If
nuclear winter research is not scientific, then why are the Russians having a conference about geoengineering?
The book Comrade J quotes the «physicist» Russell Seitz who claims
that nuclear winter research is based on «a notorious lack of scientific integrity» (176).
I hope the «Russian server» will turn out to be some trap set for the hackers; but when I see the brazen disinformation called an FBI white paper, I feel scared.The FBI should consult scientists and historians of science who have researched the history of
nuclear winter research; instead, their expert is a KGB defector who makes up a vague conspiracy theory about climate scientists and the history of nuclear winter when many facts are known and published.
Unfortunately, one is left with the impression that the original
nuclear winter research was wrong.
Not exact matches
Instead of trashing real climate scientists who study
nuclear winter as stooges of KGB manipulation, maybe the FBI should see if the Wegman fiasco might be an actual example of their observation that «foreign researchers may be under pressure to make their
research conclude what their government wants it to conclude, or they may be ordered to write completely fabricated studies.»
After a bit of
research I realized that the amount of heat (while awesome) was pathetically small and that, by comparing it to volcanoes, instead of warming we would get cooling from the dust throw up (this was before
Nuclear Winter was put forward as a compelling reason against limited nuclea
Nuclear Winter was put forward as a compelling reason against limited
nuclearnuclear war).
, lightning related insurance claims, Lyme disease, Malaria, malnutrition, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane burps, melting permafrost, migration, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, more bad air days, more
research needed, mountains break up, mudslides, next ice age, Nile delta damaged, no effect in India,
nuclear plants bloom, ocean acidification, outdoor hockey threatened, oyster diseases, ozone loss, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, pests increase, plankton blooms, plankton loss, plant viruses, polar tours scrapped, psychosocial disturbances, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainfall reduction, refugees, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rift on Capitol Hill, rivers raised, rivers dry up, rockfalls, rocky peaks crack apart, Ross river disease, salinity reduction, Salmonella, sea level rise, sex change, ski resorts threatened, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall reduction, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, spectacular orchids, tectonic plate movement, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tree beetle attacks, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, tropics expansion, tsunamis, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, wars over water, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20 % of increase), weeds, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, white Christmas dream ends, wildfires, wine — harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine — more English, wine — no more French, wind shift,
winters in Britain colder, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, Yellow fever.
The bit of
research that Sagan did that made an impact was the TTAPS «
Nuclear Winter» study, which was arguably an example of political activism more than climate modeling.
Indeed, the FBI white paper is smearing climate scientists who
research nuclear winter.
The paper even suggests that famous climate scientists who
researched nuclear winter are KGB dupes.
I think he was committed to his
research on
nuclear winter, so he was killed by the KGB.
Gorbachev credits the arms reductions he negotiated to Russian and US
research about
nuclear winter.
al., 1994), and one piece of original
research, a 1988 paper on «
nuclear winter» (Singer, 1988).
We had transparency and replication of climate science
research — but lost them when climate science was politicized (which I somewhat arbitrarily date to the publication of «
Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions ``, Carl Sagan et al, Science, December 1983 (for an analysis of this sorry spectacle see «Nuclear winter: science and politics ``, Brian Martin, Science and Public Policy, October
Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple
Nuclear Explosions ``, Carl Sagan et al, Science, December 1983 (for an analysis of this sorry spectacle see «
Nuclear winter: science and politics ``, Brian Martin, Science and Public Policy, October
winter: science and politics ``, Brian Martin, Science and Public Policy, October 1988).
The white paper was written by someone who didn't
research nuclear winter at all.
The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous «
nuclear winter» and «ultraviolet spring» scenario calculations following
nuclear conflicts -LSB-...] A 1985 National
Research Council Report predicted a global
nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere's stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.