomes could be characterized, at least in metaphorical terms, as a > ³nuclear winter² and so the term from TTAPS persisted, though was not > generally used in the scientific assessments describing all the impacts. > Basically, what was made clear was that large-scale nuclear war would be a > real disaster for combatants and also, importantly, for non-combatants, and > the consequences would be significantly worse than the scenarios being used in > some of the civil defense planning that envisioned getting into shelters for a > week or so and for planning for how to restart postal operations. > > As Alan states in his note back to Russell, the quantitative results of his > recent work are, of course, different than for the global nuclear exchange. > Thus, interpreting the words ³nuclear winter² literally, this means the term > is no longer applicable (indeed, as it was not really literally applicable > after the SCOPE assessment). However, from the perspective of the types of > consequences that would result from a nuclear exchange, the consequences from > Alan¹s smaller exchanges, so the mix of the direct and indirect effects > (indirect effects include those arising from lower light levels, modified > weather, and over time, departures from normal conditions‹and then subsequent > impacts) would be of similar significance, at least for some, possibly large, > areas. From this perspective, then, continuing to portray the significance of > the changes (in particular that there were environmental consequences over and > above the direct destruction and fallout, even if the quantitative aspects > were different) as ³nuclear winter² is at least metaphorically justified, for > the term indicates that the resulting conditions would be very hard and > difficult to deal with (whether caused by a cooling few degrees or a few tens > of degrees, the loss of a crop is the loss of a crop). > > My personal opinion is that scientific results are best described, at least to > other scientists, using words literally, and I generally think using metaphors > should be avoided in scientific discussions. Metaphors can, however, be useful > to convey the significance of results to policymakers‹and Alan¹s papers are > aimed at speaking to policymakers as well as scientists. In the cases > described in Alan¹s papers, which involve nuclear exchanges between mainly > low-latitude nuclear-capable nations, I actually wonder, however, whether > ³winter² is the most appropriate metaphor because ³winter² is experienced so > differently at low as compared to in mid-latitudes--²drought² might be a > better metaphor (caused by the stabilization of the atmosphere resulting from > smoke-induced heating aloft). > > In any case, this distracting arguing about the label really obscures what the > scientific results show, which is that, in addition to the horrific direct > effects, nuclear war can lead to significant indirect effects, impacting not > only those who are struck by the bombs, but those well beyond (and this is > especially important because of the limited food reserves now available around > the world‹basically the world¹s nations don¹t seem to store, for example, a > full growing season¹s worth of grain). Together with all of the other > consequences of nuclear war, the studies thus indicate that all nations, > whether combatants or not, should have a strong self-interest in ensuring that > even a relatively small nuclear exchange does not take place and the leaders > of nations holding nuclear weapons should be made aware of this. > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 9/27/12 8:49 AM, "Fred Zimmerman" <[email protected] > <http://wfz%40nimblebooks.com> > wrote: > >> Does anyone care anymore what Carl Sagan wrote 30 years ago? Half the >> population is too young to even know who he was. I question whether anyone >> who was under 30 in 1986 even remembers anything about the early debates. >> Surely what is more important now is our current understanding of the climate >> effects of a nuclear exchange, and even that is, frankly, not all that >> important, since the proposition that "a nuclear exchange would be bad" is >> amply supported by a thousand other variables. >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Russell Seitz <[email protected] >> <http://russellseitz%40gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Dear Alan; >>> >>> You are trying to deny the elephant sized apple in the room-- your effort to >>> redefine 'nuclear winter ' downward amonts to raw semantic aggresion in the >>> light of how Carl Sagan made its quantitative meaning perfectly clear by >>> telling a national television audience it was "precisely" like the K-T >>> impact. >>> >>> That astronomical megahype leaves you, as the neologism's defender, to >>> explain to us why you and a few true believers are still enamored of the >>> phrase when both parameter studies and more sophisticated models have so >>> thoroughly defrosted it? >>> >>> The numbers talk, even if you don't like the look of them side by side - >>> TTAPS publicists( Porter Novelli) were retained before the paper was >>> published to create a cold war factoid by applying the tern to a fruit >>> salad of over twenty ( not three) scenarios. Some were based on >>> non-existant arsenals and others injected no smoke or carbon black into the >>> atmosphere, let alone the 5 Tg Alan has modeled. The failure of Sagan to >>> incorporate ocean thermal mass from the one dimensional model TTAPS was one >>> of many reasons Steve Schneider took him to task in Foreign Affairs. >>> >>> Another was Sagan's insistance in its pages that just the sort of low-yield >>> regional exchange Alan has modeled " a pure tactical exchange, in Europe >>> say" fought with sub-Hiroshima yield neutron bombs would still precipiate a >>> global deep freeze. >>> >>> >>> History is full of prophets of doom who fail to deliver, but I appreciate >>> that you have wisely refrained from emulating TTAPS most unrealistic >>> parameterizations in your work. So would I, because the early models >>> larger-than-life fuel loadings and arsenals have long since been discredited >>> . perhaps you should recall the sober title of the Ambio article in which >>> Paul Crutzen first broached the subject ; Twilight at Noon, >>> >>> That phrase pretty well nails what you've modeled, and may indeed explain >>> why first broad-ranging study to review the TTPS results, the 1985 NAS /NRC >>> reportThe Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange does not >>> even contain the expression 'nuclear winter , and succesive generations of >>> more advanced models all failed to reproduce the " apocalyptic predictions" >>> publicized at the Cold War's height. >>> >>> Having known Sin at Hiroshima, science was bound to run into advertising >>> sooner or later - anybody can tell a systems programmer to paint a model >>> sky pitch black but justifying such an action on retrospect is an altogether >>> different matter.. >>> >>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:49:34 PM UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Russell, >>>> >>>> You are comparing apples and oranges, or apples and something that is not >>>> even fruit. Are you doing this on purpose to fool readers or did you not >>>> even read the papers and understand what was done? >>>> >>>> Here are the differences: >>>> >>>> 1. TTAPS looked at three scenarios of global nuclear war, and our >>>> scenario was only 100 Hiroshima size weapons, with a total explosive power >>>> of 1.5 MT (which could produce 5 Tg of smoke). So the scenarios differ by >>>> factors of 67 to 6,667 in terms of explosive power and about 100 in terms >>>> of smoke generated for the TTAPS baseline case. Why would you expect the >>>> response to be the same? >>>> >>>> 2. The TTAPS model had no heat capacity at the surface, so it was a model >>>> of the response in a continental interior. I think what you plotted was >>>> our global average response. The globe is 70% ocean. So the global >>>> average response would be more than10 times smaller than the middle of a >>>> continent. >>>> >>>> Do you think anyone will be fooled by your figure? Wouldn't you be >>>> surprised if the response did not differ by factors of 100 to 1000? >>>> >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) >>>> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >>>> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 >>>> <tel:%2B1-848-932-5751> >>>> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >>>> <tel:%2B1-732-932-8644> >>>> >>>> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] >>>> <http://rob...%40envsci.rutgers.edu> >>>> >>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >>>> <http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock> >>>> On 9/26/2012 6:32 PM, Russell Seitz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Here are the time-temperature curves of the 1983 'nuclear winter ' model, >>>>> and those of Robock et al. 2007 , superimposed on the same scale: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g370/RussellSeitz/?action=view¤t >>>>> =TTAPSROBOCK.jpg >>>>> <http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g370/RussellSeitz/?action=view¤ >>>>> t=TTAPSROBOCK.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "geoengineering" group. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jfeEpqIpJ0gJ >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jfeEpqIpJ0gJ> . >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>> <http://geoengi...%40googlegroups.com> . >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> <http://geoengineerin...%40googlegroups.com> . >>>>> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
