2 ms·

> Their ominous conclusion was that the sooty smoke from burning cities could bring on a "nuclear winter" — months or even years of cold so severe it would grav

> Their ominous conclusion was that the sooty smoke from burning cities could bring on a "nuclear winter" — months or even years of cold so severe it would gravely endanger living creatures. > The scientists did this work mainly for public consumption. When they announced their results in 1983, it was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control. > ... The computer models were so simplified, and the data on smoke and other aerosols were still so poor, that the scientists could say nothing for certain. ... https://history.aip.org/climate/Winter.htm https://history.aip.org/climate/Winter.htm Keep in mind that among the assumptions made here are that a 1D vertical weather model is meaningful when trying to estimate global weather effects from localized emissions and that Western and Russian cities are built mostly from wood, like WW2 Japan.

Retric 5y ago
> When they announced their results in 1983, it was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control. That’s 25+ years after the initial research. “But secret studies supported by the U.S. military suggested that a war's effects on the atmosphere could be quite serious.” I am not saying politics never showed up, but it’s clear the initial research was of a more practical nature as was the 1958 paper. As to the paper you’re referring to: “As a side effect, the studies helped to improve scientific understanding of how aerosols could affect climate.” So it was actually an improvement on existing models. Though science marches on and the debate continued, my understanding is that people found how the early models underestimated a specific issue they investigated and got more concerned. Others would discover areas the model was overestimating impact and investigate that, but overall the models got generally more accurate over time.

Retric 5y ago

> When they announced their results in 1983, it was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control. That’s 25+ years after the initial research. “But secret studies supported by the U.S. military suggested that a war's effects on the atmosphere could be quite serious.” I am not saying politics never showed up, but it’s clear the initial research was of a more practical nature as was the 1958 paper. As to the paper you’re referring to: “As a side effect, the studies helped to improve scientific understanding of how aerosols could affect climate.” So it was actually an improvement on existing models. Though science marches on and the debate continued, my understanding is that people found how the early models underestimated a specific issue they investigated and got more concerned. Others would discover areas the model was overestimating impact and investigate that, but overall the models got generally more accurate over time.