!!! Post from old blog!!!
A little earlier I wrote that I was starting to write an essay on the concept of “Nuclear Winter”; I even posted the beginning of it, but it was deleted. Now the work on the abstract is finished and I am ready to present the full version of it:
INTRODUCTION
Our world is very unstable. The slightest push in one direction or the other can destroy it completely. Even if the world remains, plants and animals may die, and since man depends on both, and also belongs to the same class, then, of course, it is necessary to consider all sides of this issue, the issue of danger to man and the surrounding world. Unfortunately, the person himself often creates the conditions for this push, a push that can destroy the person himself.One of these mechanisms for creating lethal conditions is weapons. And the most dangerous of them is nuclear weapons. And these weapons are so dangerous that they can cause death in different ways, have different ways of creating unfavorable conditions, the so-called damaging factors. One of these factors is radioactive contamination, the other is a shock wave. But these are all primary methods, and there are secondary ones, which do not arise directly from the explosion of a nuclear bomb, but manifest themselves indirectly. One of these factors is the change in climate conditions on Earth. A concept that covers all aspects of this phenomenon is called “Nuclear Winter”.
In this work, I will consider what “nuclear winter” itself is, the methods of its occurrence, what climatic conditions are established on the planet, what happens to plants and animals in such conditions, and I will also consider the stages of the emergence and formation of this concept. In addition, one cannot help but talk about the opponents of “Nuclear Winter” and their thoughts.
1 APPEARANCE OF THE CONCEPT
The concept of “Nuclear Winter” appeared relatively recently, in the middle of the second half of the 20th century, although nuclear weapons and their primary damaging factors were known earlier. At the same time, in the 70s, both scientists in the USSR and scientists in the USA began working on this problem. But scientific works on the issues of “Nuclear Winter” were presented later.One of the first was Georgy Sergeevich Golitsyn, a specialist in atmospheric and ocean physics, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. In May 1983, Georgy Sergeevich gave his report on the climate consequences of a nuclear war. In this report, Golitsyn described what changes in the Earth's climate would occur after the detonation of a large number of nuclear weapons in a short period of time. The report was descriptive in nature and lacked specifics.
A little later, on December 23 of the same year, the work of a group of American scientists was presented, which included Richard Turco, Owen Boone, Thomas Ackerman, James Pollack and Carl Sagan. This work contained some information about the “nuclear winter” model. The model of volcanic eruptions was taken as a basis. According to the report, within 1-2 weeks the temperature will drop to -15 - -25 degrees Celsius as a result of a weakening of the flow of solar energy, resulting from the fact that a huge amount of dust and fumes will enter the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn arises from - for abundant all-encompassing fires. It was calculated that an explosion of 100 megatons of nuclear charges within a large city would be sufficient to produce such climatic consequences. Further decrease in temperature starts a chain reaction: radioactive substances begin to spread faster, the ozone layer begins to decrease. Darkness, cold and radioactivity (including from ultraviolet radiation) can cause significant damage to all life on the planet.
According to some sources, even earlier, in 1982, the Dutch scientist Paul Crutzen pointed out the climate threat from massive fires resulting from the explosion of nuclear charges, but it was not possible to find supporting documents.
Why didn’t they think about the problem of “nuclear winter” before? This is quite simple to explain. Nuclear tests that were carried out from the 40s to the 70s of the 20th century were isolated. Small charges were used, the time between explosions was very long, the tests were carried out in such a way that no large fires occurred, and yet fires are one of the most important conditions for the occurrence of a “nuclear winter.” From this it was established that there could be no other phenomena besides the observed ones. As we now know, this assumption turned out to be wrong.
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE “NUCLEAR WINTER” CONCEPT AND ITS MODEL
2.1 Model of the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences and description of the concept
One of the most accurate models is the three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (USSR Academy of Sciences), on the basis of which I want to show the essence of “nuclear winter”. The model first appeared shortly after the report of G.S. Golitsin.The first calculations carried out using this model by Vladimir Valentinovich Aleksandrov, a Soviet physicist, theorist of “nuclear winter”, with colleagues under the leadership of Nikita Nikolaevich Moiseev, a Soviet and Russian scientist in the field of general mechanics and applied mathematics, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, give the geographical distribution of all meteorological characteristics in depending on the time that has passed since the nuclear conflict, which makes the modeling results extremely visual and really tangible. American scientists simultaneously obtained similar results for the agreed nuclear war scenario. In further work, the effects associated with the spread of aerosols were assessed, and the dependence of the characteristics of “nuclear winter” on the initial distribution of fires and the height of the rise of the soot cloud was studied. Calculations were also carried out for two “limiting scenarios” taken from the work of Carl Sagan’s group: “hard” (total explosion power of 10,000 megatons) and “soft” (100 megatons).
In the first case, approximately 75% of the total potential of nuclear powers is used. This is a so-called general nuclear war, the primary, immediate consequences of which are characterized by a huge scale of death and destruction. In the second scenario, less than 1% of the world's nuclear arsenal is “consumed.” True, this is 8200 “Hiroshima” (“hard” version - almost a million)!
Soot, smoke and dust in the atmosphere over the regions of the northern hemisphere that were attacked will, due to global atmospheric circulation, spread over vast areas, covering the entire Northern Hemisphere and part of the Southern Hemisphere in 2 weeks (Fig. 1). It is also important how long the soot and dust will remain in the atmosphere and create an opaque veil. Aerosol particles will settle to the ground under the influence of gravity and be washed away by rain. The duration of settling depends on the size of the particles and the height at which they are found. Calculations using the mentioned model showed that the aerosol in the atmosphere will persist much longer than previously thought. The fact is that soot, heated by the sun's rays, will rise upward along with the air masses heated by it and will leave the area of precipitation formation (Fig. 2). The surface air will be colder than that located above, and convection (including evaporation and precipitation, the so-called water cycle in nature) will weaken significantly, there will be less precipitation, so that the aerosol will be washed out much more slowly than under normal conditions. All this will lead to the prolongation of the “nuclear winter” (Fig. 3, 4).
Rice. 1 The spread of smoke and dust in the atmosphere above the surface in the first 30 days after a nuclear conflict (“0 days” is the initial localization of emissions in Eastern Europe). 
Rice. 2 Meridional section of the atmosphere. The distribution of smoke on days 15-20 and the area of precipitation formation are shown. 
Rice. 3, 4 Changes in air temperature at the Earth’s surface a month after the conflict with the “hard” (explosion power – 10,000 megatons) and “soft” (100 megatons) scenarios.
So, the main climatic effect of a nuclear war, regardless of its scenario, will be “nuclear winter” - a sharp, strong (from 15 to 40 degrees Celsius in different regions) and long-term cooling of the air over the continents. The consequences would be especially severe in the summer, when temperatures over land in the Northern Hemisphere would drop below the freezing point of water. In other words, all living things that do not burn in fires will freeze.
“Nuclear winter” would entail an avalanche of disastrous effects. These are, first of all, sharp temperature contrasts between land and ocean, since the latter has enormous thermal inertia, and the air above it will cool much less. On the other hand, as already noted, changes in the atmosphere will suppress convection, and severe droughts will break out over the night-shrouded, cold-bound continents. If the events in question occurred in the summer, then in about 2 weeks, as indicated above, the temperature at the land surface in the Northern Hemisphere will drop below zero, and there will be almost no sunlight. Plants will not have time to adapt to low temperatures and will die. If a nuclear war had started in July, then all vegetation would have died in the Northern Hemisphere, and partially in the Southern Hemisphere (Fig. 5). In the tropics and subtropics it would die almost instantly, because tropical forests can only exist within a narrow range of temperatures and light levels. 
Rice. 5 Damage to plants during “nuclear winter” in July: 1 - 100% death, 2 - 50%, 3 - no death.
Many animals in the Northern Hemisphere will also not survive due to lack of food and the difficulty of finding it in the “nuclear night.” In the tropics and subtropics, cold will be an important factor. Many species of mammals and all birds will die; reptiles can survive.
If the described events took place in winter, when the plants of the northern and central zone “sleep,” their fate during the “nuclear winter” would be determined by frost. For each land area with a known ratio of tree species, comparing temperatures in winter and during the “nuclear winter”, as well as data on the death of trees in normal and abnormal winters with prolonged frosts, it is possible to estimate the percentage of tree death during the “nuclear winter” (Fig. 6 ). 
Rice. 6 Damage to plants during “nuclear winter” in January: 1 - 100%, 2 - 90%, 3 - 75%, 4 - 50%, 5 - 25%, 6 - 10%, 7 - no death.
Dead forests formed over vast areas will become material for secondary forest fires. The decomposition of this dead organic matter will release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, disrupting the global carbon cycle. The destruction of vegetation (especially in the tropics) will cause active soil erosion.
“Nuclear winter” will undoubtedly cause the almost complete destruction of existing ecosystems, and in particular agroecosystems, which are so important for maintaining human life. All fruit trees, vineyards, etc. will freeze. All farm animals will die as the livestock farming infrastructure is destroyed. The vegetation may partially recover (the seeds will be preserved), but this process will be slowed down by other factors. “Radiation shock” (a sharp increase in the level of ionizing radiation to 500-1000 rad) will kill most mammals and birds and cause serious radiation damage to coniferous trees. Giant fires will destroy most of the forests, steppes, and agricultural lands. During nuclear explosions, large amounts of nitrogen and sulfur oxides will be released into the atmosphere. They will fall to the ground in the form of acid rain, harmful to all living things.
Any of these factors is extremely destructive to ecosystems. But the worst thing is that after a nuclear conflict they will act synergistically (that is, not just jointly, simultaneously, but reinforcing the effect of each).
The model provides a fairly accurate description of the entire process of the occurrence of “nuclear winter,” as well as the consequences that arise after the occurrence of this catastrophe. However, it is worth considering the assessment of the model's accuracy, as well as considering modern data from the model.
2.2 Accuracy of the CC RAS model and modern models of “nuclear winter”
The question of the reliability and accuracy of the results, from a scientific point of view, is extremely important. However, the “critical point”, after which irreversible catastrophic changes in the biosphere and climate of the Earth begin, has already been determined: the “nuclear threshold”, as noted, is very low - about 100 megatons.Therefore, if we assume that more than 100 megatons of destructive material will be used in a nuclear strike, then the “nuclear winter” model under the “soft” scenario will be very accurate. This also applies to the “hard” scenario.
No missile defense system can be 100% impenetrable. Meanwhile, even 1% is enough for an irreparable disaster. This estimate changes in modern models.
Unfortunately, modern data gives even more terrible values. According to modern works (2007 - 2009), the estimate of 1% is not correct, but the estimate of 0.3% is correct. This estimate is indicated in the work of Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers State University in New Brunswick (New Jersey, USA). 0.3% is about 50 charges, which would be similar in power to those dropped on Hiroshima. Exploded in the air over a large city, they are capable of launching the entire mechanism of “nuclear war”. Alan Robock also claims that some other events, for example, volcanic eruptions, cannot fully activate the “nuclear winter” mechanism.
In addition, modern research, in addition to “nuclear winter,” also identifies “nuclear autumn,” which occurs if fewer bombs are used. “Nuclear autumn” is a slightly milder “nuclear winter”, but the consequences are still dire. Scientists claim that the climatic conditions of the “nuclear autumn” will be similar to the conditions of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which occurred on Earth more than 2,500 million years ago.
3 OPPONENTS OF “NUCLEAR WINTER”
Now there are fewer and fewer opponents of the “nuclear winter” concept, but at the time when the concept first appeared, there were a lot of them.Basically, all criticism is based on the fact that during the “nuclear race” from 1945 to 1998, there were so many nuclear explosions for testing purposes (and there were more than 2000 of them) that the “nuclear winter” should have already begun, i.e. .To. this number of explosions corresponds to a large-scale nuclear war. But this position does not stand up to criticism, which I partially cited above. But I repeat: the tests are carried out under much “milder” conditions, which cannot cause a “nuclear winter.”
The second source of criticism of the concept is the psychological factor. Adherents of this criticism believe that the concept of “nuclear winter” was invented by the opposing side (NATO or Russia) in order to intimidate its enemy. Unfortunately, a large number of these adherents of the theory are nationalists who believe that another world war will only be beneficial. This certainly poses a hidden threat. But this criticism is also very weak, and does not allow us to say that there will be no “nuclear winter”.
Another proof that the concept of “nuclear winter” is erroneous is the fact that modeling of “nuclear winter” processes is not carried out using modern equipment. And if such research is carried out, it is of a private nature. There’s nothing left to say here, because... The fact remains that there really are no large-scale studies of “nuclear winter” being carried out right now. Although it is still possible to offer one version of why this criticism is not correct. The thing is that the nuclear threat has subsided, and there is simply no need to do large-scale research.
All these arguments by opponents of the concept certainly have a right to life, but they cannot compete with the concept of “nuclear winter” itself, so I can confidently say that the concept of “nuclear winter” is correct.
CONCLUSION
In this work, all aspects of such a concept as “nuclear winter” were considered, issues of the emergence of the concept and its improvement were considered. A model of the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences was presented, which very accurately demonstrates all the features of “nuclear winter”. Modern ideas about the model and concept were also considered.In addition, all the arguments and opinions of opponents of the concept were briefly reviewed, and their weaknesses were found.
All this allows me to say that the “Nuclear Winter” concept was considered from all sides, and was considered as fully as possible. All that remains is to draw a conclusion from the proposed data.
“Nuclear winter” is capable of removing all life from the face of the Earth, even in its weakest manifestation. It is capable of taking billions of human lives to the grave. It is capable of creating conditions on earth for many years in which nothing living can appear. In the worst case scenario, a “nuclear winter” could sterilize the planet forever. Therefore, it is necessary to create conditions so that this catastrophe is impossible. This can only be achieved by complete disarmament, because Only nuclear weapons can trigger a “nuclear winter.” Therefore, the further path is visible, but whether the powers will follow it is not for me to decide.
LIST OF SOURCES USED
- Nuclear winter // Internet resource
- Wikipedia: Moiseev, Nikita Nikolaevich // Internet resource http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiseev,_Nikita_Nikolaevich
- Wikipedia: Golitsyn, Georgy Sergeevich // Internet resource http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golitsyn,_Georgy_Sergeevich
- Wikipedia: Crutzen, Paul // Internet resource http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crutzen,_Paul
- “Nuclear winter” - a propaganda myth or an objective forecast? // Internet resource http://wasteland.ag.ru/other/civil-defence/nuclear-winter.shtml
- Did ancient volcanoes freeze the Earth? // Internet resource http://www.pavkar.inauka.ru/news/article93818.html
An ordinary sunny day, birds are singing, the leaves are rustling slightly. Suddenly there is a bright flash, followed by a shock wave of colossal power, erasing everything from the face of the Earth. A huge “nuclear mushroom” appears and increases in size. The lights are gradually going out... Everyone could see something like this in science fiction films. However, the most terrible consequences arise not as a result of the explosion, but due to the strong release of thermal energy.
Nuclear bomb explosion
The events that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki made scientists think about what the consequences of a nuclear war could be. It is noted that as a result of the explosion of atomic bombs, the climate undergoes significant changes. This phenomenon is called “nuclear winter”.
About a third of the total energy released during a nuclear explosion is spent on the light flash. At this moment, all objects ignite, strong fires arise, which eventually combine into one huge one and form the so-called “fire tornado.” Large volumes of heated air rush upward, capturing smoke, ash and soot particles. The sun's rays cannot break through the formed cloud.
Calculations
Scientists managed to simulate a nuclear conflict of medium scale. According to them, about 200 million tons of small particles will be released into the atmosphere, which will form a huge cloud. Part of the earth's surface between 30 and 60 degrees north latitude will be plunged into complete darkness.
Under the influence of gravity, dust and soot will slowly settle. Air masses located near the earth's surface will eventually become colder than those located above the dust cloud. This will affect the water cycle in nature, which will noticeably weaken. Depending on the region, the air temperature will drop by 15-50 degrees, as a result of which most living organisms will die. Nuclear winter is only gaining its destructive power.
The devastating effects of nuclear winter
Air temperatures on land and over the ocean will be very different, which will cause powerful hurricanes. A noticeably decreased amount of water on the continents will lead to droughts. Due to a sharp drop in temperature, representatives of the flora will die. Animals will also have a hard time. The process of searching for food in complete darkness will become much more difficult. Birds will go extinct, most species of mammals, presumably, reptiles will be able to survive.
"Nuclear Threshold"
According to scientists, an explosion with a power of 100 Mt will lead to irreversible changes in the climate of our planet. However, only 1% of existing nuclear weapons can provide such power. If one day the entire arsenal is used, all life will disappear from the Earth.
All over the world, after the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they began to study the consequences of a possible nuclear war - destruction from powerful explosions, the spread of radiation, biological damage. In the 1980s, research was undertaken into the effects of climate change, now known as “nuclear winter.”
The fireball of a nuclear explosion burns or chars objects at a considerable distance from the epicenter. About 1/3 of the energy of an explosion that occurs at a low altitude is released in the form of an intense light pulse. Thus, 10 km from the epicenter of an explosion with a power of 1 Mt, a light flash in the first seconds is thousands of times brighter than the sun. During this time, paper, fabrics and other flammable materials catch fire. A person receives third degree burns. The resulting flames (primary fires) are partially extinguished by the powerful air wave of the explosion, but flying sparks, burning debris, splashes of burning oil products, and short circuits in the electrical network cause extensive secondary fires that can last for many days.
When many independent fires combine into one powerful source, a “fire tornado” is formed that can destroy a huge city (as in Dresden and Hamburg at the end of the Second World War). The intense release of heat in the center of such a “tornado” lifts huge masses of air upward, creating hurricanes at the surface of the earth, which supply ever new portions of oxygen to the source of the fire. The “tornado” raises smoke, dust and soot to the stratosphere, which form a cloud that practically covers the sunlight, and “nuclear night” sets in and, as a result, “nuclear winter”.
Calculations of the amount of aerosol generated after such fires are made based on an average value of 4 g of combustible material per 1 cm2 of surface, although in cities such as New York or London its value reaches 40 g/cm2. According to the most conservative estimates, during a nuclear conflict (according to the average, so-called “baseline” scenario), about 200 million tons of aerosol are formed, 30% of which is carbon that strongly absorbs sunlight. As a result, the area between 30° and 60° N. w. will be deprived of sunlight for several weeks.
Giant fires that emit huge amounts of smoke into the atmosphere and cause “nuclear night” were not taken into account by scientists until the 1980s when assessing the consequences of nuclear explosions. For the first time, the extreme importance of massive fires for the subsequent cascade of irreversible global climate and environmental changes was pointed out in 1982 by the German scientist Paul Crutzen.
Why didn’t scientists notice the “nuclear winter” in the 40-70s, and can our knowledge about the consequences of a nuclear war now be considered final?
The fact is that the nuclear tests that were carried out were, after all, isolated, single explosions, while the “softest” (100 Mt) scenario of a nuclear conflict, accompanied by a “nuclear night”, envisages a strike on many large cities. In addition, the now prohibited tests were carried out in such a way that no large fires occurred. New assessments required close cooperation and mutual understanding among specialists in various fields of science: climatologists, physicists, mathematicians, and biologists. Only with such a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach, which has been gaining momentum in recent years, has it been possible to understand the entire set of interconnected phenomena that previously seemed to be isolated facts. It is also important that “nuclear winter” refers to global problems that scientists have learned to study only recently.
The study and modeling of global problems began on the initiative and under the leadership of N.N. Moiseev at the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the 70s. This research was based on the idea that man is part of the biosphere, and his existence is unthinkable outside the biosphere. Our civilization can survive only within a narrow range of biosphere parameters. The growing power of human influence on the environment brings to the fore the choice of a strategy for the development of society, guaranteeing not only the existence, but also the joint evolution (coevolution) of humanity and the environment.
Of the currently known models of varying complexity for calculating climate change as a result of a thermonuclear conflict, one of the most advanced is the three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The first calculations carried out using this model by V.V. Alexandrov and colleagues under the leadership of N.N. Moiseev, give the geographical distribution of all meteorological characteristics depending on the time that has passed since the nuclear conflict, which makes the modeling results extremely visual and really perceptible. American scientists simultaneously obtained similar results for the agreed nuclear war scenario. In further works, the effects associated with the spread of aerosols were assessed, and the dependence of the characteristics of “nuclear winter” on the initial distribution of fires and the height of the rise of the soot cloud was studied. Calculations were also carried out for two “limit scenarios” taken from the work of K. Sagan’s group: “hard” (total explosion power 10,000 Mt) and “soft” (100 Mt).
In the first case, approximately 75% of the total potential of nuclear powers is used. This is a so-called general nuclear war, the primary, immediate consequences of which are characterized by a huge scale of death and destruction. In the second scenario, less than 1% of the world's nuclear arsenal is "consumed." True, this is 8200 “Hiroshima” (“hard” version - almost a million)!
Soot, smoke and dust in the atmosphere over the regions of the northern hemisphere that were attacked will, due to global atmospheric circulation, spread over vast areas, covering the entire Northern Hemisphere and part of the Southern Hemisphere in 2 weeks (Fig. 1). It is also important how long the soot and dust will remain in the atmosphere and create an opaque veil. Aerosol particles will settle to the ground under the influence of gravity and be washed away by rain. The duration of settling depends on the size of the particles and the height at which they are found. Calculations using the mentioned model showed that the aerosol in the atmosphere will persist much longer than previously thought. The fact is that soot, heated by the sun's rays, will rise upward along with the air masses heated by it and will leave the area of precipitation formation (Fig. 2). The surface air will be colder than that located above, and convection (including evaporation and precipitation, the so-called water cycle in nature) will weaken significantly, there will be less precipitation, so that the aerosol will be washed out much more slowly than under normal conditions. All this will lead to the prolongation of the “nuclear winter” (Fig. 3, 4).
Rice. 1 The spread of smoke and dust in the atmosphere above the surface in the first 30 days after a nuclear conflict (“0 days” is the initial localization of emissions in Eastern Europe).
Rice. 2 Meridional section of the atmosphere. The distribution of smoke on days 15-20 and the area of precipitation formation are shown.
Rice. 3, 4 Change in air temperature at the Earth’s surface a month after the conflict with the “hard” (explosion power - 10,000 Mt) and “soft” (100 Mt) scenarios.
So, the main climatic effect of a nuclear war, regardless of its scenario, will be “nuclear winter” - a sharp, strong (from 15o to 40o C in different regions) and long-term cooling of the air over the continents. The consequences would be especially severe in the summer, when temperatures over land in the Northern Hemisphere would drop below the freezing point of water. In other words, all living things that do not burn in fires will freeze.
“Nuclear winter” would entail an avalanche of disastrous effects. These are, first of all, sharp temperature contrasts between land and ocean, since the latter has enormous thermal inertia, and the air above it will cool much less. On the other hand, as already noted, changes in the atmosphere will suppress convection, and severe droughts will break out over the night-shrouded, cold-bound continents. If the events in question occurred in the summer, then in about 2 weeks, as indicated above, the temperature at the land surface in the Northern Hemisphere will drop below zero, and there will be almost no sunlight. Plants will not have time to adapt to low temperatures and will die. If a nuclear war had started in July, then all vegetation would have died in the Northern Hemisphere, and partially in the Southern Hemisphere (Fig. 5). In the tropics and subtropics it would die almost instantly, because tropical forests can only exist within a narrow range of temperatures and light levels.
Rice. 5 Damage to plants during “nuclear winter” in July: 1 - 100% death, 2 - 50%, 3 - no death.
Many animals in the Northern Hemisphere will also not survive due to lack of food and the difficulty of finding it in the “nuclear night.” In the tropics and subtropics, cold will be an important factor. Many species of mammals and all birds will die; reptiles can survive.
If the described events took place in winter, when the plants of the northern and central zone “sleep,” their fate during the “nuclear winter” would be determined by frost. For each land area with a known ratio of tree species, comparing temperatures in winter and during the “nuclear winter”, as well as data on the death of trees in normal and abnormal winters with prolonged frosts, it is possible to estimate the percentage of tree death during the “nuclear winter” (Fig. 6 ).
Rice. 6 Damage to plants during “nuclear winter” in January: 1 - 100%, 2 - 90%, 3 - 75%, 4 - 50%, 5 - 25%, 6 - 10%, 7 - no death.
Dead forests formed over vast areas will become material for secondary forest fires. The decomposition of this dead organic matter will release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, disrupting the global carbon cycle. The destruction of vegetation (especially in the tropics) will cause active soil erosion.
“Nuclear winter” will undoubtedly cause almost complete destruction of existing ecosystems, and in particular agroecosystems, so important for maintaining human life. All fruit trees, vineyards, etc. will freeze. All farm animals will die, since the livestock farming infrastructure will be destroyed. The vegetation may partially recover (the seeds will be preserved), but this process will be slowed down by other factors. “Radiation shock” (a sharp increase in the level of ionizing radiation to 500-1000 rad) will kill most mammals and birds and cause serious radiation damage to coniferous trees. Giant fires will destroy most of the forests, steppes, and agricultural lands. During nuclear explosions, large amounts of nitrogen and sulfur oxides will be released into the atmosphere. They will fall to the ground in the form of “acid rain,” which is harmful to all living things.
Any of these factors is extremely destructive to ecosystems. But the worst thing is that after a nuclear conflict they will act synergistically (that is, not just jointly, simultaneously, but reinforcing the effect of each).
The question of the reliability and accuracy of the results, from a scientific point of view, is extremely important. However, the “critical point” after which irreversible catastrophic changes in the Earth’s biosphere and climate begin has already been determined: the “nuclear threshold,” as noted, is very low - about 100 Mt.
No missile defense system can be 100% impenetrable. Meanwhile, 1% is enough for an irreparable disaster (1% of the existing nuclear arsenal is approximately 100 ballistic missile warheads, with a total power equal to 5,000 Hiroshimas).
The phenomenon of “nuclear winter” has been comprehensively studied by the world scientific community. In 1985, the Scientific Committee for the Study of Problems of Environmental Protection (SCOPE) published a two-volume publication, prepared by a team of authors from a number of countries, devoted to assessments of the climatic and environmental consequences of nuclear war.
“Calculations show,” it said, “that dust and smoke will spread to the tropics and most of the Southern Hemisphere. Thus, even non-belligerent countries, including those far from the conflict area, will experience its harmful effects. India, Brazil, Nigeria or Indonesia could be destroyed by a nuclear war, despite the fact that not a single warhead would explode on their territory... "Nuclear winter" means a significant increase in the scale of suffering for humanity, including nations and regions not directly involved in a nuclear war... A nuclear war would cause the destruction of life on Earth, a catastrophe unprecedented in human history, and would pose a threat to the very existence of humanity."
For every person, regardless of his age, location and nationality, the term “nuclear winter” is something extremely frightening and terrible. Gloomy images immediately appear in your head, dilapidated cities, lack of sunlight and the complete absence of civilization in the form familiar to us. What could cause this? Is our future really a nuclear winter? Can this really happen or is this picture just a figment of the imagination of the authors and directors? Let's begin to understand this issue in order.
Introduction
First of all, we note that a large, one might even say the overwhelming majority of the population of our planet is confident that photos of nuclear winter, which are provided in books, magazines, on the Internet, and other sources describing this phenomenon, are a genuine forecast of the future. People believe that this could happen to the world due to nuclear bombing. There are a number of official interpretations of how nature, climate and other components of the biosphere will behave if the Third World War occurs. We will definitely consider this theory of nuclear winter, all its components and draw a logical conclusion.
However, it is worth paying attention to the obvious. No matter how much they scare us, there are certain formulas and calculations that allow us to mathematically calculate all the consequences of an atomic bombing. Having done this, you can be convinced that the myth of nuclear winter is nothing more than a “grossly exaggerated truth,” or, more simply, a horror story. Of course, it would be foolish to deny the fact that such weapons cannot harm humanity. The damage will be noticeable, but nowhere near what is described in most books and films.
Official interpretation of the term
In a broad sense, nuclear winter is a hypothesis according to which the Earth's climate will change dramatically as a result of atomic bombing on a very large scale. In short, it is expected that as a result of widespread nuclear explosions and the release of enormous amounts of smoke and soot into the atmosphere, sunlight will begin to reflect off the Earth's surface with greater intensity. It turns out that the consequence of nuclear winter is a decrease in the temperature regime above the surface of the planet. The climate will become approximately the same as in the subarctic zone, the Earth will be covered with a thick layer of snow, and a new ice age will begin.
For the first time, the fact that this is a nuclear winter, why everything should be this way and what other consequences this phenomenon may have was established in the second half of the twentieth century. Scientists from the USSR and the USA worked on the theory. Read more about this below.
The origin of the version
For the first time, the problems of nuclear winter and all the ensuing consequences were described by the Soviet scientist Georgy Golitsyn and an American researcher. Subsequently, the model they developed received confirmation from the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences. A model of the biosphere called "Gaia" was constructed in the laboratory. Based on the experiments carried out on it, it turned out that if the total power of atomic explosions is equal to 10,000 megatons, then the solar flux at the surface of the Earth will be reduced by 400 times. In this situation, the period of self-purification of the atmosphere will last several months. All this, in turn, will cause a radical change in the earth's climate. Nuclear winter will consist in the fact that the atmosphere will cool down greatly over the continents, the air temperature above the surfaces known to us will drop first by 15 degrees, and then by 25-30.
More about the weather
The key problem of nuclear winter, the researchers noted, was the fact that the smog and smoke that would be in the air after numerous warhead explosions and fires caused by the bombing would literally shield our planet from the effects of the sun's rays. Thus, ultraviolet radiation will not be able to reach the Earth in the quantities in which it reaches now. First of all, this will cause not only a nuclear winter, it will be the beginning of a nuclear night that will last for several months. Secondly, an insufficient amount of ultraviolet radiation will negatively affect photosynthesis in plants, therefore, the oxygen composition we are accustomed to will be disrupted. This will entail epidemics and the extinction of hundreds of species of plants and animals, as well as the death of people.
What happens after
The most important consequence of nuclear winter is the disruption of the entire biosphere. Climate change will radically “clean up” the ranks of flora and fauna and destroy many human lives. In short, the fittest will survive. It is believed that cattle breeding and agriculture will be possible only at the equator, since all other lands will be under a huge layer of snow and ice. Even after the smog clears over the planet and the Sun can begin to warm its surface, it will take a huge amount of time to correct what happened. The effect of nuclear winter will last for more than one generation; moreover, even after the situation normalizes, the climate will no longer be the same, but will take on new properties.
Several options for the development of events
Well, now we suggest imagining that nuclear winter has arrived. What can you expect from such a man-made-natural phenomenon? How bad will the climate be? Will the nuclear winter end quickly or will it last several hundred years? The options will be presented in ascending order, from the most “positive” outcome to the most sad:
- A widespread drop in temperature of 1-2 degrees, which will last for one year. There will not be a big impact on the population of biological species and people.
- The onset of nuclear autumn. The temperature will drop by 3-4 degrees, this will last for several years. The forecast is characterized by bad weather, hurricanes, and lack of a good harvest.
- The onset of a ten-year nuclear winter. This is as described in the film “The Day After Tomorrow”, only the cause will not be a natural disaster, but an atomic explosion. Almost the entire earth, with the exception of the equator, will be covered with snow. People will continue to fight for warmer territories. There will also be attempts to “warm” the planet with additional nuclear explosions, which will lead to the onset of a nuclear summer. However, humanity has enough food reserves to survive this period.
- The onset of a new ice age. It will last several hundred years, and during this period humanity will completely change, and subsequently the earth’s map.
- Irreversible cooling. This is the worst case scenario. It involves the establishment of an Antarctic climate throughout the Earth, freezing of the oceans and continents. Only the civilization that settles under the ice near geothermal springs can survive.
Why do they think this way?
The term “nuclear winter” has a huge history. It begins around 1816, when Western Europe and North America experienced the so-called year without a summer. This event was so named because of the record low temperatures, even during the hot season. In the United States, 1816 was nicknamed “1816, frozen to death,” and from the beginning of recorded human history to the present day, this time was indeed the coldest.
At that time, people had no idea about the reasons for such severe weather, but in 1920, climatologist William Humphreys put forward his first hypothesis. He believed that the cause of the cold weather was the eruption of the Tambora volcano in the previous year, 1815, which is located on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa in the Southern Hemisphere. The smoke and smog that formed during this lithospheric process moved with wind currents to the Northern Hemisphere region, forming a short-term cyclone there, called a volcanic winter.
Further life of the theory
The eruption was an epoch-making event. Humanity has not seen such natural phenomena for many centuries before, and such cataclysms have not yet occurred. However, such a large-scale eruption of a huge volcano only caused an anomalous cooling, and not even throughout the world. The atypical summer weather lasted only one year, after which the situation completely stabilized.
The aforementioned scientists Golitsyn and Sagan “hooked” on this phenomenon and extracted only extremely negative aspects from it, missing the fact that the cooling was short-lived and did not cause much damage to the world. Nevertheless, their theory received a very wide response in a number of leading countries and became a kind of dogma, the only true forecast of the near future of humanity. Despite the fact that their theory was repeatedly criticized and destructured, they could not officially refute it.
Modern official version
Based on the works of Sagan and Golitsyn, modern American scientists have made so-called updated calculations. They once again confirmed the concept of atomic winter due to widespread explosions of nuclear warheads, and these are the numbers that were released during the new experiment. If war breaks out between India and Pakistan, their strategic nuclear reserves would be enough to release 6.6 million tons of soot into the atmosphere. According to researchers, this amount of soot will be enough to cause the temperature above the planet's surface to drop below the record level of 1816.
If the superpowers Russia and the United States enter the fray, over 150 megatons of soot will be released into the atmosphere. This will cause the beginning of a new ice age, comparable in its weather conditions to the Pleistocene era. We described the details of this phenomenon in detail above.
The point of view of critics of this forecast
No one questions the fact that nuclear weapons are the most destructive and terrible thing that exists on the planet. However, many people, including very experienced and educated scientists, for some reason deny the gloomy forecast that was created in the middle of the last century. The most ardent opponent of the theory of atomic winter is Fred Singer, who not only publishes his works, but also enters into scientific discussions with Sagan. It is worth emphasizing that it does not simply “soften” the forecast, but gives the opposite results of the outcome of such a war. He believes that after numerous nuclear explosions there will be not a cooling, but a greenhouse effect. Its impact on the biosphere will not be so dire; the climate will return to normal after a short period of time.
Singer emphasizes that the essence of nuclear winter, researchers concluded, is disruption of the biosphere, which will entail a radical change in climate, and atomic contamination of the air. But all this is a fairy tale, made up of ignorance of the structural features of nuclear weapons. He presented myths regarding this topic separately and refuted each one. Let's study them.
Myth 1 - nuclear weapons can penetrate the mantle
Such supernatural properties are often attributed to this type of weapon. Allegedly, even in rocky areas, the most powerful warheads will be able to completely disrupt the tectonic structure of the planet and bring the mantle to the surface of the Earth. Well, in fact, the explosion of one of the most powerful bombs, the potential of which is equal to 58 Mt, will form a crater with a diameter of approximately 1.5 km, and at the same time its depth will be equal to 200 meters. Therefore, there is nothing to talk about breaking through the crust - this is just a far-fetched forecast.
Myth 2 - all life on Earth will die
And it will die precisely as a result of the explosion itself, which supposedly will be so extensive that it will destroy both living beings and buildings in a second. The well-known atomic bombings of the islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will help us refute this version. During this military operation, only these settlements were completely destroyed, and all the lands and waters surrounding them remained practically unharmed.
Now let's give specific numbers. 100% of the population will die within a 4 km radius of the explosion. Another 80% will suffer within 7.5 km from severe damage to buildings, in other words, under rubble. But within a radius of 10 km, the death toll will be no more than 5%, but at the same time half of the population may receive injuries of varying severity. It turns out that by fighting, the powers will be able to destroy each other, but not the whole world.
Myth 3 - a new ice age
Or nuclear winter itself - call it what you want. This is exactly how Sagan portrays the consequences of a nuclear attack - with widespread climate change during the “blocking” of sunlight and excess soot in the atmosphere. The researcher claims that atomic bomb explosions will cause forest and city fires. The smog rising from them will reach the stratosphere and create a night effect for several months. This will be enough to reduce the temperature of the planet by several tens of degrees.
Refuting this sad version, Singer argued the following. Firstly, no one will “fire” into forested areas, since a forest fire even on enemy territory is harmful to the entire planet. Secondly, fires in modern cities, which are built of metal-plastic, not wood, are a myth. The twin towers, blown up in 2001, served as proof of this. They did not burn, but smoked for many hours. Well, and most importantly, the Earth simply cannot ignite like a match everywhere. In some regions the fire will be stopped by fog, in others by rain, in others by snow cover. The smog from the fire will not even reach the stratosphere, as it will be suppressed by clouds and fall to the ground in the form of black rain.
Myth 4 - radiation contamination
It’s hard to imagine a nuclear winter without the sensational sign “Caution! Radiation!” and without people who sadly wander through the deserted land with destroyed buildings in gas masks. This concept has been fed to us for decades, but, as it turns out, it is radically different from reality, and there is even an obvious example of this. These are the above-mentioned islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which suffered from very powerful and destructive atomic warheads. At that time, the people who were at the epicenter of the explosion died directly from the impact or did not survive under the rubble. Those who survived did not mutate or become infected with radiation - they continued to live and bore healthy offspring. Now these Japanese cities live and prosper, and nothing in them hints at the post-apocalyptic conditions that were observed there in 45.
In practice, we will say that modern warheads contain predominantly short-lived isotopes. 7 hours after the explosion, the radiation level drops by 10 times, after 50 hours - by 100 times, and after 350 hours - by 1000 times.
We also note an interesting fact. Many people live in such radioactive parts of the world that the background there greatly exceeds permissible limits and is much higher than 350 hours after the bomb exploded. So it will be possible to populate the affected area after a few months.
Why are we so scared of nuclear war?
Of course, in the history of mankind there have been countless wars that not only destroyed states and took the lives of people, but also significantly damaged the biosphere. But are nuclear missiles really capable of wiping out all life on the planet? If this were really so, then even warring countries would know that having exterminated the enemy in this way, they would not be able to populate its territory.
Talk about total nuclear disarmament began around the time the concept of nuclear winter appeared. All this propaganda was introduced with the aim of setting humanity up in a pacifist mood, disarming the main powers that have such potential, and eliminating the chances of further clashes between nations.
There is also a less "humane" version. It tells that the nuclear disarmament program was founded by the States in order to neutralize the main enemy - the USSR. As a result, as we know, Gorbachev signed the ill-fated act, during which the Union collapsed and became less terrible in the eyes of America.
Conclusion
Having studied the official theory, learned about its truths and lies, and read the photos of nuclear winter, we understand that there are still many mysteries in this matter. The answers to them are kept only in narrow government circles, but they will never reach the masses. We can only hope not only that there will never be a nuclear bombing, but, as a consequence, that there will never be a nuclear winter with its “ice age.” Even if the official theory is a myth, and the consequences are not as large-scale as it seems, no one wants to survive another Hiroshima.
So, to some extent, the nuclear disarmament program is great, because pacifism is a form of humanism. Humanity is now very educated and comprehensively developed, so it would be extremely stupid and unwise to fight and destroy each other.
Nuclear winter is a hypothetical global state of the Earth's climate resulting from a large-scale nuclear war. It is assumed that as a result of the release of some smoke and soot into the stratosphere, caused by extensive fires from the explosion of several nuclear warheads, the temperature on the planet will drop to arctic temperatures everywhere as a result of a significant increase in the amount of reflected solar rays.
There are many popular beliefs and outright myths around almost any type of weapon that are of great concern to the public interested in the army and weapons. Nuclear weapons are no exception. Among these myths is the well-known concept of “nuclear winter.” Let's look at it in more detail...
The devastating effects of thermal shock, blast waves, and penetrating and residual radiation have been known to scientists for a long time, but the indirect impact of such explosions on the environment has remained unnoticed for many years. Only in the 70s, several studies were carried out, during which it was possible to establish that the ozone layer, which protects the Earth from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation, can be weakened by the release of large volumes of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which will occur after numerous nuclear explosions.
Further study of the problem showed that clouds of dust thrown by nuclear explosions into the upper layers of the atmosphere can interfere with heat exchange between it and the surface, which will lead to temporary cooling of air masses. Then scientists turned their attention to the consequences of forest and city fires (the so-called “firestorm” effect) caused by fireballs* of nuclear explosions, and in 1983. An ambitious project called TTAPS (after the first letters of the authors' last names: R.P. Turco, O.B Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) was launched. It included a detailed look at smoke and soot from burning oil fields and plastics in bombed-out cities (smoke from such materials absorbs sunlight much more effectively than smoke from burning wood). It was the TTAPS project that gave rise to the term “Nuclear winter”. Subsequently, this ominous hypothesis was developed and supplemented by the scientific communities of American and Soviet scientists. On the Soviet side, it was dealt with by such climatologists and mathematicians as N.N. Moiseev, V.V. Alexandrov, A.M. Tarko.
As researchers suggest, the root cause of nuclear winter will be numerous fireballs caused by explosions of nuclear warheads. These fireballs will cause huge, uncontrollable fires in all cities and forests within their radius. Heating the air above these fires will cause huge columns of smoke, soot and ash to rise to great heights, where they can hover for weeks until they settle to the ground or are washed out of the atmosphere by rain.
Several hundred million tons of ash and soot will be moved by east and west winds until they form a dense, uniform belt of particles covering the entire Northern Hemisphere and stretching from 30° N latitude. up to 60° N (this is where all the major cities are located and almost the entire population of the potential countries participating in the conflict is concentrated). Due to atmospheric circulation, the Southern Hemisphere will then be partially affected.
These thick black clouds screen the earth's surface, preventing 90% of sunlight from reaching it for several months. Its temperature will drop sharply, most likely by 20-40 degrees C. The duration of the coming nuclear winter will depend on the total power of nuclear explosions and in the “hard” version can reach two years. At the same time, the magnitude of the cooling during explosions of 100 and 10,000 Mt differs slightly.
In conditions of complete darkness, low temperatures and radioactive fallout, the process of photosynthesis will practically stop, and most of the earth's vegetation and animal life will be destroyed. In the Northern Hemisphere, many animals will not survive due to lack of food and the difficulty of finding it in the “nuclear night.” In the tropics and subtropics, cold will be an important factor - heat-loving plants and animals will be destroyed by even a short-term drop in temperature. Many species of mammals, all birds, and most reptiles will die out. A sharp jump in the level of ionizing radiation to 500-1000 rad (“radiation shock”) will kill most mammals and birds and cause serious radiation damage to coniferous trees. Giant fires will destroy most of the forests, steppes, and agricultural lands.
Agroecosystems, so important for maintaining human life, will certainly perish. All fruit trees and vineyards will freeze completely, and all farm animals will die. A decrease in the average annual temperature not even by 20° – 40° C, but “only” by 6° – 7° C is equivalent to the complete loss of crops. Even without direct losses from nuclear strikes, this alone would have been the worst disaster that humanity has ever experienced.
Thus, people who survived the first impact will face arctic cold, high levels of residual radiation and general destruction of industrial, medical and transport infrastructure. Together with the cessation of food supplies, the destruction of crops and monstrous psychological stress, this will lead to colossal human losses from hunger, exhaustion and disease. Nuclear winter could reduce the Earth's population by several times and even tens of times, which would mean the actual end of civilization. Even countries in the Southern Hemisphere, such as Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia or Australia, may not escape the same fate, being destroyed despite the fact that not a single warhead exploded on their territory.
The possibility of a nuclear winter was predicted by G.S. Golitsyn in the USSR and Carl Sagan in the USA, then this hypothesis was confirmed by model calculations of the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences. This work was carried out by academician N. N. Moiseev and professors V. V. Aleksandrov and G. L. Stenchikov. A nuclear war will lead to a “global nuclear night” that will last about a year. Hundreds of millions of tons of soil, soot from burning cities and forests will make the sky impenetrable to sunlight. Two main possibilities were considered: a total nuclear explosion yield of 10,000 and 100 Mt. With a nuclear explosion power of 10,000 Mt, the solar flux at the Earth's surface will be reduced by 400 times, the characteristic time for self-cleaning of the atmosphere will be approximately 3-4 months.
With a nuclear explosion power of 100 Mt, the solar flux at the Earth's surface will be reduced by 20 times, the characteristic time for self-cleaning of the atmosphere is about a month. At the same time, the entire climate mechanism of the Earth changes radically, which manifests itself in an exceptionally strong cooling of the atmosphere over the continents (over the first 10 days, the average temperature drops by 15 degrees, and then begins to rise slightly). In some areas of the Earth it will become colder by 30-50 degrees. These works received wide public response in the wide press of different countries. Subsequently, many physicists disputed the reliability and stability of the results obtained, but the hypothesis was not convincingly refuted.
Many are confused by the fact that the theory of language appeared suspiciously “on time”, coinciding in time with the period of the so-called “détente” and “new thinking”, and preceding the collapse of the USSR and its voluntary abandonment of its positions on the world stage. The mysterious disappearance in 1985 added fuel to the fire. in Spain V. Aleksandrov - one of the Soviet developers of the theory of language.
However, opponents of the YaZ theory are not only scientists - mathematicians and climatologists, who discovered significant errors and assumptions in the calculations of K. Sagan and N. Moiseev. Often attacks on language are politically motivated.
This whole story initially gave the impression of a grandiose “psychic attack” launched by the US leadership on the Soviet leadership. Its goal was quite obvious: to force the Soviet leadership to abandon the use of nuclear weapons, which would give the United States a military advantage. If a massive retaliatory or retaliatory nuclear strike leads to a “nuclear winter,” then it is pointless to use it: such a strike would lead to a radical disruption of agriculture, severe crop failures for a number of years, which would cause severe famine even with Soviet strategic food reserves.
Judging by the fact that Marshal of the Soviet Union S.F. Akhromeev recalled that at the end of 1983 at the General Staff at the end of 1983, that is, after the emergence of the concept of “nuclear winter”, its presentation at an unprecedented scientific Soviet-American scientific conference with a direct Moscow-Washington teleconference on October 31 - November 1, 1983 and American exercises Able Archer-83, which began on November 2, 1983 and practiced the conduct of a full-scale nuclear war, began to develop plans for the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons, the “psychic attack” achieved its goal.
American version. She explains the emergence of the YaZ theory by the fact that the ATS had superiority over NATO in conventional weapons in Europe, and therefore it was beneficial for the USSR not to use nuclear weapons in the event of a large-scale war.
It is also alarming that since the end of the Cold War, no attempts have been made to simulate the nucleation effect on modern equipment (such as the Blue Sky supercomputer installed at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research with a peak performance of up to 7 teraflops and an external memory of 31.5 TB). If such research does take place, it is private and does not receive wide publicity, much less government support. All this can speak in favor of the version about the “custom-made” nature of the theory of language.
The world peace movement applauded the concept because it saw it as an argument for complete nuclear disarmament. It has also found some application in grand military strategy, as one of the varieties of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction. The essence of this idea was that none of the opponents in a possible nuclear war would dare to launch a massive strike, since in any case they would be destroyed, if not by nuclear heat, then by the subsequent cold. This was and is one of the pillars of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
Using the concept of “nuclear winter” to argue for nuclear deterrence is far from a safe exercise, for the simple reason that it is self-deception.
Arguing with a concept that has the names of prominent scientists behind it is not an easy task, but in this case it is necessary, because the most important question of military strategy is at stake: to rely on nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, or not.
Forest fires: mathematical model and full-scale tests
So, the concept of “nuclear winter” postulates that in the event of massive nuclear strikes, explosions will set fire to cities and forests (academician N.N. Moiseev based his estimates on the area of forest fires of 1 million sq. km), and only in forests fires will produce about 4 billion tons of soot, which will create clouds impenetrable to sunlight, cover the entire Northern Hemisphere and a “nuclear winter” will begin. Fires in cities will add soot to this.
But to this horror it is worth adding a few comments.
To begin with, it is worth noting that this concept is based on estimates, calculations and mathematical modeling, and it was adopted as a guide for major policy decisions without testing. It seems that absolute trust in scientists played the main role here: they say, if they said it, then it is what it is.
Meanwhile, it is difficult to understand how such a statement could be taken for granted, especially at the level of the Chief of the General Staff. The fact is that every person who has lit a fire or heated a stove with wood at least once in his life knows that wood almost does not smoke when burning, that is, it does not emit soot, unlike rubber, plastics and diesel fuel with kerosene. The main product of wood combustion is carbon dioxide, which is transparent to light. They say that it has a greenhouse effect, so large-scale forest fires could be expected to cause climate warming.
Further, Marshal Akhromeyev had every opportunity to verify the truth of the model with full-scale tests. This could be done in a variety of ways. For example, request data from forest protection agencies whose forests burned every year, and based on measurements of burned forests, find out how much combustible material turned into combustion products and which ones. If the General Staff was not satisfied with such data, then it was possible to conduct an experiment: accurately measure the weight of wood in some area of the forest, then set it on fire (up to a full-scale nuclear test), and during the fire measure whether as much soot was formed as was added into the mathematical model. It was possible to take several experimental sections of the forest and check how it burns in summer and winter, in rain and in clear weather. The season factor was important, since in winter our forests are covered with snow and cannot burn. Of course, it would be a pity to burn a forest, but several thousand hectares is an acceptable price for solving a major strategic issue.
It was not possible to find any information that such tests were carried out.
For example, I.M. doubted the realism of forest fire assessments. Abduragimov, a fire expert who even tried to protest against the concept of “nuclear winter.” According to his estimates, based on the experience of real forest fires, it turned out that with the usual burning of 20% of the combustible material in the forest, a maximum of 200-400 grams of soot per square meter is formed. meter. 1 million sq. kilometers of forest fires will produce a maximum of 400 million tons of soot, which is ten times less than in Moiseev’s model.
Further - more interesting. We carried out full-scale tests of the “nuclear winter” concept during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially severely in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square meters burned. km, that is, 12% of the scale adopted for the “nuclear winter” model. This cannot be dismissed, because if the effect had taken place, it would have manifested itself.
The most interesting thing is that calculations of soot formation in these fires were carried out, published in the journal "Meteorology and Hydrology", No. 7 for 2015. The result was upsetting. In fact, 2.5 grams of soot per square meter was formed. meter of forest fire. Over the entire area of the fires, about 300 thousand tons of soot were formed, which is easy to convert into an estimated million square meters. km - 2.5 million tons, which is 1600 times less than in the “nuclear winter” model. And this was in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when rain did not extinguish the fires, and extinguishing could not cope with the fire.
There was thick smog in the cities, many settlements suffered from fire, there was great damage, and so on, but nothing like a “nuclear winter” came even close. Yes, there was a bad harvest in 2010; then 62.7 million tons of grain were harvested, which is even less than in the previous bad harvest in 2000. But still, with average grain consumption in Russia amounting to 32 million tons per year, we even came out with a good supply of bread, not counting carryover stocks.
So, even if a million square meters burns. km of forests in the event of a nuclear war, “nuclear winter”, agricultural crisis and famine will not occur.
Is it true that burning cities will smoke the sky?
Checking how cities were burning was, of course, more difficult. However, even here the General Staff, which had numerous military construction and sapper units, had the opportunity to build an experimental city, set it on fire and see how it would burn and whether it was true that clouds of soot would cover everything around.
THEM. Abduragimov also disputed estimates of fires in cities, pointing out that the content of combustible material per unit area is greatly overestimated, and that even in the strongest fires it does not burn out completely, but only by about 50%, and besides, a shock wave over a large area will knock down the flames, and the rubble will suffocate the fires.
However, we have the opportunity to look at an example of a city that burned with a blue flame. This is, of course, Dresden during the bombing of February 13-15, 1945. 1,500 tons of high-explosive and 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs were dropped on it on the night of February 13-14, 500 tons of high-explosive and 300 tons of incendiary bombs during the day of February 14, and 465 tons of high-explosive bombs on February 15. Total: 2465 tons of high-explosive and 1500 tons of incendiary bombs. According to the calculations of the British physicist, Baron Patrick Stewart Maynard Blackett, the destructive equivalent of the Hiroshima 18-21 kt uranium bomb was 600 tons of high-explosive bombs. In total, the strike on Dresden was equivalent to 4.1 Hiroshima bombs, that is, up to 86 kt.
It is usually said that most or all of Dresden was destroyed. This is, of course, not true. In 1946, the municipality of Dresden published the brochure "In Dresden wird gebaut und das Gewerbe arbeitet wieder". It provided accurate data on the destruction, since the municipality was required to draw up a plan for the reconstruction of the city. The consequences of the bombing were dramatic. In the center of the city lay a mountain of ruins with a volume of up to 20 million cubic meters, covering an area of 1000 hectares with a height of about two meters. They dug shafts in it to get surviving things, tools, and usable parts of buildings from under the rubble. However, out of 228 thousand apartments in Dresden, 75 thousand were completely destroyed, 18 thousand were severely damaged and unusable. 81 thousand apartments had minor damage. In total, 93 thousand apartments were destroyed, or 40.7% of the existing ones. The area of severe destruction was 15 sq. km.
But what area did Dresden have? This is rarely reported, and one might get the impression that the city was compact. Meanwhile, this is not so. According to the German encyclopedia Der Große Brockhaus, pre-war edition, in 1930 Dresden, together with its suburbs, had an area of 109 sq. km. It was one of the largest cities in Germany. The destruction zone accounted for 13.7% of the city's territory.
Although there was a severe multi-day fire in Dresden, which grew into a “fire storm”, nevertheless, not the entire city burned down, this is the first thing. Secondly, the smoke and soot from the fire in Dresden failed to rise high into the atmosphere and create a dense, stable cloud; after a couple of days the soot was washed away by rain. Thirdly, in Germany 43 large cities were destroyed and burned by bombing. They were located in a fairly compact area, and, presumably, there could have been some influence of smoke from urban fires and military operations on the climate. In any case, the winter of 1945/46 in Germany was very snowy and cold, it was even called the “winter of the century.” Germany, devastated by the war, had a very difficult time, but even the barefoot, naked and homeless Germans, with an extreme shortage of bread and coal, survived it. There were severe droughts in Eastern Europe in 1946 and 1947. But neither the immediate onset of winter in the middle of summer (if we are talking about the bombings of 1944), nor the onset of a long period of cooling was observed.
So the calculations that fires in cities after nuclear explosions will cover the sky with black clouds and cause an immediate onset of sibirische Kälte are clearly not justified by known examples.
Insufficient evidence base.
It is known that even local weather forecasts do not have a very high degree of reliability (no more than 80%). When modeling global climate, it is necessary to take into account an order of magnitude more factors, not all of which were known at the time of the study.
It is difficult to judge how real the constructions of N. Moiseev - K. Sagan are, since we are talking about a simulation model, the connection of which with reality is not obvious. Calculations of atmospheric circulation are still far from perfect, and the computing power, “supercomputers” (BSEM-6, Cray-XMP), which were at the disposal of scientists in the 80s, are inferior in performance even to modern PCs.
The Sagan-Moiseev “nuclear winter” model does not take into account factors such as the release of greenhouse gases (CO2) due to multiple fires, as well as the influence of aerosols on heat loss from the earth’s surface.
It also does not take into account the fact that the planet's climate is a self-regulating mechanism. For example, the greenhouse effect can be compensated by the fact that plants begin to absorb carbon dioxide more intensively. It is difficult to judge what compensatory mechanisms may be activated in the event of the release of huge volumes of ash and dust into the atmosphere. For example, the AZ effect can be “softened” by the high heat capacity of the oceans, the heat of which will not allow convection processes to stop, and dust will fall out a little earlier than calculations showed. Perhaps a change in the Earth's albedo will lead to the fact that it will absorb more solar energy, which, together with the greenhouse effect caused by the release of aerosols, will lead not to cooling, but to heating of the earth's surface (“Venus option”). However, even in this case, one of the protective mechanisms may turn on - the oceans will begin to evaporate more intensely, dust will fall with rain, and the albedo will return to normal.
Many climatologists admit that, theoretically, a nuclear war is possible, but it cannot be a consequence of even a large-scale conflict between Russia and the United States. In their opinion, the entire arsenal of the superpowers is not enough to achieve the required effect. To illustrate this thesis, the explosion of the Krakatoa volcano in 1883 is cited, estimates of the megatonnage of which vary from 150 megatons to several thousand. If the latter is true, then this is quite comparable to a small but intense nuclear war. The volcanic eruption released about 18 km3 of rock into the atmosphere and led to the so-called “year without summer” - a slight decrease in the average annual temperature throughout the planet. But not to the death of civilization, as we know.
So, a comparison of the concept of “nuclear winter” and its foundations with real cases of large-scale urban and forest fires very clearly shows its inconsistency. The kind of soot emission during fires that is included in it simply does not happen. That is why the belief in “nuclear winter” is self-deception, and building a doctrine of nuclear deterrence on this basis is clearly wrong.
This is already quite a serious matter. Believing that a potential enemy will not dare to launch a massive nuclear strike because he himself will die from a “nuclear winter”, one can, after all, miscalculate. If the Americans fabricated this concept for the nuclear disarmament of the Soviet Union, then you can be sure that they themselves have a good understanding of the true state of affairs and are not afraid of a massive nuclear strike. Another thing is that the Americans never expressed their readiness to fight in the style of exchanging crushing blows; they were always interested in achieving an advantage, or even better, the first unpunished strike combined with a guarantee that they would not be hit in advance. The concept of “nuclear winter” works quite well for this. Moreover, to the chagrin of peace activists, this concept did not lead to general nuclear disarmament, and they will have to find other, more effective arguments.