• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Climate Change Fears Akin To The 1980’s Nuclear Winter Scare

by S. Fred Singer
June 27, 2018, 9:27 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
3

Fear of a catastrophic nuclear winter gripped much of the media and political establishments, much the way fear of global warming/climate change does today.

If you are under fifty years of age, you probably never heard of Nuclear Winter.  Even if you are older, you may not remember what it was all about.  Popular issues go up to a peak suddenly and then just fade away slowly, according to a 1972 paradigm by Anthony Downs.

Global warming/climate change may provide another good example: by 2100, people may wonder what all the fuss was about.  The Paris Accord may be unfamiliar, and even the Kyoto Treaty will have been forgotten. 

So for those who might not remember, here is a succinct summary of N.W. from Wikipedia:

Nuclear Winter is the severe and prolonged global climatic cooling effect hypothesized to occur after widespread firestorms following a nuclear war.  The hypothesis is based on the fact that such fires can inject soot into the atmosphere, where it can block [some] direct sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth.  It is speculated that the resulting cooling would lead to widespread crop failure and famine.  In developing computer models of nuclear-winter scenarios, researchers use the convention [of] the Hiroshima … firestorm in World War II as an example where soot might have been injected into the stratosphere, alongside modern observations of natural, large-area wildfire/firestorms.

Nuclear Winter burst on the academic scene in December 1983 with the publication of the hypothesis in the prestigious journal Science.  It was accompanied by a study by Paul Ehrlich, et al. that hinted that it might cause the extinction of human life on the planet.

The five authors of the Nuclear Winter hypothesis were labeled TTAPS, using the initials of their family names (T stands for Owen Toon and P stands for Jim Pollak, both Ph.D. students of Carl Sagan at Cornell University.)  Carl Sagan himself was the main author and driving force.

Actually, Sagan had scooped the Science paper by publishing the gist of the hypothesis in Parade magazine, which claimed a readership of 50 million!  Previously, Sagan had briefed people in public office and elsewhere, so they were all primed for the popular reaction, which was tremendous.

Many of today’s readers may not remember Carl Sagan.  He was a brilliant astrophysicist but also highly political.  Imagine Al Gore, but with an excellent science background.

Sagan had developed and narrated a television series called Cosmos that popularized astrophysics and much else, including cosmology, the history of the universe.

He even suggested the possible existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and started a listening project called SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). SETI is still searching today and has not found any evidence so far.  Sagan became a sort of icon; many people in the U.S. and abroad knew his name and face.

Carl Sagan also had another passion: saving humanity from a general nuclear war, a laudable aim.  He had been arguing vigorously and publicly for a “freeze” on the production of more nuclear weapons.  President Ronald Reagan outdid him and negotiated a nuclear weapons reduction with the USSR.

In the meantime, much excitement was stirred up by Nuclear Winter.  Study after study tried to confirm and expand the hypothesis, led by the Defense Department (DOD), which took the hypothesis seriously and spent millions of dollars on various reports that accepted Nuclear Winter rather uncritically.

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences published a report that put in more quantitative detail.  It enabled critics of the hypothesis to find flaws – and many did.

The names Russell Seitz, Dick Wilson (both of Cambridge, Mass.), Steve Schneider (Palo Alto, Calif.), and Bob Ehrlich (Fairfax, Va.) (no relation to Paul Ehrlich) come to mind.  The hypothesis was really “politics disguised as science.”

The whole TTAPS scheme was contrived to deliver the desired consequence.  It required the smoke layer to be of just the right thickness, covering the whole Earth, and lasting for many months.

The Kuwait oil fires in 1991 produced a lot of smoke, but it rained out after a few days.  I had a mini-debate with Sagan on the TV program Nightline and published a more critical analysis of the whole hypothesis in the journal Meteorology & Atmospheric Physics.

I don’t know if Carl ever saw my paper.  But I learned a lot from doing this analysis that was useful in later global warming research.

For example, the initial nuclear bursts inject water vapor into the stratosphere, which turns into contrail-like cirrus clouds.  That actually leads to a strong initial warming and a “nuclear summer.”

In any case, Sagan forgave me for questioning the scientific underpinnings of his hypothesis.  In 1996, I received a cordial letter from Carl just before he passed away – he was only 62 at the time.

I wonder now if he might have reacted differently had he read my paper; I had chided him for misusing science to promote a political goal.  RIP, old friend!


S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and a founding director and now chairman emeritus of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  In 2014, after 25 years, he stepped down as president of SEPP.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of NOAA.  More recently, he served as vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is an elected fellow of several scientific societies, including APS, AGU, AAAS, AIAA, Sigma Xi, and Tau Beta Pi, and a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored N.Y. Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.  In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports (see NIPCCreport.org).

Read more at American Thinker

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 3

  1. David Lewis says:
    8 years ago

    I am old enough to have lived through the nuclear winter scam and there is one thing missing from this article. Initially, only the fall out expelled by the nuclear blasts was said to cause such a winter. When it was determined that wasn’t enough, then they added the firestorm. Like climate change, this was junk science created solely to support a political cause.

    There is an important difference. The nuclear winter scam only supported one political cause. The climate change fraud supports many liberal causes so it will last much longer.

  2. Hivemind says:
    8 years ago

    I also remember the nuclear winter hypothesis. I always though that there was something seriously wrong with it. To my understanding, the atmosphere doesn’t work that way. Dust particles in the lower atmosphere will be washed out by rainfall within weeks. Dust in the higher atmosphere will simply fall from gravity into the lower atmosphere.

    The nearest example is the eruption of Krakatoa, which only put dust into the atmosphere for one year. As you said, it was more propaganda than science.

  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    8 years ago

    I can also recall all this Nuclear Weapon’s Free Zones as wanted by the wanks marching all over in their sandals all this while Reagan was in the White House and the usial celeberties and this Nuclear Winter poppycock bull twaddle

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • un censorship complexUN Censorship And The Manufactured Climate Crisis: How Global Elites Are Silencing Dissent
    Jan 19, 2026
    United Nations pushes censorship, embracing 'invented' climate science while silencing dissent and targeting free speech. […]
  • decades of climate panic left abandonedHow The Perpetual Climate Panic Machine Finally Collapsed
    Jan 19, 2026
    Decades of climate doom-slinging failed—voters aren’t buying it, and the media’s fear machine has finally run dry. […]
  • climate defiance baseball fieldHollywood Stars Funding Radical Climate Activists Who Stormed Congressional Baseball Game, Tax Filings Show
    Jan 19, 2026
    Tax filing show Hollywood stars bankrolling Climate Defiance, the extreme radical group behind protests like storming the Congressional Baseball Game. […]
  • temp map bouysNOAA Calls 2025 Third-Warmest Year On Record — The Science Doesn’t Add Up
    Jan 19, 2026
    NOAA says 2025 was third-warmest, but sloppy land data and missing ocean measurements make the claim meaningless. […]
  • fuvahmulah island maldivesNew Scientist Misses The Science On ‘Sinking Pacific Islands’
    Jan 16, 2026
    Real-world data show many Pacific atolls are stable or growing, contradicting claims of inevitable sea-level submergence. […]
  • hochul energy cliffNew York’s Climate Act Goes Nuclear: Bold Promises, Zero Progress
    Jan 16, 2026
    New York’s Climate Act promises bold energy goals, but seven years in any progress is nonexistent and nuclear plans lag way behind. […]
  • Global disaster counts remain flat over 25 years, despite rising CO2 and record temperaturesA Climatologist Asks: Where Are All The Climate-Related Disasters?
    Jan 16, 2026
    Despite record CO2 and global temperatures, climate-related disasters haven’t increased—what the data really show. […]
  • miliband offshore wind ahoy mateyThe Climate Scaremongers: ‘Record’ Offshore Wind Auction Will Add Billions To UK Power Bills
    Jan 16, 2026
    Despite “record” claims, offshore wind contracts rely on heavy subsidies that will push UK electricity bills even higher. […]
  • Twenty Years Later, An Inconvenient Truth Fails to Hold UpTwenty Years On, Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Thoroughly Debunked
    Jan 15, 2026
    Twenty years later, Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ predictions, from Kilimanjaro to glaciers, have failed to materialize. […]
  • bbcBBC Pushes 12% Pay Cut Claim Built On Hypothetical Models, Not Actual Data
    Jan 15, 2026
    BBC claims climate change is cutting U.S. pay by 12%. A meteorologist shows why the data tells a very different story. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky