Nuclear winter
22171
224689837
2008-07-09T23:57:46Z
Kransky
815439
made more precise
'''Nuclear winter''' is a [[hypothesis|hypothetical]] global [[climate]] condition that is predicted to be a possible outcome of a large-scale [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]]. It is thought that severely cold weather can be caused by detonating large numbers of [[nuclear weapons]], especially over [[fire|flammable]] targets such as [[city|cities]], where large amounts of [[smoke]] and [[soot]] would be injected into the [[Earth]]'s [[stratosphere]]. The term has also been applied to one of the after-effects of a [[comet]] or [[asteroid impact]]<ref>[http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/comet-caused-nuclear-winter Comet Caused Nuclear Winter]</ref><ref>[http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/05/63613 A Fiery Death for Dinosaurs?]</ref>, also sometimes termed an [[impact winter]], or of a [[supervolcano]] eruption.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/628515.stm Supervolcanoes could trigger global freeze]</ref>
== Mechanism ==
The nuclear winter [[scenario]] predicts that the huge fires caused by nuclear explosions (particularly from burning urban areas) would deliver large quantities of [[aerosol]] particles into the [[stratosphere]], where they could remain for months or years, and which would significantly reduce the amount of [[sunlight]] that reached the surface. The ash and dust would be carried by the midlatitude west-to-east winds, forming a uniform belt of particles encircling the northern hemisphere from 30°N to 60°N [[latitudes]] (assuming most targets in a nuclear exchange are located between these latitudes). The dust clouds would then block out much of the sun's light, causing surface temperatures to drop drastically.
== Consequences of a regional nuclear war==
==== Climatic effects ====
A study presented at the annual meeting of the [[American Geophysical Union]] in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of [[World War II]] and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|Hiroshima]]-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of [[North America]] and [[Eurasia]], including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. <ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211090729.htm Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate], Science Daily, December 11, 2006</ref> <ref>[http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/ The published papers that were first presented at the AGU Meeting.]</ref>
==== Ozone depletion ====
A 2008 study published in the [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science]] found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.<ref>Mills et al., 2008, [http://lasp.colorado.edu/aerosol/mills/2008MillsPNAS_MassiveOzoneLoss.pdf "Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict,"] PNAS, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710058105 doi:10.1073/pnas.0710058105].</ref> The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Column ozone losses could exceed 20% globally, 25-45% at mid-latitudes, and 50-70% at northern high latitudes persisting for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5 additional years. Column ozone amounts would remain near or below 220 [[Dobson unit]]s at all latitudes even after three years, constituting an extra-tropical “ozone hole”. Human health ailments like cataracts and skin cancer, as well as damage to plants, animals and ecosystems at mid-latitudes would likely rise sharply as ozone levels decreased and allowed more harmful UV light to reach Earth, according to the PNAS study. This study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted in the 1980s following a full-scale nuclear war. The missing piece back then was that the models at the time could not account for the rise of the smoke plume and consequent heating of the stratosphere.
==Recent Modelling==
=== 2007 study on global nuclear war ===
A study published in the ''[[Journal of Geophysical Research]]'' in July 2007<ref name="2007abstract">[http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml Abstract on Journal of Geophysical Research website]</ref>, ''Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences''<ref name="2007pdf">[http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf paper available online from Rutgers University website]</ref>, used current climate models to look at the consequences of a global nuclear war involving most or all of the world's current nuclear arsenals (which the authors described as being only about a third the size of the world's arsenals twenty years earlier). The authors used a [[Global climate model|global circulation model]], ModelE from the [[NASA]] [[Goddard Institute for Space Studies]], which they noted "has been tested extensively in global warming experiments and to examine the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate." The model was used to investigate the effects of a war involving the entire current global nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 150 Tg of smoke into the atmosphere (1 [[Kilogram#SI multiples|Tg]] is equal to 10<sup>12</sup> [[gram]]s), as well as a war involving about one third of the current nuclear arsenal, projected to release about 50 Tg of smoke. In the 150 Tg case they found that:
:''A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.''
In addition, they found that this cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global [[Precipitation (meteorology)|precipitation]] by about 45%. As for the 50 Tg case involving 1/3 of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude", but that "the time scale of response is about the same." They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that "this period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."
=== Kuwait wells in the first Gulf War ===
[[Kuwaiti oil fires|The burning of 526 Kuwaiti oil wells]] during the [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]] showed the effects of vast emissions of particulate matter into the atmosphere in a geographically limited area; directly underneath the smoke plume constrained model calculations suggested that daytime temperature may have dropped by ~10°C within ~200 km of the source. <ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351363a0.html;jsessionid=C8A0C7E25D19554C81879A7C5420B60A Environmental effects from burning oil wells in Kuwait] by K. A. Browning, R. J. Allam, S. P. Ballard, R. T. H. Barnes, D. A. Bennetts, R. H. Maryon, P. J. Mason, D. McKenna, J. F. B. Mitchell, C. A. Senior, A. Slingo & F. B. Smith, Nature Publishing Group, 30 May 1991</ref>
Cornell Professor [[Carl Sagan]] of the TTAPS study warned in January of 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book ''The Demon-Haunted World'' that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "it ''was'' pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4°-6°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared." <ref>Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. p. 257.</ref>
The 2007 study discussed above noted that modern computer models have been applied to the Kuwait oil fires, finding that individual smoke plumes are not able to loft smoke into the stratosphere, but that smoke from fires covering a large area, like some forest fires<ref>[http://www.espo.nasa.gov/docs/crystalface/Jost2004.grl.pdf In-situ observations of mid-latitude forest fire plumes deep in the stratosphere]</ref><ref>[http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16641 EO Newsroom: New Images - Smoke Soars to Stratospheric Heights]</ref><ref>[http://www.cpi.com/remsensing/midatm/smoke.html Observations of Boreal Forest Fire Smoke in the Stratosphere]</ref><ref>Fromm et al., 2006, [http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-04%22 Smoke in the Stratosphere: What Wildfires have Taught Us About Nuclear Winter], Eos Trans. AGU,
87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-04</ref> or the burning of cities that would be expected to follow a nuclear strike, would loft significant amounts of smoke into the stratosphere:
:''Stenchikov et al. [2006b]<ref>Stenchikov et al., 2006, [http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-05%22 Regional Simulations of Stratospheric Lofting of Smoke Plumes], Eos Trans. AGU,
87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-05</ref> conducted detailed, high-resolution smoke plume simulations with the RAMS regional climate model [e.g., Miguez-Macho et al., 2005]<ref>[http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_downscaling/GonzaloJC2005.pdf Regional Climate Simulations over North America: Interaction of Local Processes with Improved Large-Scale Flow]</ref> and showed that individual plumes, such as those from the Kuwait oil fires in 1991, would not be expected to loft into the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, because they become diluted. However, much larger plumes, such as would be generated by city fires, produce large, undiluted mass motion that results in smoke lofting. New large eddy simulation model results at much higher resolution also give similar lofting to our results, and no small scale response that would inhibit the lofting [Jensen, 2006].<ref>Jensen, 2006, [http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-06%22 Lofting of Smoke Plumes Generated by Regional Nuclear Conflicts], Eos Trans. AGU,
87(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-06</ref>
== History ==
In 1982 a special issue of the journal [[Ambio]] was devoted to the possible environmental consequences of nuclear war; it included an article by [[Paul Crutzen]] and J. Birks presenting the rudiments of the nuclear winter scenario ("The atmosphere after a nuclear war: Twilight at noon"; Ambio, 11, 114-125). The issue re-assessed and re-affirmed the consequences for the ozone layer noted in the 1975 [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academies of Science]] report (up to 70% of the ozone layer might be destroyed) and first raised by Hampson in 1974;<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v257/n5521/abs/257038a0.html Possible ozone depletions following nuclear explosions]</ref> and drew attention for the first time to the likelihood that large amounts of smoke and dust would be created.
=== TTAPS (1983) ===
In [[1982]] astrophysicist [[Carl Sagan]] and his colleagues undertook a computational modeling study of the atmospheric consequences of [[nuclear war]]. The report was dubbed "TTAPS" study from the initials of the last names of its authors, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and C. Sagan.
In December [[1983]] the "TTAPS" study was published in [[Science magazine|Science]] <ref> [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/222/4630/1283 Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multple Nuclear Explosions], R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack 2, and Carl Sagan, Science, vol. 23, December 1983, Vol. 222. no. 4630, pp. 1283 - 1292 </ref>. The study was partly inspired to write the paper both by the suggestions of one Dr. A.M. Salzberg (who, unlike the TTAPS authors, believed that the initial dust thrown into the air would be primarily responsible for the climate changes) and by cooling effects due to dust storms on [[Mars]] {{Fact|date=April 2008}}. To carry out a calculation of the effect they used a very simplified [[two-dimensional]] model of the Earth's atmosphere that assumed that conditions at a given latitude were constant. The model also assumed a solid, smooth Earth.
=== [[World Climate Research Programme|WCRP]] report (1986) ===
In 1984 the [[World Meteorological Organization|WMO]] commissioned [[Georgii Golitsyn|G. S. Golitsyn]] and N. A. Phillips to review the state of the science. They found that studies generally assumed a scenario that half of the world's nuclear weapons would be used, ~5000 [[Megaton|Mt]], destroying approximately 1,000 cities, and creating large quantities of carbonaceous smoke - 1–2 × 10<sup>14</sup> grams being mostly likely, with a range of 0.2 – 6.4 × 10<sup>14</sup> grams (NAS; TTAPS assumed 2.25 × 10<sup>14</sup>). The smoke resulting would be largely opaque to solar radiation but transparent to infra-red, thus cooling by blocking sunlight but not causing warming from enhancing the [[greenhouse effect]]. The [[optical depth]] of the smoke can be much greater than unity. Forest fires resulting from non-urban targets could increase aerosol production further. Dust from near-surface explosions against hardened targets also contributes; each [[Megaton|Mt]]-equivalent of explosion could release up to 5 million [[ton]]s of dust, but most would quickly fall out; high altitude dust is estimated at 0.1-1 million tons per [[Megaton|Mt]]-equivalent of explosion. Burning of crude oil could also contribute substantially.
The 1-D radiative-convective models used in these studies produced a range of results, with coolings up to 15-42 °C between 14 and 35 days after the war, with a "baseline" of about 20 °C. Somewhat more sophisticated calculations using 3-D [[Global climate model|GCM]]s (Alexandrov and Stenchikov (1983); Covey, Schneider and Thompson (1984); which would be considered primitive by modern standards) produced similar results: temperature drops of between 20 and 40 °C, though with regional variations.
All calculations show large heating (up to 80 °C) at the top of the smoke layer at about 10 km; this implies a substantial modification of the circulation there and the possibility of advection of the cloud into low latitudes and the southern hemisphere.
The report made no attempt to compare the likely human impacts of the post-war cooling to the direct deaths from explosions.
=== TTAPS (1990) ===
In 1990, in a paper entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter" , TTAPS give a more detailed description of the short- and long-term atmospheric effects of a nuclear war using a three-dimensional model:
First 1 to 3 months:
*10 to 25 % of soot injected is immediately removed by precipitation, while the rest is transported over the globe in 1 to 2 weeks
*SCOPE figures for July smoke injection:
**22°C drop in mid-latitudes
**10°C drop in humid climates
**75 % decrease in rainfall in mid-latitudes
**Light level reduction of 0 % in low latitudes to 90 % in high smoke injection areas
*SCOPE figures for winter smoke injection:
**Temperature drops of 3° to 4°C
Following 1 to 3 years:
*25 to 40 % of injected smoke is stabilised in atmosphere (NCAR). Smoke stabilised for approximately 1 year.
*Land temperatures of several degrees below normal
*Ocean surface temperature drops of 2° to 6°C
*Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface.
=== Scientific debate ===
The TTAPS study was widely reported and criticized in the media. Later model runs in some cases predicted less severe effects, but continued to support the overall conclusion of significant global cooling.<ref name="Martin">[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html Nuclear winter: science and politics]</ref> <ref>[http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/NuclearWinter_NL27.htm Does Anybody Remember The Nuclear Winter?]</ref> Recent studies (2006) substantiate that smoke from urban firestorms in a regional war would lead to long lasting global cooling but in a less dramatic manner than the nuclear winter scenario,<ref>[http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/abstract.php?a_id=4762 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD): Abstracts], by O. B. Toon, R. P. Turco, A. Robock, C. Bardeen, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2006.
</ref><ref>[http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/abstract.php?a_id=4763 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD): Abstracts], by A. Robock, L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B. Toon, C. Bardeen, R. P. Turcos, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2006</ref> while a 2007 study of the effects of global nuclear war supported the conclusion that it would lead to full-scale nuclear winter.<ref name="2007abstract">[http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml Abstract on Journal of Geophysical Research website]</ref><ref name="2007pdf">[http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf paper available online from Rutgers University website]</ref>
==Criticism of nuclear winter theory==
===1980s criticisms===
The original work by Sagan and others was criticized as a "myth" and "discredited theory" in the 1987 book [[Nuclear War Survival Skills]], a [[civil defense]] manual by [[Cresson Kearny]] for the [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]].<ref name="ORNL">{{cite book | last=Kearny | first=Cresson | authorlik=Cresson Kearny | title=Nuclear War Survival Skills | date=1987 | pages=17-19 | url=http://www.oism.org/nwss/ | isbn=0-942487-01-X}}</ref> Kearny described nuclear winter mostly as a [[propaganda]] story, and said the maximum estimated temperature drop would be only about by 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and that this amount of cooling would last only a few days (though he did not address the question of whether a lesser amount of global cooling might linger for years, or whether there might be greater localized cooling in agricultural areas, as predicted by the [[Nuclear winter#2007 study on global nuclear war|2007 study]]). He suggested that a global nuclear war would indeed result in millions of deaths from hunger, but primarily due to cessation of international food supplies, rather than due to climate changes.<ref name="ORNL"/>
Kearny, who was not a climate scientist himself, based his conclusions almost entirely on the 1986 paper "Nuclear Winter Reappraised"<ref>{{cite journal | last=Thompson | first=Starley L. | coauthors=Stephen H. Schneider | title=Nuclear Winter Reappraised | journal=Foreign Affairs | volume=62 | issue=Summer 1986 | pages=981–1005| url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19860601faessay7798/starley-l-thompson-stephen-h-schneider/nuclear-winter-reappraised.html}}</ref> by Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider. However, a 1988 article by Brian Martin in ''Science and Public Policy''<ref name="Martin"/> states that although their paper concluded the effects would be less severe then originally thought, with the authors describing these effects as a "nuclear autumn", other statements by Thompson and Schneider<ref>Stephen H. Schneider, letter, ''Wall Street Journal'', 25 November 1986.</ref><ref>'Severe global-scale nuclear war effects reaffirmed', statement resulting from SCOPE-ENUWAR workshop in Bangkok, 9-12 February 1987.</ref> show that they "resisted the interpretation that this means a rejection of the basic points made about nuclear winter". In addition, the authors of the [[Nuclear winter#2007 study on global nuclear war|2007 study]] state that "because of the use of the term 'nuclear autumn' by Thompson and Schneider [1986], even though the authors made clear that the climatic consequences would be large, in policy circles the theory of nuclear winter is considered by some to have been exaggerated and disproved [e.g., Martin, 1988]."<ref name="2007abstract">[http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml Abstract on Journal of Geophysical Research website]</ref><ref name="2007pdf">[http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf paper available online from Rutgers University website]</ref> And in 2007 Schneider emphasized the danger of serious climate changes from a limited nuclear war of the kind analyzed in the [[Nuclear winter#Climatic effects|2006 study below]], saying "The sun is much stronger in the tropics than it is in mid-latitudes. Therefore, a much more limited war [there] could have a much larger effect, because you are putting the smoke in the worst possible place."<ref>[http://cesp.stanford.edu/news/climate_scientist_stephen_schneider_describes_chilling_consequences_of_a_nuclear_war_20070111/index.html Climate scientist Stephen Schneider describes chilling consequences of a nuclear war]</ref>
A 1986 article by Russell Seitz in ''[[The National Interest]]'' reported that prominent physicist [[Freeman Dyson]] said of the TTAPS study that it was "an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight....Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?"<ref name="Seitz">[http://www.beyondweird.com/survival/nkwrmelt.html The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter']</ref> However, the Brian Martin article mentioned above reported that Dyson had no memory of making this comment, and had said "I don't believe I ever said what Russell Seitz said I said, but I can't prove it."<ref name="Martin"/> Seitz also mentioned that the Jan. 23, 1986 issue of [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] included a comment that nuclear winter research "has become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity".<ref name="Seitz"/>
== References ==
* [[Mikhail Budyko|Budyko, M. I.]], [[Georgy Golitsyn|G. S. Golitsyn]], Y. A. Izrael ''Global Climatic Catastrophes'' Springer, 99 pages, September 1988, ISBN 0-387-18647-6
* [[Paul J. Crutzen]] and John W. Birks, ''The Atmosphere After a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon'', Ambio, Vol 11, No 2-3, p 114, 1982.
* [[Georgy Golitsyn|Golitsyn, G.S.]] and Phillips, N.A. [[WCRP]], ''Possible climatic consequences of a major nuclear war'', WCP-113, WMO/TD #99, 1986.
* R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, [[James B. Pollack|J.B. Pollack]], [[Carl Sagan|C. Sagan]], ''Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions'', Science, V. 222, No; 4630, December 23, 1983.
* Mark A. Harwell ''Nuclear Winter: The Human and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War'' Springer, 179 pages , November 1984, ISBN 0-387-96093-7
* Mills, Michael J., Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Douglas E. Kinnison, Rolando R. Garcia, 2008, [http://lasp.colorado.edu/aerosol/mills/2008MillsPNAS_MassiveOzoneLoss.pdf "Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict,"] PNAS, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710058105 doi:10.1073/pnas.0710058105].
* [[Nikita Moiseyev|N. N. Moiseev]], ''Man, nature and the future of civilization: "nuclear winter" and the problem of a "permissible threshold"'' Novosti Press Agency Pub. House, Moscow, 92 pages, January 1986, {{ASIN|B0007B9FHG}}
* [http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/~env00007 Guide to Nuclear Winter Study Papers, 1972-1993. [[Lawrence Livermore Laboratory]]]
* Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Owen B. Toon, Charles Bardeen, and Richard P. Turco, 2007a: [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-2003-2007.pdf Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts.] ''Atm. Chem. Phys.'', '''7''', 2003-2012.
* Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007b: [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences.] ''J. Geophys. Res.'', '''112''', D13107, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008235 doi:10.1029/2006JD008235].
* Toon, Owen B., Richard P. Turco, Alan Robock, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007a: [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism.] ''Atm. Chem. Phys.'', '''7''', 1973-2002.
* Toon, Owen B., Alan Robock, Richard P. Turco, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov, 2007b: [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/SciencePolicyForumNW.pdf Consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts.] ''Science'', '''315''', 1224-1225.
* Turco, R.P., Toon, A.B., Ackerman, T.P., Pollack, J.B., Sagan, C. (TTAPS) (1990) "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter", Science, volume 247, pp. 167-168, January.
===Footnotes===
{{reflist}}
==See also==
*[[Nuclear weapon]]
*[[Doomsday device]]
*[[Nuclear summer]]
*[[Volcanic winter]]
*[[Asteroid impact]]
*[[Supervolcano]]
==External links==
* [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War], the 1983 study conducted by TTAPS.
* [http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie6.shtml Nuclear Winter Simulation Animation]
* [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/ New studies of climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflict] from [http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock Alan Robock], including links to new studies published in 2007.
[[Category:Nuclear weapons]]
[[Category:Climatology]]
[[Category:Climate forcing agents]]
[[Category:Environmental disasters]]
[[Category:Environmental issues with nuclear technology]]
[[cs:Nukleární zima]]
[[da:Atomvinter]]
[[de:Nuklearer Winter]]
[[es:Invierno nuclear]]
[[fr:Hiver nucléaire]]
[[it:Inverno nucleare]]
[[he:חורף גרעיני]]
[[lv:Kodolziema]]
[[lt:Branduolinė žiema]]
[[hu:Nukleáris tél]]
[[nl:Nucleaire winter]]
[[ja:核の冬]]
[[no:Atomvinter]]
[[pl:Zima nuklearna]]
[[pt:Inverno Nuclear]]
[[ru:Ядерная зима]]
[[sk:Nukleárna zima]]
[[sv:Kärnvapenvinter]]
[[tr:Nükleer Kış]]
[[zh:核冬天]]