> The scientific concensus is that nuclear testing did not affect the climate,
> therefore you will find there is little literature out there that supports
> your view.
>
> For peer reviewed science google for "nuclea winter".
I think the "nuclear winter" calculations are based on smoke from
widespread fires causing the cooling, it's not the nuclear explosion
itself, if I understand this correctly.
If there was evidence that the tests had affected climate, I am sure
that would be in the literature, including the IPCC reports,
especially so, if there was any realistic chance that it was the
tests, rather than aerosols/natural variability that had caused the
cooling up to the 1970's. This would matter a great deal to our
understanding of the climate system and aerosols. If it's not there in
the report, unless given good evidence to the contrary, and the
speculations on the Daly site are not good evidence!,
I'll presume that the IPCC had good reason to summarily dismiss the
idea.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
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/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
