The concept of "Nuclear winter. “Nuclear winter” is a bigger threat than we thought

The Earth's temperature will rise sharply.

Sudden and prolonged cold snaps do not necessarily mean human extinction. This follows from the fact that, for example, Finland has about a decade of food plus fuel in the form of forests, stoves, and skills to survive in low temperatures. For all humans to truly die, a nuclear winter would have to last over a hundred years and be accompanied by Antarctic temperatures, but given human adaptability, even that might not be enough. (Of course, if nuclear winter is the only adverse factor, which is not true.)

The most recent research on the climate consequences of a full-scale nuclear war is published in Alan Robock et al., "Nuclear Winter in the Current Climate Model with Existing Nuclear Stockpiles: Consequences Still Catastrophic." The article provides an overview of previous research and reasonable options for expected soot emissions. The calculation is based on a modern meteorological model tested on other applications.

The result is that in a full-scale war with modern (that is, reduced since the Cold War) nuclear arsenals, the average temperature drop across the entire Earth will be about 7 degrees over several years, and the effects of nuclear winter will be felt for about 10 years. The time for the upper troposphere to be cleared of soot will be 4.6 years. At the same time, over the continents, the temperature will drop by up to 30 degrees, and in particular, there will be no positive temperatures over Ukraine for three years. All this will make it impossible to conduct classical agriculture almost all over the Earth for several years. On the other hand, over tropical islands (Cuba, Madagascar, Sri Lanka), the temperature drop will be only a few (5–7) degrees. Obviously, a significant number of people could survive such a cold snap. However, such a situation may provoke a struggle for the remaining resources, which will increase the risks of further catastrophes. A series of large volcanic eruptions (volcanic ash escapes the troposphere with a characteristic time of 1 year) could produce the same effect.

Given the uncertainty in the models, as well as the possibility of a protracted nuclear war and other causes of atmospheric dimming, we can assume the following theoretical options for a nuclear winter:

1) Temperature drop by one degree, which has no significant effect on the human population. As after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

2) "Nuclear Autumn"- several years of temperatures lowered by 2-4 degrees, crop failures, hurricanes.

3) "Year without summer"- Intense but relatively short cold during the year, the death of a significant part of the crop, starvation and frostbite in some countries. This has already happened after major volcanic eruptions in the 6th century AD, in 1783 and in 1815.

4) "Ten Year Nuclear Winter"- a drop in temperature throughout the Earth for 10 years by 30-40 degrees. This scenario is implied by nuclear winter models. Snowfall over most of the Earth, with the exception of some equatorial coastal areas. Mass deaths of people from hunger, cold, and also because snow will accumulate and form many meters thick, destroying buildings and blocking roads. Most of the world's population will die, but millions of people will survive and keep key technologies. The risks are the continuation of the war for warm places, unsuccessful attempts to warm the Earth with the help of new nuclear explosions and artificial volcanic eruptions, the transition to uncontrolled heating of the nuclear summer.

However, even if this scenario is allowed, it turns out that the world's stock of cattle (which will freeze on farms and be stored in such natural "refrigerators") will be enough for years to feed all of humanity.

5) New Ice Age. It is the result of the previous scenario due to the fact that the reflectivity of the Earth will increase from a large amount of snow and new ice caps will begin to grow from the poles and down to the equator. However, part of the land near the equator will remain suitable for life and agriculture. As a result, civilization will have to change radically. (It is also hard to imagine huge migrations of peoples without wars.) Many species of living beings will die out, but most of the diversity of the biosphere will survive, although people will destroy it even more ruthlessly in search of at least some food.

6) Irreversible global cooling. It could be the next phase of the ice age - in the worst case scenario. On the whole Earth, for a geologically long time, a temperature regime will be established, as in Antarctica, the oceans will freeze, the land will be covered with a thick layer of ice. (Or like on Mars - a cold, dry desert. By the way, if all greenhouse gases from the Earth's atmosphere disappear, then the equilibrium surface temperature will be minus 23 degrees Celsius.) Life will survive only near geothermal sources on the seabed. Only a high-tech civilization capable of building huge structures under the ice would be able to survive such a disaster, but such a civilization could probably find a way to reverse this process. The last time the Earth entered this state was about 600 million years ago, that is, before the emergence of animals on land, and was able to get out of it only due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. At the same time, there have been four regular glaciations in the last 100,000 years. Finally, in the event that the Sun ceased to shine at all, the worst outcome would be the transformation of the entire atmosphere into liquid nitrogen, which looks absolutely incredible.

Although options 5 and 6 are among the most unlikely, they carry the greatest risk. These options could be possible with an extraordinarily large soot emission and with the worst scenario of natural patterns unknown to us. However, it should be noted that the exact probability and duration of a nuclear winter and its consequences are not computable, for reasons discussed in the Uncomputability chapter. This is because, by definition, we cannot set up an experiment, and also determine exactly how much Moiseev and Sagan were interested in exaggerating the danger of nuclear winter in order to avoid war.

If a certain force set out to arrange a nuclear winter on purpose, then it could organize it by detonating hydrogen bombs in coal mines. This will probably give an immeasurably greater release of soot than an attack on cities. If you install hydrogen bombs with a timer for different periods, then you can maintain a nuclear winter indefinitely. Theoretically, in this way it is possible to achieve a stable state of a “white cold ball”, reflecting all sunlight, with the complete freezing of the oceans, which will become a self-sustaining state.

On the other hand, when the soot settles, the Earth will probably turn black, and its ability to heat up in the sun's rays will increase dramatically. Such a nuclear summer can also become irreversible (taking into account other factors of global warming) with the transition to the "Venusian" phase of heating.

There are other factors that could lead to a nuclear summer after or instead of a nuclear winter. For example, the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases during explosions. A nuclear summer is much more dangerous than a nuclear winter, since a person tolerates cooling more easily than heating (that is, if we take room temperature as 20 degrees, then a person can tolerate frost outside at minus 50, that is, 70 degrees lower, but he can withstand the rise temperatures no more than 30 degrees, that is, no more than 50 degrees Celsius outside). In addition, heating systems work individually (wood plus a stove), while refrigerators require a stable centralized infrastructure (refrigerator production plus electricity). Storing food with a sharp warming will become impossible - they will rot and burn. Therefore, if humanity has a choice, then it should choose a global winter, not a global summer.

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 my head, dilapidated cities, lack of sunlight and the complete absence of civilization in the form familiar to us. What can cause such a thing? Is our future a nuclear winter? Can this really happen or is this picture just a figment of the imagination of the authors and directors? Let's start to deal with this issue in order.

Introduction

First of all, we note that a large, one might even say, the vast majority of the population of our planet is confident that the photos of nuclear winter, which are provided in books, magazines, on the Web, and other sources describing this phenomenon, are a true prediction of the future. The people believe that this can happen to the world because of the nuclear bombardment. There are a number of official interpretations of how nature, climate and other components of the biosphere will behave if the Third World War happens. 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 they frighten us, there are certain formulas and calculations that allow us to calculate mathematically all the consequences of the atomic bombing. Having done this, one can be convinced that the myth of nuclear winter is nothing but a "greatly exaggerated truth", or, to put it simply, a horror story. Of course, it would be foolish to deny the fact that such a weapon would not be able to harm humanity. The damage will be tangible, but far from what it is described in most books and films.

The 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 lifting of huge amounts of smoke and soot into the atmosphere, sunlight will begin to reflect from the Earth's surface with greater intensity. It turns out that the consequence of a 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, a new ice age will come.

For the first time, the fact that this is a nuclear winter, why everything should be exactly like this and what other consequences this phenomenon may have, was established in the second half of the 20th 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 consequences arising from it were described by the Soviet scientist Georgy Golitsyn and the American researcher. Subsequently, the model developed by them was confirmed by the Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the laboratory, a model of the biosphere called "Gaia" was constructed. Based on the experiments that were 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 near the Earth's surface will be reduced by 400 times. In this scenario, 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. A nuclear winter will mean that the atmosphere will become very cold over the continents, the air temperature over the surfaces known to us will fall first by 15 degrees, and then by 25-30.

More about the weather

The key problem of nuclear winter, the researchers noted the fact that the smog and smoke that will be in the air after the numerous explosions of warheads and fires resulting from the bombing will literally obscure our planet from the effects of sunlight. Thus, ultraviolet will not be able to hit the Earth in the amount in which it hits now. First of all, this will cause not only a nuclear winter, it will be the beginning of a nuclear night that will last several months. Secondly, an insufficient amount of ultraviolet radiation will negatively affect photosynthesis in plants, therefore, the composition of oxygen that we are used to will be disturbed. This will entail epidemics and the extinction of hundreds of species of plants and animals, as well as the death of people.

What will happen after

The most important consequence of a nuclear winter is the disruption of the entire biosphere. Climate change will radically "clean up" the ranks of flora and fauna, 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 over the planet clears and the Sun can begin to warm up its surface, it will take a huge amount of time to correct what happened. The effect of nuclear winter will last more than one generation, moreover, even after the normalization of the situation, the climate will no longer be the same, but will have new properties.

Several options for the development of events

Well, now we propose to imagine that nuclear winter has come. What can be expected from such a man-made natural phenomenon? How deplorable will the state of the climate be? Will the nuclear winter end quickly, or will it last for several hundred years? The options will be presented in ascending order, from the most "positive" outcome to the most sad:

A global 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, it will last for several years. The forecast is characterized by bad weather, hurricanes, 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 cataclysm, but an atomic explosion. Almost all the earth, with the exception of the equator, will be covered with snow. People will continue to fight for warm territories. There will also be attempts to "warm" the planet with additional nuclear explosions, which will entail the onset of a nuclear summer. However, the food supply for humanity is enough 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 map.
Irreversible cold. This is the worst case scenario. It involves the establishment of an Antarctic climate throughout the Earth, the freezing of oceans and continents. Only the civilization that will settle under the ice near geothermal springs will be able to survive.

Why do they think that 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 is so named because of record low temperatures, even during the hot season. In the United States, 1816 was nicknamed "one thousand eight hundred to death frozen", and from the beginning of recorded history of mankind to the present, this was indeed the coldest time.

At that time, people did not know 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 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. Smoke and smog, which were formed during this lithospheric process, moved by wind currents to the region of the Northern Hemisphere, forming a short-term cyclone there, called volcanic winter.

Later life of the theory

The eruption was an epochal event. Humanity has not seen such natural phenomena before for many centuries, and so far such cataclysms have not been encountered. Nevertheless, such a large-scale eruption of a huge volcano caused only an abnormal cooling, and not even all over the world. The weather, atypical for summer, 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 prediction of the near future of mankind. Despite the fact that their theory was repeatedly criticized and destructured, they could not officially refute it.

Modern official version

Based on the work of Sagan and Golitsyn, modern American scientists have made the so-called updated calculations. They once again confirmed the concept of atomic winter due to the widespread explosions of nuclear warheads, and here are the numbers that were released during the new experiment. If a war breaks out between India and Pakistan, the strategic nuclear reserves of these powers will be enough to release 6.6 million tons of soot into the atmosphere. According to the researchers, this amount of soot will be enough for 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, then more than 150 megatons of soot will be thrown into the atmosphere. This will cause the beginning of a new ice age, comparable in its weather conditions to the Pleistocene era. We have 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 of all that exist 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 atomic winter theory is Fred Singer, who not only publishes his work, but also enters into scientific discussions with Sagan. It is worth emphasizing that it does not simply "soften" the forecast, but brings the opposite results of the outcome of such a war. He believes that after numerous nuclear explosions there will not be a cooling, but a greenhouse effect. Its impact on the biosphere will not be so deplorable, the climate will return to normal after a short period of time.

Singer emphasizes that the researchers concluded that the essence of nuclear winter is the disruption of the biosphere, which will entail a radical change in the climate, and nuclear contamination of the air. But all this is a fairy tale, made up of ignorance of the structural features of nuclear weapons. He presented the myths on this topic separately and refuted each one. Let's study them.

Myth 1 - Nuclear weapons can pierce 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, forms a funnel with a diameter of about 1.5 km, and at the same time its depth will be 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 to 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 get specific numbers. 100% of the population will die within a 4 km radius of the explosion. Another 80% will be affected at a distance of 7.5 km from the strong destruction of buildings, in other words, under the 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 whatever you want. This is how Sagan depicts the aftermath of a nuclear attack - with widespread climate change in the course of "blocking" sunlight and an excess of 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 the effect of night 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 “shoot” on forest areas, since a forest fire even on enemy territory is a harm to the entire planet. Secondly, fires in modern cities, which are built of metal-plastic, and not of wood, are a myth. The twin towers blown up in 2001 served as proof of this. They did not burn, but smoked for long hours. Well, and most importantly, the Earth simply cannot ignite like a match everywhere. In some regions, fog will stop the fire, in others - rain, in others - 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 an atomic winter without the sensational sign "Caution! Radiation!" and without people who despondently wander through the desert land with destroyed buildings in gas masks. This concept has been fed to us for decades, but, as it turned out, it is fundamentally different from reality, and there is even an obvious example of this. These are the already mentioned islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which suffered from very powerful and destructive atomic warheads. At that time, 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 and did not become infected with radiation - they continued to live and bore healthy offspring. Today, these Japanese cities are alive and well, and nothing in them hints at the post-apocalyptic conditions that were observed there in 45.

In practice, let's say that modern warheads contain mainly short-lived isotopes. After 7 hours after the explosion, the degree of radiation 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 corners of the world so radioactive that the background there is much higher than the 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 claimed the lives of people, but also pretty much spoiled the biosphere. But are nuclear missiles really capable of wiping out all life from the face of the planet? If this were true, then even the warring countries would know that having destroyed the enemy in this way, they would not be able to populate his territory.

Talk about total nuclear disarmament began around the same time as the concept of atomic winter. All this propaganda was introduced in order to set humanity in a pacifist way, to disarm the main powers that have such a potential, and to eliminate the chances of another skirmish between nations.

There is also a less "humane" version. It tells that the United States founded the nuclear disarmament program 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 fell apart and became less terrible in the eyes of America.

Conclusion

Having studied the official theory, having learned about its truths and untruths, having familiarized ourselves with the photo of nuclear winter, we understand that there are still many mysteries in this matter. Answers to them are kept only in narrow government circles, but they will never descend to the masses. We can only hope not that there will never be a nuclear bombardment, in principle, but as a consequence, there will be no atomic 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 one of the forms of humanism. Humanity is now very educated and comprehensively developed, so it would be extremely stupid and unreasonable to fight and destroy each other.

According to generally accepted estimates, as a result of the removal into the stratosphere of a large amount of smoke and soot from extensive fires caused by the explosion of 30-40% of nuclear warheads accumulated in the world, as a result of a significant increase in the amount of reflected sunlight, the temperature on the planet will drop to arctic everywhere. Such a change in the climatic conditions of life on Earth is called nuclear winter.

The severity of a nuclear winter depends on the following factors:
1. The amount of soot that would be produced and released into the troposphere in the event of a large-scale nuclear war.
2. Effect of soot on the temperature of the Earth.
3. Time spent by soot in the upper atmosphere.
4. Effect of cooling on human survival.

1. A drop in temperature of one degree per year, which does not have a significant impact on the human population (as after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991).

2. "Nuclear autumn" - a decrease in temperature by 2-4 ° C for several years; crop failures, hurricanes.
3. "A year without summer" - intense but relatively short cold during the year, the death of a significant part of the crop, starvation and death of people from the cold in some countries. This has already happened after major volcanic eruptions in the 6th century AD. e., in 1783, in 1815.

"Ten-year nuclear winter" - a drop in temperature throughout the Earth for 10 years by about 30 - 40 ° C. This scenario is implied by nuclear winter models. Snowfall on most of the planet, with the exception of some equatorial coastal areas. Mass deaths of people from hunger, cold, and also from the fact that snow will accumulate and form many meters thick, destroying buildings and blocking roads.

Most of the world's population will die, but millions of people will survive and keep key technologies. Risks: continuation of the war for warm places, unsuccessful attempts to warm our planet with the help of new nuclear explosions and artificial volcanic eruptions, the transition to uncontrolled heating of the nuclear summer. However, even if this scenario is allowed, it will turn out that the world stock of cattle alone (which will freeze on their farms and be stored in such natural "refrigerators") will be enough for years of feeding all mankind, and Finland has a strategic stock of food (grain) for 10 years.
New Ice Age.

It is a hypothetical continuation of the previous scenario, in a situation where the reflectivity of the Earth increases due to snow, and new ice caps begin to grow from the poles down to the equator. However, part of the land near the equator remains suitable for life and agriculture. As a result, civilization will have to change radically. It is difficult to imagine huge migrations of peoples without wars. Many species of living creatures will die out, but a significant part of the biosphere will survive, although people will destroy it even more ruthlessly in search of at least some food. People have already survived several ice ages, which could start very abruptly as a result of eruptions of supervolcanoes and asteroid falls (the eruption of the Toba volcano, the Elatin comet catastrophe).

6. Irreversible global cooling. It could be the next phase of the Ice Age (worst case scenario). On the entire planet, for a geologically long time, a temperature regime will be established, as in Antarctica, the oceans will freeze, the land will be covered with a thick layer of ice.

Only a high-tech civilization capable of building huge structures under the ice could survive such a disaster, but such a civilization could probably find a way to reverse this process. Life can only survive near geothermal springs on the seabed. The last time the Earth entered this state was about 600 million years ago, that is, before the emergence of animals on land, and was able to get out of it only due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

7. Finally, in the event that the Sun ceased to shine at all, the worst outcome would be the transformation of the entire atmosphere into liquid nitrogen.

Integration of damaging factors of weapons

A moderate nuclear winter, accompanied by moderate radioactive damage, can produce a "synergistic" effect that surpasses even the most powerful nuclear winter taken in isolation.

For example, as already mentioned, in the case of a “clean” nuclear winter, people will be able to eat for many years cattle that have frozen in their stalls and are well preserved. In the case of radioactive contamination, this will not be possible. Blast waves around the world will destroy houses, and where they remain, glass will be shattered, and this will make it more difficult to protect against radiation and cold.

It will be dangerous to drown with radioactive forest. These factors will be intensified by the destruction of the most valuable infrastructure facilities due to the direct action of the damaging factors of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear winter as a weapon

It can be assumed that if a certain force sets out to arrange an artificial nuclear winter, then it can organize it by detonating hydrogen bombs in coal mines or in the taiga. This will probably give an immeasurably greater release of soot than an attack on cities. If you install hydrogen bombs with a timer for different periods, then you can maintain a nuclear winter indefinitely. Theoretically, in this way it is possible to achieve a stable self-sustaining state of a “white cold ball”, reflecting all sunlight, with the complete freezing of the oceans.

The initiation of a supervolcano eruption with the help of nuclear weapons will also lead to an analogue of "nuclear winter" - to a volcanic winter. Attempts by people to correct the situation with the help of an artificially created nuclear winter or nuclear summer can only exacerbate the problems due to the transition of the climate to buildup mode.

Separately, we can single out the theory of nuclear summer, which suggests that after a nuclear winter, and maybe instead of it, there will be a significant increase in the Earth's temperature, which can dangerously add up to the already existing effect of global warming, transferring it to a supercritical stage with an increase in temperature by tens of degrees . Factors that can lead to nuclear flight: soot deposition on glaciers; the formation of nitrogen oxides during explosions that destroy the ozone layer and lead to the extinction of vegetation that absorbs carbon dioxide; albedo change due to desertification and release of carbon dioxide during fires.

In addition, the barrier that prevents water vapor from entering the stratosphere will stop working, and then when it turns on again, tens of billions of tons of water will be trapped in the stratosphere, and they can create a greenhouse effect of an additional 8 ° C in magnitude, as Ronald argues in his article "Nuclear Winter and Other Scenarios". In addition, he suggests that nuclear winter can be used as a weapon, with the winner being the country with the most food and the best warm shelter.

A nuclear summer is much more dangerous than a nuclear winter, since a person tolerates cooling more easily than heating (that is, if we take room temperature as 20 ° C, then a person tolerates frost on the street at -50 ° C, that is, 70 ° C lower, but can withstand a temperature rise of no more than 30 ° C, that is, no higher than 50 ° C. In addition, heating systems can work autonomously (surviving forests as a source of firewood + stove), and refrigerators require a stable centralized infrastructure (production of refrigerators + electricity Storing food during a sudden warming will become extremely difficult - they will rot, be spoiled by pests or burn. Thus, a nuclear summer creates a much greater risk of extinction than a nuclear winter.

The peculiarity of global infection is that it is able to spread evenly over the entire surface of the Earth and penetrate everywhere due to the natural convection of the atmosphere, and also that it is so long that it cannot be waited out in autonomous shelters that currently exist.

The most well-known scenario of this kind is the use of cobalt bombs, that is, bombs with an increased yield of radioactive substances. Cobalt bombs are hydrogen bombs surrounded by a shell of cobalt-59, which turns into the radioactive isotope cobalt-601. The project of a bomb capable of infecting entire continents was proposed by Leo Szilard in 1950. Cobalt-60 has a half-life of 5.26 years, so the pollution it creates will be long lasting and difficult to bunker.

Subsequently, many physicists disputed the reliability and stability of the results obtained, but the hypothesis did not receive a convincing refutation.

Modern calculations

In modern works of 2007, 2008. a step forward in comparison with the pioneers of these studies. Computer simulations show that a small nuclear war, where each belligerent uses about 50 charges, each of which is as powerful as a bomb detonated over Hiroshima, detonating them in the atmosphere over cities, will have an unprecedented climate effect comparable to the Little Ice Age. By the way, 50 charges is about 0.3% of the current world arsenal (2009).

According to the calculations of American scientists Owen Tun and Richard Turco, the Indo-Pakistani war using warheads with a total capacity of 750 kt would lead to the release of 6.6 Mt (6.6 million tons) of soot into the stratosphere. This degree of pollution is enough for the temperature on Earth to drop lower than in 1816 ("The Year Without Summer"). An exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the United States using 4400 charges with a capacity of no more than 100 kt each would lead to the release of 150 Mt of soot, while the calculation model used shows that already 75 Mt of soot in the stratosphere will lead to an instantaneous drop in the value of the energy flux per m² of the earth's surface , a 25 percent reduction in precipitation and a temperature drop below Pleistocene ice age values. Such a picture would persist for at least 10 years, which would lead to catastrophic consequences for agriculture.

Criticism

The concept of "nuclear winter" is based on long-term models of climate change. At the same time, detailed numerical and laboratory modeling of the initial stage of development of large-scale fires has shown that the effect of atmospheric pollution has both local and global consequences. Based on the results obtained, a conclusion was made about the possibility of a nuclear winter (Muzafarov, Utyuzhnikov, 1995, work under the direction of A. T. Onufriev at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology). Opponents of the concept of "nuclear winter" referred to the fact that during the "nuclear race" in - biennium. around 2,000 nuclear explosions of varying power in the atmosphere and underground were made in the world. Together, in their opinion, this is equal to the effect of a protracted full-scale nuclear conflict. In this sense, the "nuclear war" has already taken place without leading to a global environmental catastrophe. However, the fundamental differences between nuclear testing and exchange of strikes are that:

The tests were carried out over the desert or water and did not cause massive fires and firestorms, dust was raised into the atmosphere only due to the energy of a nuclear explosion, and not the energy accumulated in combustible materials, for the release of which a nuclear explosion is only a "match".
During the tests, mainly heavy dust was raised from crushed and melted rocks, which has a high density and a high mass-to-area ratio, that is, it is prone to rapid settling. Soot from fires has a lower density and a more developed surface, which allows it to stay in the air longer and rise higher with updrafts.
The tests were extended over time, and in the event of war, dust and soot would be thrown into the air at once.

At the same time, according to opponents of the “nuclear winter” concept, such calculations do not take into account the counterforce scenarios of a nuclear conflict developed back in the 1960s. We are talking about options for conducting military operations, when only enemy launchers are the targets for nuclear strikes, and nuclear weapons are not used against its cities.

The release of soot into the stratosphere as the cause of a "nuclear winter" has also been criticized as an unlikely event. When a modern city is hit, the soot emission is calculated according to the principle of using a forest fire scheme, taking into account the much larger amount of fuel that exists in the same area. An example is the bombing of German and Japanese cities during World War II ("Firestorm"). Such a model, of course, assumes multiple ignition sources in intact structures. Since the flame during a fire spreads much faster vertically than horizontally, standing buildings form favorable conditions for the outbreak of massive fires. The article by I. M. Abduragimov “On the failure of the concept of “nuclear night” and “nuclear winter” due to fires after a nuclear defeat” harshly criticizes the amount of soot that will be released as a result of a full-scale nuclear war. In a forest fire, on average, only 20% of the combustible mass burns out, of which only half is pure carbon by mass, and most of this carbon burns completely, that is, without the formation of coal particles. At the same time, only part of the soot will be so finely dispersed that it can hang in the troposphere and darken the Earth. In order to transport this soot to the troposphere, where it can “hang” due to the lack of convection there, a specific phenomenon is needed - a fiery tornado (since the nuclear mushroom ball itself, passes high into the troposphere, has such a high temperature that all soot particles in it burn out). A fiery tornado is not formed in all nuclear explosions, in particular, it should not be formed in modern cities (for example, in the cities of the former USSR, built in such a way as to avoid this effect during conventional, non-nuclear bombing). In addition, it dramatically improves combustion, like bellows in a smelter, due to which there is much less soot in it. These features distinguish the soot released during a fire from ordinary volcanic dust, which is literally shot into the stratosphere from the mouth of a volcano. The power of thermonuclear weapons is so great that when a modern city is hit, the surface melts and "levels itself with the ground", thereby burying the flammable material under the fireproof remains of buildings. However, some industrial bombing sites, such as oil storage facilities, can be sources of significant amounts of soot in the atmosphere, which can lead to undesirable local effects, as happened during the 1991 Gulf War. The temperature in the Persian Gulf fell by 4-6 degrees, but contrary to the models that existed at the time, the smoke did not rise above 6 km and did not penetrate the stratosphere.

Later supporters of Sagan's theory explained this by saying that his model was based on the more rapid formation of soot, which would create conditions for its penetration into the stratosphere. However, in all known cases of the occurrence of significant ash emissions into the atmosphere, as in the case of "fire tornadoes" in the European theater of the Second World War or a similar phenomenon in Hiroshima (when the city caught fire due to numerous kitchen fires in damaged buildings, since the majority of the population at that time time used coal stoves), the smoke did not rise above the troposphere (5-6 km) and the soot was washed out by rains for several days after that (in Hiroshima this phenomenon was called " black rain"). The data obtained during the observation of forest fires also do not confirm the possibility of a significant amount of soot penetrating into the stratosphere. The phenomenon of soot entering the high troposphere is more often observed in hot subtropical regions and, at the same time, in small amounts that cannot seriously affect surface temperature. Even if we assume that nuclear weapons will be used in the tropics, the likelihood of fires there is much less than in the middle latitudes, due to high humidity. During nuclear tests on the Bikini and Eniwetok atolls, fires did not occur precisely for this reason.

Even if we assume that the release of 150 Mt of soot into the stratosphere will indeed take place, then the consequences of this may not be as catastrophic as Carl Sagan's models suggest. Emissions of much more soot during volcanic eruptions have a much smaller effect on the climate. For example, the consequences of the Pinatubo eruption in June 1991, when about 10 km³ of rocks were ejected in a few days of the eruption and the height of the eruptive column was 34 km (according to this indicator, it is second only to the Katmai-Novarupta eruption in the Katmai National Park in Alaska in the 20th century) have been felt all over the world. It led to the most powerful (on a scale of volcanic eruptions) release of aerosols into the stratosphere since the eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in 1883. Over the following months, a global layer of sulfuric acid haze was observed in the atmosphere. However, only a 0.5 °C drop in temperature was recorded and there was some reduction in the ozone layer, in particular, the formation of a particularly large ozone hole over Antarctica.

Also, the theory of nuclear winter does not take into account the greenhouse effect from the gigantic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to the massive use of nuclear weapons, as well as the fact that in the first time after the war, the drop in temperature from the cessation of access to sunlight will be compensated by huge thermal emissions from fires and the explosions themselves. .

Since at least the early 1960s and at least until 1990, there has been a gradual decrease in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, a phenomenon called global dimming. Its main cause is dust particles that enter the atmosphere during volcanic emissions and as a result of industrial activities. The presence of such particles in the atmosphere creates a cooling effect due to their ability to reflect sunlight. The two by-products of fossil fuel combustion, CO 2 and aerosols, have partly offset each other over several decades, reducing the warming effect during this period.

The radiation effect of aerosol particles depends on their concentration. With the reduction of particle emissions, the decrease in concentration is predetermined by their lifetime in the atmosphere (about one week). Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime measured in centuries, so changes in aerosol concentrations can only temporarily delay CO 2 -induced warming.

Fine particles of carbon (soot) are second only to CO 2 in their effect on temperature rise. Their impact depends on whether they are in the atmosphere or on the surface of the earth. In the atmosphere, they absorb solar radiation, heating the air and cooling the surface. In isolated areas with high soot concentrations, such as rural India, up to 50% of the warming at the ground surface is masked by soot clouds. When deposited on the surface, especially on glaciers or on snow and ice in the Arctic, soot particles lead to heating of the surface by reducing its albedo.

I have always considered "nuclear winter" to be a scientifically unverified hoax, which is what I spoke about in my discussion with Carl Sagan during the Nightline discussion. Evidence from the oil fires in Kuwait supports this view. In fact, nuclear explosions could create a strong greenhouse effect and cause warming rather than cooling. Let's hope we never know how it actually happens.

Theoretical variants of nuclear winter:

The last time the Earth entered this state was approximately 600 million years ago, that is, before the emergence of animals on land, and was able to get out of it only due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. At the same time, over the past 100,000 years, there have been four ordinary glaciations that have not led to either irreversible icing or human extinction, which means that the onset of irreversible icing is an unlikely event. Finally, in the event that the Sun ceased to shine at all, the worst outcome would be the transformation of the entire atmosphere into liquid nitrogen, which looks absolutely incredible.

Write a review on the article "Nuclear Winter"

Notes

P.J. Crutzen, J.W. Birks The atmosphere after a nuclear war: Twilight at noon. Ambio 11 , 114 (1982).
R. P. Turco et. al. Nuclear winter-Global consequences of multiple nuclear-explosions. Science 222 , 1283 (1983). DOI:10.1126/science.222.4630.1283
J. E. Penner et al. Smoke-plume distributions above large-scale fires-Implications for simulations of nuclearwinter. J ClimateApplMeteorol 25 , 1434 (1986).
S. J. Ghan et. al. Climatic response to large atmospheric smoke injections - sensitivity studies with a tropospheric general-circulation model. J Geophys Res Atmos 93 , 315 (1988).
. // inosmi.ru. Retrieved March 28, 2014.
Alexandrov VV On a computational experiment simulating the consequences of a nuclear war. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 1984, vol. 24, pp. 140-144
Stenchikov GL Climatic consequences of nuclear war: emissions and distribution of optically active impurities in the atmosphere. Communications on applied mathematics. M., Computing Center of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1985, 32 p.
VP Parkhomenko, GL Stenchikov Mathematical modeling of climate. M.: Knowledge, 1986, 4
N. Moiseev Ecology of mankind through the eyes of a mathematician. M.: Molodaya Gvardiya, 1988. Study of the biosphere with the help of machine experiments. Assessing the consequences of a nuclear war.
Laurence Badash Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009 ISBN 0-262-01272-3 ISBN 978-0-262-01272-0
Alan Robock A Publication of Yale Center for the Study of Globalization: "YaleGlobal", 17 March 2008
Owen B. Toon, Alan Robock and Richard P. Turco "" // Physics Today. 2008.()
, S. V. Utyuzhnikov
(English)
www.pojar01.ru/11/PROCESS_GOR/ST/ST_ABDURAG_YADERN/text2.html I. M. Abduragimov "On the failure of the concept of "nuclear night and" nuclear winter" due to fires after nuclear destruction"
(English) , Alan Robock, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
// Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. - 2007. - ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1.
(2000) "Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario". Proc. Natl. Acad. sci. U.S.A. 97 (18): 9875–80. DOI:10.1073/pnas.170278997. PMID 10944197. Bibcode :.
(2008) "Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon". nature geoscience 1 (4): 221–227. DOI:10.1038/ngeo156. Bibcode :.
Ramanathan V. , Chung C. , Kim D. , Bettge T. , Buja L. , Kiehl J. T. , Washington W. M. , Fu Q. , Sikka D. R. , Wild M.(English) // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - 2005. - Vol. 102, no. 15 . - P. 5326-5333. - DOI:10.1073/pnas.0500656102 . - PMID 15749818 .to correct
Ramanathan, V., et al.(PDF). Atmospheric Brown Clouds: Regional Assessment Report with Focus on Asia. United Nations Environment Program (2008).

An excerpt characterizing Nuclear Winter

“Your Excellency,” he said in German, moving forward and addressing the Austrian general. I have the honor to congratulate you.
He bowed his head and awkwardly, like children learning to dance, began to scrape one leg or the other.
The General, a member of the Hofkriegsrath, looked sternly at him; not noticing the seriousness of the stupid smile, he could not refuse a moment's attention. He squinted to show he was listening.
“I have the honor to congratulate you, General Mack has arrived, in perfect health, only a little hurt here,” he added, beaming with a smile and pointing to his head.
The general frowned, turned away, and walked on.
Gott, wie naive! [My God, how simple he is!] – he said angrily, moving away a few steps.
Nesvitsky embraced Prince Andrei with laughter, but Bolkonsky, turning even paler, with an evil expression on his face, pushed him away and turned to Zherkov. That nervous irritation into which the sight of Mack, the news of his defeat, and the thought of what awaited the Russian army had brought him, found its outlet in bitterness at Zherkov's inappropriate joke.
“If you, dear sir,” he spoke piercingly with a slight trembling of his lower jaw, “want to be a jester, then I cannot prevent you from doing so; but I announce to you that if you dare another time to make a fuss in my presence, then I will teach you how to behave.
Nesvitsky and Zherkov were so surprised by this trick that they silently, with their eyes wide open, looked at Bolkonsky.
“Well, I only congratulated you,” said Zherkov.
- I'm not joking with you, if you please be silent! - Bolkonsky shouted and, taking Nesvitsky by the hand, he walked away from Zherkov, who could not find what to answer.
“Well, what are you, brother,” Nesvitsky said reassuringly.
- Like what? - Prince Andrei spoke, stopping from excitement. - Yes, you understand that we, or officers who serve their tsar and fatherland and rejoice at the common success and grieve about the common failure, or we are lackeys who do not care about the master's business. Quarante milles hommes massacres et l "ario mee de nos allies detruite, et vous trouvez la le mot pour rire," he said, as if reinforcing his opinion with this French phrase. - C "est bien pour un garcon de rien, comme cet individu , dont vous avez fait un ami, mais pas pour vous, pas pour vous. [Forty thousand people died and our allied army was destroyed, and you can joke about it. This is forgivable to an insignificant boy, like this gentleman whom you have made your friend, but not to you, not to you.] Boys can only be so amused, - said Prince Andrei in Russian, pronouncing this word with a French accent, noting that Zherkov could still hear it.
He waited for the cornet to answer. But the cornet turned and walked out of the corridor.

The Pavlograd Hussar Regiment was stationed two miles from Braunau. The squadron, in which Nikolai Rostov served as a cadet, was located in the German village of Salzenek. The squadron commander, captain Denisov, known to the entire cavalry division under the name of Vaska Denisov, was assigned the best apartment in the village. Junker Rostov had been living with the squadron commander ever since he caught up with the regiment in Poland.
On October 11, on the very day when everything in the main apartment was raised to its feet by the news of Mack's defeat, camping life at the squadron headquarters calmly went on as before. Denisov, who had been losing all night at cards, had not yet returned home when Rostov, early in the morning, on horseback, returned from foraging. Rostov, in a cadet uniform, rode up to the porch, pushed the horse, threw off his leg with a flexible, young gesture, stood on the stirrup, as if not wanting to part with the horse, finally jumped down and called out to the messenger.
“Ah, Bondarenko, dear friend,” he said to the hussar, who rushed headlong to his horse. “Let me out, my friend,” he said with that brotherly, cheerful tenderness with which good young people treat everyone when they are happy.
“I’m listening, your excellency,” answered the Little Russian, shaking his head merrily.
- Look, take it out well!
Another hussar also rushed to the horse, but Bondarenko had already thrown over the reins of the snaffle. It was evident that the junker gave well for vodka, and that it was profitable to serve him. Rostov stroked the horse's neck, then its rump, and stopped on the porch.
“Glorious! Such will be the horse! he said to himself, and, smiling and holding his saber, he ran up to the porch, rattling his spurs. The German owner, in a sweatshirt and cap, with a pitchfork, with which he cleaned the manure, looked out of the barn. The German's face suddenly brightened as soon as he saw Rostov. He smiled cheerfully and winked: “Schon, gut Morgen! Schon, gut Morgen!" [Fine, good morning!] he repeated, apparently finding pleasure in greeting the young man.
– Schonfleissig! [Already at work!] - said Rostov, still with the same joyful, brotherly smile that did not leave his animated face. – Hoch Oestreicher! Hoch Russen! Kaiser Alexander hoch! [Hooray Austrians! Hooray Russians! Emperor Alexander hurray!] - he turned to the German, repeating the words often spoken by the German host.
The German laughed, went completely out of the barn door, pulled
cap and, waving it over his head, shouted:
– Und die ganze Welt hoch! [And the whole world cheers!]
Rostov himself, just like a German, waved his cap over his head and, laughing, shouted: “Und Vivat die ganze Welt!” Although there was no reason for special joy either for the German who was cleaning his cowshed, or for Rostov, who went with a platoon for hay, both of these people looked at each other with happy delight and brotherly love, shook their heads in a sign of mutual love and parted smiling - the German to the barn, and Rostov to the hut he shared with Denisov.
- What's the sir? he asked Lavrushka, the rogue lackey Denisov known to the entire regiment.
Haven't been since the evening. It’s true, we lost,” answered Lavrushka. “I already know that if they win, they will come early to show off, but if they don’t until morning, then they’ve blown away, the angry ones will come. Would you like coffee?
- Come on, come on.
After 10 minutes, Lavrushka brought coffee. They're coming! - he said, - now the trouble. - Rostov looked out the window and saw Denisov returning home. Denisov was a small man with a red face, shining black eyes, black tousled mustache and hair. He was wearing an unbuttoned mentic, wide chikchirs lowered in folds, and a crumpled hussar cap was put on the back of his head. He gloomily, lowering his head, approached the porch.
“Lavg” ear, ”he shouted loudly and angrily. “Well, take it off, blockhead!
“Yes, I’m filming anyway,” answered Lavrushka’s voice.
- A! you already got up, - said Denisov, entering the room.
- For a long time, - said Rostov, - I already went for hay and saw Fraulein Matilda.
– That's how! And I pg "puffed up, bg" at, vcheg "a, like a son of a bitch!" shouted Denisov, without pronouncing the river. - Such a misfortune! Such a misfortune! As you left, so it went. Hey, tea!
Denisov, grimacing, as if smiling and showing his short, strong teeth, began to ruffle his black, thick hair, like a dog, with both hands with short fingers.
- Chog "t me money" zero to go to this kg "yse (nickname of the officer)," he said, rubbing his forehead and face with both hands. "You didn't.
Denisov took the lighted pipe handed to him, clenched it into a fist, and, scattering fire, hit it on the floor, continuing to shout.
- The sempel will give, pag "ol beats; the sempel will give, pag" ol beats.
He scattered the fire, smashed the pipe and threw it away. Denisov paused, and suddenly, with his shining black eyes, looked merrily at Rostov.
- If only there were women. And then here, kg "oh how to drink, there is nothing to do. If only she could get away."
- Hey, who's there? - he turned to the door, hearing the stopped steps of thick boots with the rattling of spurs and a respectful cough.
- Wahmister! Lavrushka said.
Denisov frowned even more.
“Squeeg,” he said, throwing a purse with several gold pieces. “Gostov, count, my dear, how much is left there, but put the purse under the pillow,” he said and went out to the sergeant-major.
Rostov took the money and, mechanically, putting aside and leveling heaps of old and new gold, began to count them.
- A! Telyanin! Zdog "ovo! Inflate me all at once" ah! Denisov's voice was heard from another room.
- Who? At Bykov's, at the rat's? ... I knew, - said another thin voice, and after that Lieutenant Telyanin, a small officer of the same squadron, entered the room.
Rostov threw a purse under the pillow and shook the small, damp hand extended to him. Telyanin was transferred from the guard before the campaign for something. He behaved very well in the regiment; but they did not like him, and in particular Rostov could neither overcome nor hide his unreasonable disgust for this officer.
- Well, young cavalryman, how does my Grachik serve you? - he asked. (Grachik was a riding horse, a tack, sold by Telyanin to Rostov.)
The lieutenant never looked into the eyes of the person with whom he spoke; His eyes were constantly moving from one object to another.
- I saw you drove today ...
“Nothing, good horse,” answered Rostov, despite the fact that this horse, bought by him for 700 rubles, was not worth even half of this price. “I began to crouch on the left front ...” he added. - Cracked hoof! It's nothing. I will teach you, show you which rivet to put.
“Yes, please show me,” said Rostov.
- I'll show you, I'll show you, it's not a secret. And thank you for the horse.
“So I order the horse to be brought,” said Rostov, wanting to get rid of Telyanin, and went out to order the horse to be brought.
In the passage, Denisov, with a pipe, crouched on the threshold, sat in front of the sergeant-major, who was reporting something. Seeing Rostov, Denisov frowned and, pointing over his shoulder with his thumb into the room in which Telyanin was sitting, grimaced and shook with disgust.
“Oh, I don’t like the good fellow,” he said, not embarrassed by the presence of the sergeant-major.
Rostov shrugged his shoulders, as if to say: "So do I, but what can I do!" and, having ordered, returned to Telyanin.
Telyanin sat still in the same lazy pose in which Rostov had left him, rubbing his small white hands.
"There are such nasty faces," thought Rostov, entering the room.
“Well, did you order the horse to be brought?” - said Telyanin, getting up and casually looking around.
- Velel.
- Come on, let's go. After all, I only came to ask Denisov about yesterday's order. Got it, Denisov?
- Not yet. Where are you?
“I want to teach a young man how to shoe a horse,” said Telyanin.
They went out onto the porch and into the stables. The lieutenant showed how to make a rivet and went to his room.
When Rostov returned, there was a bottle of vodka and sausage on the table. Denisov sat in front of the table and cracked pen on paper. He looked gloomily into Rostov's face.
“I am writing to her,” he said.
He leaned on the table with a pen in his hand, and, obviously delighted with the opportunity to quickly say in a word everything that he wanted to write, expressed his letter to Rostov.
- You see, dg "ug," he said. "We sleep until we love. We are the children of pg`axa ... but you fell in love - and you are God, you are pure, as on the peg" day of creation ... Who else is this? Send him to the chog "tu. No time!" he shouted at Lavrushka, who, not at all shy, approached him.
- But who should be? They themselves ordered. The sergeant-major came for the money.
Denisov frowned, wanted to shout something and fell silent.
“Squeeg,” but that’s the point, he said to himself. “How much money is left in the wallet?” he asked Rostov.
“Seven new ones and three old ones.
“Ah, skweg,” but! Well, what are you standing, scarecrows, send a wahmistg “a,” Denisov shouted at Lavrushka.
“Please, Denisov, take my money, because I have it,” said Rostov, blushing.
“I don’t like to borrow from my own, I don’t like it,” grumbled Denisov.
“And if you don’t take money from me comradely, you will offend me. Really, I have, - repeated Rostov.
- No.
And Denisov went to the bed to get a wallet from under the pillow.
- Where did you put it, Rostov?
- Under the bottom cushion.
- Yes, no.
Denisov threw both pillows on the floor. There was no wallet.
- That's a miracle!
“Wait, didn’t you drop it?” said Rostov, picking up the pillows one at a time and shaking them out.
He threw off and brushed off the blanket. There was no wallet.
- Have I forgotten? No, I also thought that you were definitely putting a treasure under your head, ”said Rostov. - I put my wallet here. Where is he? he turned to Lavrushka.
- I didn't go in. Where they put it, there it should be.
- Not really…
- You're all right, throw it somewhere, and forget it. Look in your pockets.
“No, if I didn’t think about the treasure,” said Rostov, “otherwise I remember what I put in.”
Lavrushka rummaged through the whole bed, looked under it, under the table, rummaged through the whole room and stopped in the middle of the room. Denisov silently followed Lavrushka's movements, and when Lavrushka threw up his hands in surprise, saying that he was nowhere to be found, he looked back at Rostov.
- Mr. Ostov, you are not a schoolboy ...
Rostov felt Denisov's gaze on him, raised his eyes and at the same moment lowered them. All his blood, which had been locked up somewhere below his throat, gushed into his face and eyes. He couldn't catch his breath.
- And there was no one in the room, except for the lieutenant and yourself. Here somewhere,” said Lavrushka.
- Well, you, chog "those doll, turn around, look," Denisov suddenly shouted, turning purple and throwing himself at the footman with a menacing gesture. Zapog everyone!
Rostov, looking around Denisov, began to button up his jacket, fastened his saber and put on his cap.
“I’m telling you to have a wallet,” Denisov shouted, shaking the batman’s shoulders and pushing him against the wall.
- Denisov, leave him; I know who took it,” said Rostov, going up to the door and not raising his eyes.
Denisov stopped, thought, and, apparently understanding what Rostov was hinting at, grabbed his hand.
“Sigh!” he shouted so that the veins, like ropes, puffed out on his neck and forehead. “I’m telling you, you’re crazy, I won’t allow it. The wallet is here; I will loosen my skin from this meg'zavetz, and it will be here.
“I know who took it,” Rostov repeated in a trembling voice and went to the door.
“But I’m telling you, don’t you dare do this,” Denisov shouted, rushing to the cadet to restrain him.
But Rostov tore his hand away and with such malice, as if Denisov was his greatest enemy, directly and firmly fixed his eyes on him.
– Do you understand what you are saying? he said in a trembling voice, “there was no one else in the room except me. So, if not, then...
He could not finish and ran out of the room.
“Ah, why not with you and with everyone,” were the last words that Rostov heard.
Rostov came to Telyanin's apartment.
“The master is not at home, they have gone to the headquarters,” Telyanin’s orderly told him. Or what happened? added the batman, surprised at the junker's upset face.
- There is nothing.
“We missed a little,” said the batman.
The headquarters was located three miles from Salzenek. Rostov, without going home, took a horse and rode to headquarters. In the village occupied by the headquarters, there was a tavern frequented by officers. Rostov arrived at the tavern; at the porch he saw Telyanin's horse.
In the second room of the tavern the lieutenant was sitting at a dish of sausages and a bottle of wine.
“Ah, and you stopped by, young man,” he said, smiling and raising his eyebrows high.
- Yes, - said Rostov, as if it took a lot of effort to pronounce this word, and sat down at the next table.
Both were silent; two Germans and one Russian officer were sitting in the room. Everyone was silent, and the sounds of knives on plates and the lieutenant's champing could be heard. When Telyanin had finished breakfast, he took a double purse out of his pocket, spread the rings with his little white fingers bent upwards, took out a gold one, and, raising his eyebrows, gave the money to the servant.
“Please hurry,” he said.
Gold was new. Rostov got up and went over to Telyanin.
“Let me see the purse,” he said in a low, barely audible voice.
With shifty eyes, but still raised eyebrows, Telyanin handed over the purse.
"Yes, a pretty purse... Yes... yes..." he said, and suddenly turned pale. “Look, young man,” he added.
Rostov took the wallet in his hands and looked at it, and at the money that was in it, and at Telyanin. The lieutenant looked around, as was his habit, and seemed to suddenly become very cheerful.
“If we’re in Vienna, I’ll leave everything there, and now there’s nowhere to go in these crappy little towns,” he said. - Come on, young man, I'll go.
Rostov was silent.
- What about you? have breakfast too? They are decently fed,” continued Telyanin. - Come on.
He reached out and took hold of the wallet. Rostov released him. Telyanin took the purse and began to put it into the pocket of his breeches, and his eyebrows casually rose, and his mouth opened slightly, as if he were saying: “Yes, yes, I put my purse in my pocket, and it’s very simple, and no one cares about this” .
- Well, what, young man? he said, sighing and looking into Rostov's eyes from under his raised eyebrows. Some kind of light from the eyes, with the speed of an electric spark, ran from Telyanin's eyes to Rostov's eyes and back, back and back, all in an instant.
“Come here,” said Rostov, grabbing Telyanin by the hand. He almost dragged him to the window. - This is Denisov's money, you took it ... - he whispered in his ear.
“What?… What?… How dare you?” What? ... - said Telyanin.
But these words sounded a plaintive, desperate cry and a plea for forgiveness. As soon as Rostov heard this sound of a voice, a huge stone of doubt fell from his soul. He felt joy, and at the same moment he felt sorry for the unfortunate man who stood before him; but it was necessary to complete the work begun.
“The people here, God knows what they might think,” muttered Telyanin, grabbing his cap and heading into a small empty room, “we need to explain ourselves ...
“I know it, and I will prove it,” said Rostov.
- I…
Telyanin's frightened, pale face began to tremble with all its muscles; his eyes still ran, but somewhere below, not rising to Rostov's face, and sobs were heard.
- Count! ... do not ruin the young man ... here is this unfortunate money, take it ... - He threw it on the table. - My father is an old man, my mother! ...
Rostov took the money, avoiding Telyanin's gaze, and, without saying a word, left the room. But at the door he stopped and turned back. “My God,” he said with tears in his eyes, “how could you do this?
“Count,” said Telyanin, approaching the cadet.
“Don’t touch me,” Rostov said, pulling away. If you need it, take this money. He threw his wallet at him and ran out of the inn.

In the evening of the same day, a lively conversation was going on at Denisov's apartment among the officers of the squadron.
“But I’m telling you, Rostov, that you need to apologize to the regimental commander,” said, turning to the crimson red, agitated Rostov, the high headquarters captain, with graying hair, huge mustaches and large features of a wrinkled face.
The staff captain Kirsten was twice demoted to the soldiers for deeds of honor and twice cured.
"I won't let anyone tell you I'm lying!" cried Rostov. He told me that I was lying, and I told him that he was lying. And so it will remain. They can put me on duty even every day and put me under arrest, but no one will make me apologize, because if he, as a regimental commander, considers himself unworthy of giving me satisfaction, then ...
- Yes, you wait, father; you listen to me, - the captain interrupted the staff in his bass voice, calmly smoothing his long mustache. - You tell the regimental commander in front of other officers that the officer stole ...
- It's not my fault that the conversation started in front of other officers. Maybe I shouldn't have spoken in front of them, but I'm not a diplomat. I then joined the hussars and went, thinking that subtleties are not needed here, but he tells me that I am lying ... so let him give me satisfaction ...
- That's all right, no one thinks that you are a coward, but that's not the point. Ask Denisov, does it look like something for a cadet to demand satisfaction from a regimental commander?
Denisov, biting his mustache, listened to the conversation with a gloomy look, apparently not wanting to intervene in it. When asked by the captain's staff, he shook his head negatively.
“You are talking to the regimental commander about this dirty trick in front of the officers,” the headquarters captain continued. - Bogdanich (Bogdanich was called the regimental commander) laid siege to you.
- He didn’t siege, but said that I was telling a lie.
- Well, yes, and you said something stupid to him, and you need to apologize.
- Never! shouted Rostov.
“I didn’t think it was from you,” the headquarters captain said seriously and sternly. - You do not want to apologize, and you, father, not only before him, but before the whole regiment, before all of us, you are to blame all around. And here's how: if only you thought and consulted how to deal with this matter, otherwise you directly, but in front of the officers, and thumped. What should the regimental commander do now? Should we put the officer on trial and mess up the entire regiment? Shame the entire regiment because of one villain? So, what do you think? But in our opinion, it is not. And well done Bogdanich, he told you that you are not telling the truth. It’s unpleasant, but what to do, father, they themselves ran into it. And now, as they want to hush up the matter, so you, because of some kind of fanabery, do not want to apologize, but want to tell everything. You are offended that you are on duty, but why should you apologize to an old and honest officer! Whatever Bogdanich may be, but all honest and brave, old colonel, you are so offended; and messing up the regiment is okay for you? - The voice of the captain's staff began to tremble. - You, father, are in the regiment for a week without a year; today here, tomorrow they moved to adjutants somewhere; you don’t give a damn what they will say: “Thieves are among the Pavlograd officers!” And we don't care. So, what, Denisov? Not all the same?
Denisov remained silent and did not move, occasionally glancing with his shining black eyes at Rostov.
“Your own fanabery is dear to you, you don’t want to apologize,” continued the headquarters captain, “but we old people, how we grew up, and God willing, will die in the regiment, so the honor of the regiment is dear to us, and Bogdanich knows it. Oh, how dear, father! And this is not good, not good! Take offense there or not, but I will always tell the truth to the uterus. Not good!
And the captain's staff stood up and turned away from Rostov.
- Pg "avda, chog" take it! shouted Denisov, jumping up. - Well, G "skeleton! Well!
Rostov, blushing and turning pale, looked first at one officer, then at another.
- No, gentlemen, no ... don’t think ... I understand very well, you shouldn’t think so about me ... I ... for me ... I am for the honor of the regiment. but what? I’ll show it in practice, and for me the honor of the banner ... well, it’s all the same, really, it’s my fault! .. - Tears stood in his eyes. “It’s my fault, it’s all my fault! ... Well, what else do you need? ...
“That’s it, count,” the captain shouted, turning around, hitting him on the shoulder with his big hand.

Around almost any type of weapon, there are many common ideas and frank myths that are very exciting for the public interested in the army and weapons. Nuclear weapons are no exception.

Among such myths is the well-known concept of "nuclear winter". Let's explore it in more detail...

The devastating effects of thermal shock, blast, and penetrating and residual radiation have long been known to scientists, but the indirect impact of such explosions on the environment has been ignored for many years. It was only in the 1970s that 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 ejected by nuclear explosions into the upper atmosphere can prevent heat transfer between it and the surface, which will lead to a temporary cooling of the 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 was launched called TTAPS (by the first letters of the names of the authors: R.P. Turco, O.B Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack and Carl Sagan). It included a detailed look at the smoke and soot from burning oil fields and plastics in blasted cities (smoke from such materials absorbs sunlight much more "efficiently" than smoke from a burning tree). It was the TTAPS project that gave rise to the circulation of the term "Nuclear winter" ("Nuclear winter"). Subsequently, this ominous hypothesis was developed and supplemented by the scientific communities of American and Soviet scientists. From the Soviet side, such climatologists and mathematicians as N.N. Moiseev, V.V. Alexandrov, A.M. Tarko.

As the researchers suggest, the root cause of nuclear winter will be numerous fireballs caused by explosions of nuclear warheads. These fireballs will cause huge uncontrolled fires in all cities and forests caught in their radius of destruction. The heating of 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 before settling on the ground or being washed out of the atmosphere with rains.

Several hundred million tons of ash and soot will be moved by easterly and westerly winds until they form a dense uniform belt of particles covering the entire Northern Hemisphere and stretching from 30°N. up to 60° N (it is there that all major cities are located and almost the entire population of potential countries participating in the conflict is concentrated). Due to atmospheric circulation, the Southern Hemisphere will then be partially affected.

These dense black clouds shield the earth's surface, preventing sunlight (90%) from reaching it for several months. Its temperature will drop sharply, most likely by 20-40 degrees C. The duration of the onset 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 cooling during explosions of 100 and 10,000 Mt differs slightly.

In conditions of complete darkness, low temperatures and radioactive fallout (fallout), the process of photosynthesis will practically stop, and most of the terrestrial flora and fauna will be destroyed. In the Northern Hemisphere, many animals will not survive due to the 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 even by a short-term decrease in temperature. Many species of mammals will die out, all birds, most reptiles. A sharp jump in the level of ionizing radiation to 500-1000 rads (“radiation shock”) will kill most mammals and birds and cause serious radiation damage to conifers. Giant fires will destroy most of the forests, steppes, and agricultural land.

Agroecosystems, which are so important for maintaining human life, will certainly perish. All fruit trees, vineyards will freeze completely, 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 be the most terrible disaster of all that has ever been experienced by mankind.

Thus, the survivors of the first impact will face arctic cold, high levels of residual radiation and the general destruction of industrial, medical and transport infrastructure. Together with the cessation of food supplies, the loss of crops and tremendous psychological stress, this will lead to enormous human losses from hunger, malnutrition and disease. Nuclear winter can reduce the population of the Earth by several times and even dozens of times, which will mean the actual end of civilization. Even the countries of the Southern Hemisphere, such as Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia or Australia, which are destroyed, despite the fact that not a single warhead explodes on their territory, may not escape the common fate.

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: the total yield of nuclear explosions of 10,000 and 100 Mt. With a power of nuclear explosions of 10,000 Mt, the solar flux at the Earth's surface will be reduced by a factor of 400, and the characteristic time for the self-purification of the atmosphere will be approximately 3-4 months.

With a power of nuclear explosions of 100 Mt, the solar flux near the Earth's surface will be reduced by a factor of 20, and the characteristic time of self-purification of the atmosphere is about a month. At the same time, the entire climatic mechanism of the Earth changes dramatically, which manifests itself in an exceptionally strong cooling of the atmosphere over the continents (during the first 10 days, the average temperature drops by 15 degrees, and then begins to rise slightly). In some parts of the Earth it will get colder by 30-50 degrees. These works received a wide public resonance in the wide press of different countries. Subsequently, many physicists disputed the reliability and stability of the results obtained, but the hypothesis did not receive a convincing refutation.

Many are confused by the fact that the theory of nuclear language appeared suspiciously “on time”, coinciding in time with the period of the so-called “detente” 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 nuclear languages.

However, not only scientists, mathematicians and climatologists, who have found significant errors and assumptions in the calculations of K. Sagan and N. Moiseev, are opponents of the theory of YaZ. Attacks on YaZ are often politically tinged.

This whole story initially gave the impression of a grandiose "psychic attack" undertaken by the US leadership on the Soviet leadership. Its purpose 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 will entail a radical undermining of agriculture, severe crop failures for a number of years, which will 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 appearance of the concept of "nuclear winter", its presentation at an unprecedented scientific Soviet-American scientific conference with a direct teleconference Moscow-Washington on October 31 - November 1, 1983 and the 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 appearance of the theory of nuclear weapons by the fact that the Warsaw Pact had superiority over NATO in conventional weapons in Europe, and therefore the USSR was beneficial not to use nuclear weapons in the event of a large-scale war.

It is also alarming that after the end of the Cold War no attempts have been made to simulate the effect of ND 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 Tflops and an external memory of 31.5 TB). If such studies do take place, they are private in nature and do not receive wide publicity, much less government support. All this may speak in favor of the version about the “custom-made” nature of the theory of YaZ.

The world peace movement applauded the concept because it saw it as an argument for complete nuclear disarmament. It has also found some use in grand military strategy, as one of the varieties of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction, or Mutual Assured Destruction. The essence of this idea was that none of the opponents in a possible nuclear war would decide on a massive strike, since in any case it would be destroyed, if not by nuclear heat, then by subsequent cold. This was and is one of the pillars of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

Using the concept of "nuclear winter" as an argument for nuclear deterrence is far from safe, for the simple reason that it is self-deception.

Arguing against the concept under which the names of great scientists stand is not easy, but in this case it is necessary, because the most important question of military strategy is at stake: whether to rely on nuclear weapons as a deterrent or not.

Forest fires: mathematical model and natural 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 square kilometers), and only in forest fires produce about 4 billion tons of soot, which will create clouds impenetrable to sunlight, cover the entire Northern Hemisphere and "nuclear winter" will come. Fires in cities will add more soot to this.

But a few remarks should be added to this horror.

To begin with, it is worth noting that this concept is based on estimates, calculations, and mathematical modeling, and it has been adopted as a guide for major policy decisions without testing. It seems that the absolute trust in scientists played the main role here: they say, if they said, then as 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 at least once in his life kindled a fire or stoked a stove with wood knows that when burning wood almost does not smoke, that is, it does not emit soot, unlike rubber, plastics and diesel fuel with kerosene. The main combustion product of wood is carbon dioxide, which is transparent to light. They say that it has a greenhouse effect, so that large-scale forest fires could be expected to warm the climate sooner.

Further, Marshal Akhromeev had every opportunity to verify the validity of the model by field tests. This could be done in a variety of ways. For example, to request data from forest protection, whose forests burned every year, and, based on measurements of burnt 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 part 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 applied into the matmodel. It was possible to take several experimental sections of the forest and check how it burns in summer and in winter, in the rain and in clear weather. The season factor mattered, because in winter our forests are covered with snow and cannot burn. Burning the forest, of course, is a pity, but several thousand hectares is an acceptable price for solving the most important strategic issue.

It was not possible to find any information that such tests were carried out.

For example, I.M. Abduragimov, a firefighting expert who even tried to protest against the "nuclear winter" concept. According to his estimates, based on the experience of real forest fires, it turned out that with a typical burnout of 20% of 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 give a maximum of 400 million tons of soot, which is ten times less than in the Moiseev model.

Further - more interesting. We took full-scale tests of the concept of "nuclear winter" without permission during the forest fires of 2007-2012, especially strongly in 2010, when about 12 million hectares or 120 thousand square meters burned out. km, i.e. 12% of the scale adopted for the "nuclear winter" model. You can't dismiss this, because if the effect were to take place, then it would manifest itself.

The most interesting thing is that soot production in these fires was calculated, published in the journal Meteorology and Hydrology, No. 7, 2015. The result was overturning. Soot actually formed 2.5 grams per sq. meters of forest fire. About 300,000 tons of soot formed over the entire area of the fires, which can easily be converted into an estimated million square meters. km - 2.5 million tons, which is 1600 times less than in the "nuclear winter" model. And this - in the best conditions of a dry and hot summer, when the rain did not extinguish the fires, and the extinguishing could not cope with the fire.

There was thick smog in the cities, many settlements suffered from fire, great damage, and so on, but nothing like a "nuclear winter" has come close. Yes, there was a crop failure in 2010, when 62.7 million tons of grain were harvested, which is even less than in the previous 2000 crop failure. But still, with an average consumption of grain in Russia in the amount of 32 million tons per year, we even left with a good supply of bread, not counting carry-over stocks.

So, even if a million sq. km of forests in the event of a nuclear war, "nuclear winter", an 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 has 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 soot clouds would cover everything around.

THEM. Abduragimov also disputed the estimates for fires in cities, pointing out that the content of combustible material per unit area is greatly overestimated, and that even with the strongest fires it does not burn out completely, but only by about 50%, and besides, the shock wave over a large area will bring down the flames, and the rubble will smother the fires.

However, we have the opportunity to look at the example of a city that burned with a blue flame. This, of course, is Dresden during the bombing of February 13-15, 1945. 1,500 tons of 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 on the afternoon 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 British physicist, Baron Patrick Stewart Maynard Blackett, the destructive equivalent of the 18-21 kt Hiroshima 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 Dresden was destroyed almost all or all. This, of course, is not true. In 1946, the municipality of Dresden issued the pamphlet "In Dresden wird gebaut und das Gewerbe arbeitet wieder". It provided accurate data on the destruction, since the municipality needed to draw up a plan for rebuilding the city. The consequences of the bombing were impressive. 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. Mines were dug in it to get the surviving things, tools, useful parts of buildings from under the rubble. However, out of 228 thousand apartments in Dresden, 75 thousand were completely destroyed, 18 thousand were badly damaged and unusable. 81 thousand apartments had light damage. In total, 93,000 apartments, or 40.7% of the existing ones, were destroyed. The area of severe damage was 15 sq. km.

But what was the area of Dresden? This is rarely reported, and one might get the impression that the city was compact. Meanwhile, this is not true. 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 was 13.7% of the city.

Although in Dresden there was a strong multi-day fire that grew into a "firestorm", however, the city was not completely burned down, firstly. Secondly, the smoke and soot from the Dresden fire 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 down from the bombing. They were located in a fairly compact area, and some influence of smoke from city fires and hostilities on the climate, one might think, could be. 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 hard time, but even the Germans, shoddy, undressed and homeless, with an extreme shortage of bread and coal, survived it. In 1946 and 1947 there were severe droughts in Eastern Europe. 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 instant attack of the sibirische Kälte are clearly not justified by well-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%). In global climate modeling, 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. Atmospheric circulation calculations are still far from perfect, and the computing power, "supercomputers" (BSEM-6, Cray-XMP), which were available to scientists in the 80s, are inferior in performance even to modern PCs.

The "nuclear winter" model of Sagan - Moiseev does not take into account such factors as the release of greenhouse gases (CO2) due to multiple fires, as well as the effect of aerosols on the heat loss of 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 offset 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 huge volumes of ash and dust being released into the atmosphere. For example, the ND effect can be “mitigated” by the high heat capacity of the oceans, whose heat 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 variant"). However, in this case, one of the protective mechanisms may turn on - the oceans will begin to evaporate more intensively, dust will fall with rains, and the albedo will return to normal.

Many climatologists admit that nuclear radiation is theoretically possible, but it cannot be the result of even a large-scale conflict between Russia and the United States. In their opinion, the entire arsenal of superpowers is not enough to achieve the desired effect. To illustrate this thesis, the explosion of the Krakatoa volcano in 1883 is given, 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 ejected 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 on the entire 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. Such a release of soot during fires, which is incorporated into it, simply does not happen. That is why belief in "nuclear winter" is a self-deception, and building on this basis the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is clearly erroneous.

This is already serious enough. Believing that a potential adversary will not dare to deliver a massive nuclear strike, because he himself will die from the "nuclear winter", after all, you can miscalculate. If the Americans fabricated this concept for the nuclear disarmament of the Soviet Union, then you can be sure that they themselves are well aware of the true state of affairs and they are not afraid of a massive nuclear strike. Another thing is that the Americans never expressed their readiness to fight in the style of an exchange of crushing blows, they were always interested in achieving an advantage, or even better, a first strike with impunity, combined with a guarantee that they would not be struck forward. The concept of "nuclear winter" works for this, and quite well. Moreover, to the great chagrin of the fighters for peace, this concept did not lead to universal nuclear disarmament, and they will have to find other, more effective arguments.

sources