Editing Nuclear winter (section)

== History ==
=== Early work ===
[[File:Nukecloud.png|thumb|upright=2|The mushroom cloud height as a function of [[TNT equivalent|explosive yield]] detonated as [[surface burst]]s.<ref name="Figure 1">{{cite magazine |author=Martin |first=Brian |date=December 1982 |title=The global health effects of nuclear war |url=http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82cab/ |url-status=live |magazine=Current Affairs Bulletin |volume=59 |issue=7 |pages=14–26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006093303/http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82cab/ |archive-date=2014-10-06 |access-date=2014-10-03 |via=www.bmartin.cc}}</ref>{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions|1985 |loc="Chapter: 4 Dust" pp. 20–21, figure 4.2 & 4.3}} As charted, yields at least in the megaton range are required to lift dust/[[fallout]] into the stratosphere. Ozone reaches its maximum concentration at about 25 km (c. 82,000 ft) in altitude.<ref name="Figure 1"/> Another means of stratospheric entry is from [[High-altitude nuclear explosion|high altitude nuclear detonations]], one example of which includes the 10.5 kiloton Soviet ''test [[1961 Soviet nuclear tests|no.#88]]'' of 1961, detonated at 22.7 km.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.futurescience.com/emp/test184.html|title=Electromagnetic Pulse - Soviet Test 184 - EMP |website=www.futurescience.com|access-date=2015-07-20|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150718124742/http://www.futurescience.com/emp/test184.html|archive-date=2015-07-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iss-atom.ru/sssr2/1_9.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140406175913/http://www.iss-atom.ru/sssr2/1_9.htm|archive-date=6 April 2014|title=ЯДЕРНЫЕ ИСПЫТАНИЯ В СССР, ТОМ II, глава 1|date=6 April 2014}}</ref> US high-yield upper atmospheric tests, ''Teak'' and ''Orange'' were also assessed for their ozone destruction potential.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00322994.pdf|title=United States High-Altitude Test Experiences – A Review Emphasizing the Impact on the Environment 1976. Herman Hoerlin. LASL |access-date=2016-10-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006125252/https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00322994.pdf |archive-date=2016-10-06|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Review of Nuclear Weapons Effects |journal=[[Annual Review of Nuclear Science]] |volume=18 |pages=153–202 |year=1968 |last1=Brode |first1=H. L. |bibcode=1968ARNPS..18..153B|doi=10.1146/annurev.ns.18.120168.001101}}</ref><br /> 0 = Approx altitude commercial aircraft operate<br />1 = [[Fat Man]]<br />2 = [[Castle Bravo]]]]

In 1952, a few weeks prior to the [[Ivy Mike]] (10.4 [[Megatons|megaton]]) bomb test on [[Elugelab]] Island, there were concerns that the aerosols lifted by the explosion might cool the Earth. Major Norair Lulejian, [[USAF]], and astronomer Natarajan Visvanathan studied this possibility, reporting their findings in ''Effects of Superweapons Upon the Climate of the World'', the distribution of which was tightly controlled. This report is described in a 2013 report by the [[Defense Threat Reduction Agency]] as the initial study of the "nuclear winter" concept. It indicated no appreciable chance of explosion-induced climate change.<ref>{{cite Q|Q63070323}}</ref>

The implications for civil defense of numerous surface bursts of high yield [[hydrogen bomb]] explosions on [[Pacific Proving Ground]] islands such as those of Ivy Mike in 1952 and Castle Bravo (15 Mt) in 1954 were described in a 1957 report on ''The Effects of Nuclear Weapons'', edited by [[Samuel Glasstone]]. A section in that book entitled "Nuclear Bombs and the Weather" states: "The dust raised in severe [[volcanic eruptions]], such as that at [[1883 eruption of Krakatoa|Krakatoa]] in 1883, is known to cause a noticeable reduction in the sunlight reaching the earth ... The amount of [soil or other surface] debris remaining in the atmosphere after the explosion of even the largest nuclear weapons is probably not more than about one percent or so of that raised by the Krakatoa eruption. Further, solar radiation records reveal that none of the nuclear explosions to date has resulted in any detectable change in the direct sunlight recorded on the ground."<ref>[http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=9&view=image&size=100&id=mdp.39015010999814&u=1&num=69 The Effects of Nuclear Weapons] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140824081908/http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=9&view=image&size=100&id=mdp.39015010999814&u=1&num=69|date=2014-08-24}} Samuel Glasstone, Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1956, p. 69071. A similar report had been issued in 1950 under a slightly different title: {{cite Q|Q63133275}}. This earlier version seems not to have discussed Krakatoa nor other climate change possibilities.</ref> The US [[Weather Bureau]] in 1956 regarded it as conceivable that a large enough nuclear war with megaton-range surface detonations could lift enough soil to cause a new [[ice age]].<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1086/661272 | pmid=21936194 | volume=26 | title=The Politics of Atmospheric Sciences: "Nuclear Winter" and Global Climate Change | journal=Osiris | pages=198–223 | year=2011 | last1 = Dörries | first1 = Matthias| s2cid=23719340 | url=https://univoak.eu/islandora/object/islandora%3A62598 }}</ref>

The 1966 [[RAND corporation]] memorandum ''The Effects of Nuclear War on the Weather and Climate'' by E. S. Batten, while primarily analysing potential dust effects from surface bursts,{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions|1985|p=185}} notes that "in addition to the effects of the debris, extensive fires ignited by nuclear detonations might change the surface characteristics of the area and modify local weather patterns ... however, a more thorough knowledge of the atmosphere is necessary to determine their exact nature, extent, and magnitude."<ref>{{Cite web |author=Batten |first=E. S. |date=August 1966 |title=The Effects of Nuclear War on the Weather and Climate |url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM4989.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304061417/http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM4989.pdf |archive-date=2016-03-04 |access-date=2016-06-04}}</ref>

In the [[United States National Research Council]] (NRC) book ''Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear-Weapons Detonations'' published in 1975, it states that a nuclear war involving 4,000 Mt from ''present arsenals'' would probably deposit much less dust in the stratosphere than the Krakatoa eruption, judging that the effect of dust and oxides of nitrogen would probably be slight climatic cooling which "would probably lie within normal global climatic variability, but the possibility of climatic changes of a more dramatic nature cannot be ruled out".<ref name="Figure 1"/>{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions |1985|p={{page needed|date=September 2021}}}}<ref>{{Cite book |author=National Research Council |title=Long-term worldwide effects of multiple nuclear weapons detonations |place=Washington DC |publisher=National Academy of Sciences |page=38 |isbn=978-0-309-02418-1 |year=1975 |access-date=2016-06-04 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JVArAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Long-term%20worldwide%20effects%20of%20multiple%20nuclear%20weapons%20detonations%22&pg=PA25}}</ref>

In the 1985 report, ''The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange'', the Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions argues that a "plausible" estimate on the amount of stratospheric dust injected following a surface burst of 1 Mt is 0.3 teragrams, of which 8 percent would be in the [[Micrometre|micrometer]] range.{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions|1985 |loc="Chapter: 4 Dust" pp. 17–25}} The potential cooling from soil dust was again looked at in 1992, in a US [[National Academy of Sciences]] (NAS)<ref name="Sciences 1992, pp. 433">{{cite book |author=National Academy of Sciences |title=Policy implications of greenhouse warming: Mitigation, adaptation and the science base |publisher=National Academy Press |place=Washington DC |year=1992 |pages=433–464}}</ref> report on [[climate engineering|geoengineering]], which estimated that about 10<sup>10</sup> kg (10 teragrams) of stratospheric injected soil dust with [[particulate matter|particulate grain]] dimensions of 0.1 to 1 micrometer would be required to mitigate the warming from a [[climate sensitivity|doubling of atmospheric]] carbon dioxide, that is, to produce ~2&nbsp;°C of cooling.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Bala |first=G. |date=10 January 2009 |title=Problems with geoengineering schemes to combat climate change |journal=Current Science |volume=96 |issue=1}}</ref>

In 1969, [[Paul Crutzen]] discovered that [[NOx|oxides of nitrogen]] (NOx) could be an efficient catalyst for the destruction of the ozone layer/[[stratospheric ozone]]. Following studies on the potential effects of NOx generated by engine heat in stratosphere flying [[Supersonic Transport]] (SST) airplanes in the 1970s, in 1974, John Hampson suggested in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' that due to the creation of atmospheric NOx by [[nuclear fireball]]s, a full-scale nuclear exchange could result in depletion of the ozone shield, possibly subjecting the earth to ultraviolet radiation for a year or more.{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions |1985|p={{page needed|date=September 2021}}}}<ref>{{cite journal |author=Hampson |first=John |date=1974 |title=Photochemical war on the atmosphere |journal=Nature |volume=250 |issue=5463 |pages=189–191 |bibcode=1974Natur.250..189H |doi=10.1038/250189a0 |s2cid=4167666}}</ref> In 1975, Hampson's hypothesis "led directly"<ref name="bmartin.cc1" /> to the [[United States National Research Council]] (NRC) reporting on the models of ozone depletion following nuclear war in the book ''Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear-Weapons Detonations''.{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions |1985|p={{page needed|date=September 2021}}}}

In the section of this 1975 NRC book pertaining to the issue of fireball generated NOx and ozone layer loss therefrom, the NRC presented model calculations from the early-to-mid 1970s on the effects of a nuclear war with the use of large numbers of multi-megaton yield detonations, which returned conclusions that this could reduce ozone levels by 50 percent or more in the northern hemisphere.<ref name="Figure 1"/>{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions|1985|p=186}}

However, independent of the computer models presented in the 1975 NRC works, a paper in 1973 in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' depicts the stratospheric ozone levels worldwide overlaid upon the number of nuclear detonations during the era of atmospheric testing. The authors conclude that neither the data nor their models show any correlation between the approximate 500 Mt in historical atmospheric testing and an increase or decrease of ozone concentration.<ref name="Goldsmith 1973">{{cite journal |last1=Goldsmith |first1=P. |last2=Tuck|first2=A. F. |last3=Foot|first3=J. S. |last4=Simmons|first4=E. L. |last5=Newson |first5=R. L. |year=1973 |title=Nitrogen Oxides, Nuclear Weapon Testing, Concorde and Stratospheric Ozone |journal=Nature |volume=244 |issue=5418 |pages=545–551 |doi=10.1038/244545a0 |bibcode=1973Natur.244..545G |s2cid=4222122 |url=http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/79bias/Goldsmith.pdf|access-date=2016-10-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161208052639/http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/79bias/Goldsmith.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-08 }}</ref> In 1976, a study on the experimental measurements of an earlier atmospheric nuclear test as it affected the ozone layer also found that nuclear detonations are exonerated of depleting ozone, after the at first alarming model calculations of the time.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Christie |first=J. D. |date=1976-05-20 |title=Atmospheric ozone depletion by nuclear weapons testing |journal=Journal of Geophysical Research |volume=81 |issue=15 |pages=2583–2594 |bibcode=1976JGR....81.2583C |doi=10.1029/JC081i015p02583}}</ref> Similarly, a 1981 paper found that the models on ozone destruction from one test and the physical measurements taken were in disagreement, as no destruction was observed.<ref name=":2">{{cite journal |doi=10.1029/JC086iC02p01167 |bibcode=1981JGR....86.1167M |volume=86 |issue=C2 |title=Measurements of nitric oxide after a nuclear burst |journal=Journal of Geophysical Research |page=1167 |year=1981 |last1=McGhan |first1=M.}}</ref>

In total, about 500 Mt were atmospherically detonated between 1945 and 1971,<ref>{{cite book |title=Atmospheric Nuclear Tests|first=O. A.|last=Pavlovski|date=13 September 1998|publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=219–260 |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-03610-5_17|chapter = Radiological Consequences of Nuclear Testing for the Population of the Former USSR (Input Information, Models, Dose, and Risk Estimates) |isbn=978-3-642-08359-4}}</ref> peaking in 1961–1962, when 340 Mt were detonated in the atmosphere by the United States and Soviet Union.<ref>{{cite web|title=Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War – Radioactive Fallout |website=www.atomicarchive.com |url=http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml |access-date=2014-10-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006131515/http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml |archive-date=2014-10-06|url-status=live}}</ref> During this peak, with the multi-megaton range detonations of the two nations nuclear test series, in exclusive examination, a total yield estimated at 300 Mt of energy was released. Due to this, 3 × 10<sup>34</sup> additional molecules of [[nitric oxide]] (about 5,000 [[Tonne|tons]] per Mt, 5 × 10<sup>9</sup> grams per megaton)<ref name="Goldsmith 1973"/><ref>[http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html Nuclear weapons archive, Carey Mark Sublette 5.2.2.1] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140428174041/http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html |date=2014-04-28 }} "The high temperatures of the nuclear fireball, followed by rapid expansion and cooling, cause large amounts of nitrogen oxides to form from the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (very similar to what happens in combustion engines). Each megaton of yield will produce some 5000 tons of nitrogen oxides."</ref> are believed to have entered the stratosphere, and while ozone depletion of 2.2 percent was noted in 1963, the decline had started prior to 1961 and is believed to have been [[Ozone depletion|caused by other meteorological effects]].<ref name="Goldsmith 1973"/>

In 1982 journalist [[Jonathan Schell]] in his popular and influential book ''[[The Fate of the Earth]]'', introduced the public to the belief that fireball generated NOx would destroy the ozone layer to such an extent that crops would fail from solar UV radiation and then similarly painted the fate of the Earth, as plant and aquatic life going extinct. In the same year, 1982, Australian physicist [[Brian Martin (social scientist)|Brian Martin]], who frequently corresponded with John Hampson who had been greatly responsible for much of the examination of NOx generation,<ref name="bmartin.cc1" /> penned a short historical synopsis on the history of interest in the effects of the direct NOx generated by nuclear fireballs, and in doing so, also outlined Hampson's other non-mainstream viewpoints, particularly those relating to greater ozone destruction from upper-atmospheric detonations as a result of any widely used [[anti-ballistic missile]] ([[ABM-1 Galosh]]) system.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Martin |first=Brian |date=1988 |title=John Hampson's warnings of disaster |url=http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/88Hampson.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141130145905/http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/88Hampson.html |archive-date=2014-11-30 |access-date=2014-10-03 |quote=Crutzen of course knew of Hampson's work, and also had received correspondence from Hampson around 1980. His own impression was that nuclear explosions above the stratosphere probably wouldn't lead to nitrogen oxides at a low enough altitude to destroy a lot of ozone.}}</ref> However, Martin ultimately concludes that it is "unlikely that in the context of a major nuclear war" ozone degradation would be of serious concern. Martin describes views about potential ozone loss and therefore increases in [[Ultraviolet|ultraviolet light]] leading to the widespread destruction of crops, as advocated by Jonathan Schell in ''[[The Fate of the Earth]]'', as highly unlikely.<ref name="Figure 1" />

More recent accounts on the specific ozone layer destruction potential of NOx species are much less than earlier assumed from simplistic calculations, as "about 1.2 million tons" of natural and [[wikt:anthropogenic|anthropogenic]] generated stratospheric NOx is believed to be formed each year according to Robert P. Parson in the 1990s.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/ozone-depletion-intro/24-Will-commercial-supersonic-aircraft-damage-the-ozone-laye.html |title=24 Will commercial supersonic aircraft damage the ozone layer?|first=Stas |last=Bekman |website=stason.org|access-date=2014-10-03|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160606051736/http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/ozone-depletion-intro/24-Will-commercial-supersonic-aircraft-damage-the-ozone-laye.html|archive-date=2016-06-06}}</ref>

==== Science fiction ====
The first published suggestion that cooling of the climate could be an effect of a nuclear war, appears to have been originally put forth by [[Poul Anderson]] and F. N. Waldrop in their story "Tomorrow's Children", in the March 1947 issue of the ''[[Astounding Science Fiction]]'' magazine. The story, primarily about a team of scientists hunting down [[mutant (fiction)|mutants]],<ref>{{cite book |author=Ashley |first=Michael |title=The History of the Science Fiction Magazine |volume=1 |page=186 |language=en-us}}</ref> warns of a "[[Fimbulwinter]]" caused by dust that blocked sunlight after a recent nuclear war and speculated that it may even trigger a new Ice Age.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Nuclear Winter|encyclopedia=Science Fiction Encyclopedia |url=http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/nuclear_winter#sthash.x25SIeys.dpuf|access-date=2018-09-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180728074452/http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/nuclear_winter#sthash.x25SIeys.dpuf|archive-date=2018-07-28|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=autogenerated5>{{cite web|url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm#N_1_|title=Wintry Doom |website=www.aip.org|access-date=2014-09-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140929134255/http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm#N_1_|archive-date=2014-09-29|url-status=live}}</ref> Anderson went on to publish a novel based partly on this story in 1961, titling it ''Twilight World''.<ref name=autogenerated5 /> Similarly in 1985 it was noted by T. G. Parsons that the story "Torch" by C. Anvil, which also appeared in ''Astounding Science Fiction'' magazine, but in the April 1957 edition, contains the essence of the "Twilight at Noon"/"nuclear winter" hypothesis. In the story, a nuclear warhead ignites an oil field, and the soot produced "screens out part of the sun's radiation", resulting in Arctic temperatures for much of the population of North America and the Soviet Union.<ref name="babel.hathitrust.org" />

=== 1980s ===
The 1988 Air Force Geophysics Laboratory publication, ''An assessment of global atmospheric effects of a major nuclear war'' by H. S. Muench, et al., contains a chronology and review of the major reports on the nuclear winter hypothesis from 1983 to 1986. In general, these reports arrive at similar conclusions as they are based on "the same assumptions, the same basic data", with only minor model-code differences. They skip the modeling steps of assessing the possibility of fire and the initial fire plumes and instead start the modeling process with a "spatially uniform soot cloud" which has found its way into the atmosphere.<ref name="babel.hathitrust.org" />

Although never openly acknowledged by the multi-disciplinary team who authored the most popular 1980s TTAPS model, in 2011 the [[American Institute of Physics]] states that the TTAPS team (named for its participants, who had all previously worked on the phenomenon of dust storms on Mars, or in the area of asteroid [[impact event]]s: [[Richard P. Turco]], [[Owen Toon]], Thomas P. Ackerman, [[James B. Pollack]] and [[Carl Sagan]]) announcement of their results in 1983 "was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control".<ref name="history.aip.org">{{cite web|title=Wintry Doom |url=http://history.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm|website=history.aip.org|access-date=2016-12-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161202235031/http://history.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm |archive-date=2016-12-02|url-status=live}}</ref> However, "the computer models were so simplified, and the data on smoke and other aerosols were still so poor, that the scientists could say nothing for certain".<ref name="history.aip.org"/>

In 1981, William J. Moran began discussions and research in the [[National Research Council (United States)|National Research Council]] (NRC) on the airborne soil/dust effects of a large exchange of nuclear warheads, having seen a possible parallel in the dust effects of a war with that of the asteroid-created [[K-T boundary]] and its popular analysis a year earlier by [[Luis Walter Alvarez|Luis Alvarez]] in 1980.{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions|1985|loc="Appendix: Evolution of Knowledge About Long-Term Nuclear Effects"|p=186}} An NRC study panel on the topic met in December 1981 and April 1982 in preparation for the release of the NRC's ''The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange'', published in 1985.{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions |1985|p={{page needed|date=September 2021}}}}

As part of a study on the creation of [[Oxidizing agent|oxidizing species]] such as NOx and ozone in the troposphere after a nuclear war,<ref name="Nuclear Winter Documentary 1984">{{Citation |title=On the 8th Day – Nuclear Winter Documentary |date=1984 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTKcd2Ko98 |access-date=2023-12-15 |language=en}}.</ref> launched in 1980 by ''[[Ambio]]'', a journal of the [[Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences]], [[Paul J. Crutzen]] and [[John W. Birks]] began preparing for the 1982 publication of a calculation on the effects of nuclear war on stratospheric ozone, using the latest models of the time. However, they found that as a result of the trend towards more numerous but less energetic, sub-megaton range nuclear warheads (made possible by the march to increase ICBM warhead [[Circular Error Probable|accuracy]]), the ozone layer danger was "not very significant".<ref name="bmartin.cc1"/>

It was after being confronted with these results that they "chanced" upon the notion, as "an afterthought"<ref name="Nuclear Winter Documentary 1984" /> of nuclear detonations igniting massive fires everywhere and, crucially, the smoke from these conventional fires then going on to absorb sunlight, causing surface temperatures to plummet.<ref name="bmartin.cc1"/> In early 1982, the two circulated a draft paper with the first suggestions of alterations in short-term climate from fires presumed to occur following a nuclear war.{{sfn|Committee on the Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear Explosions |1985|p={{page needed|date=September 2021}}}} Later in the same year, the special issue of ''[[Ambio]]'' devoted to the possible environmental consequences of nuclear war by Crutzen and Birks was titled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon", and largely anticipated the nuclear winter hypothesis.<ref name="crutzen" /> The paper looked into fires and their climatic effect and discussed particulate matter from large fires, nitrogen oxide, ozone depletion and the effect of nuclear twilight on agriculture. Crutzen and Birks' calculations suggested that smoke particulates injected into the atmosphere by fires in cities, forests and petroleum reserves could prevent up to 99 percent of sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface. This darkness, they said, could exist "for as long as the fires burned", which was assumed to be many weeks, with effects such as: "The normal dynamic and temperature structure of the atmosphere would...change considerably over a large fraction of the Northern Hemisphere, which will probably lead to important changes in land surface temperatures and wind systems."<ref name=crutzen /> An implication of their work was that a successful nuclear [[decapitation strike]] could have severe climatic consequences for the perpetrator.

After reading a paper by N. P. Bochkov and [[Yevgeniy Chazov|E. I. Chazov]],<ref>{{cite book |author=Chazov |first1=E. I. |title=The Aftermath: the human and ecological consequences of nuclear war |last2=Vartanian |first2=M. E. |date=1983 |publisher=Pantheon Books |isbn=978-0-394-72042-5 |editor=Peterson |editor-first=Jeannie |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/aftermathhuman00pete/page/155 155–163] |language=en |chapter=Effects on human behaviour |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/aftermathhuman00pete |chapter-url-access=registration}}</ref> published in the same edition of ''Ambio'' that carried Crutzen and Birks's paper "Twilight at Noon", Soviet atmospheric scientist [[Georgy Golitsyn]] applied his research on [[Climate of Mars#Effect of dust storms|Mars dust storms]] to soot in the Earth's atmosphere. The use of these influential Martian dust storm models in nuclear winter research began in 1971,<ref name="Vladimir Gubarev 2001">{{cite journal |author=Gubarev |first=Vladimir |author-link=Vladimir Gubarev |date=2001 |title=Tea Drinking in The Academy. Academician G. S. Golitsyn: Agitations Of The Sea And Earth |url=http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/5755/ |url-status=live |journal=Science and Life |language=ru |volume=3 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110522025535/http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/5755/ |archive-date=2011-05-22 |access-date=2009-10-11}}</ref> when the Soviet spacecraft [[Mars 2]] arrived at the red planet and observed a global dust cloud. The orbiting instruments together with the 1971 [[Mars 3]] lander determined that temperatures on the surface of the red planet were considerably colder than temperatures at the top of the dust cloud. Following these observations, Golitsyn received two telegrams from astronomer [[Carl Sagan]], in which Sagan asked Golitsyn to "explore the understanding and assessment of this phenomenon". Golitsyn recounts that it was around this time that he had "proposed a theory{{which|date=December 2016}} to explain how Martian dust may be formed and how it may reach global proportions."<ref name="Vladimir Gubarev 2001"/>

In the same year Alexander Ginzburg,<ref name="journals.co-action.net">{{cite journal |last1=Golitsyn |first1=G. S. |last2=Ginsburg |first2=Alexander S. |date=1985 |title=Comparative estimates of climatic consequences of Martian dust storms and of possible nuclear war |journal=Tellus |volume=378 |issue=3 |pages=173–181 |bibcode=1985TellB..37..173G |doi=10.3402/tellusb.v37i3.15015 |doi-access=free}}</ref> an employee in Golitsyn's institute, developed a model of dust storms to describe the cooling phenomenon on Mars. Golitsyn felt that his model would be applicable to soot after he read a 1982 Swedish magazine dedicated to the effects of a hypothetical nuclear war between the USSR and the US.<ref name="Vladimir Gubarev 2001"/> Golitsyn would use Ginzburg's largely unmodified dust-cloud model with soot assumed as the aerosol in the model instead of soil dust and in an identical fashion to the results returned, when computing dust-cloud cooling in the Martian atmosphere, the cloud high above the planet would be heated while the planet below would cool drastically. Golitsyn presented his intent to publish this Martian-derived Earth-analog model to the [[Andropov]] instigated ''Committee of Soviet Scientists in Defence of Peace Against the Nuclear Threat'' in May 1983, an organization that Golitsyn would later be appointed vice-chairman. The establishment of this committee was done with the expressed approval of the Soviet leadership with the intent "to expand controlled contacts with Western [[nuclear disarmament|"nuclear freeze" activists]]".<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Zubok |first=Vladislav M. |date=April 1, 2000 |title=Gorbachev's Nuclear Learning |work=Boston Review |url=https://bostonreview.net/world/vladislav-m-zubok-gorbachevs-nuclear-learning |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160818075324/http://bostonreview.net/world/vladislav-m-zubok-gorbachevs-nuclear-learning |archive-date=18 August 2016 |access-date=21 December 2016}}</ref> Having gained this committees approval, in September 1983, Golitsyn published the first computer model on the nascent "nuclear winter" effect in the widely read ''[[Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences]]''.<ref name="Тяжелая пыль">{{Cite web |author=Shumeyko |first=Igor |date=2003-10-08 |title=Тяжелая пыль "ядерной зимы" |trans-title=Heavy dust 'nuclear winter' |url=http://www.ng.ru/science/2003-10-08/14_winter.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110617081632/http://www.ng.ru/science/2003-10-08/14_winter.html |archive-date=2011-06-17 |access-date=2009-10-27 |language=ru}}</ref>

On 31 October 1982, Golitsyn and Ginsburg's model and results were presented at the conference on "The World after Nuclear War", hosted in [[Washington, D.C.]]<ref name="journals.co-action.net"/>

Both Golitsyn<ref name="Тяжелая пыль"/> and Sagan<ref>{{cite thesis |author=Rubinson |date=2008 |title=Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists' Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War |url=https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2008/rubinsonp66913/rubinsonp66913.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140924041711/https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2008/rubinsonp66913/rubinsonp66913.pdf |archive-date=2014-09-24 |type=PhD |first=Paul Harold}}</ref> had been interested in the cooling on the dust storms on the planet Mars in the years preceding their focus on "nuclear winter". Sagan had also worked on [[Project A119]] in the 1950s–1960s, in which he attempted to model the movement and longevity of a plume of lunar soil.

After the publication of "Twilight at Noon" in 1982,{{Sfn | Badash |2009 | p = {{page needed|date=September 2021}}}} the TTAPS team have said that they began the process of doing a 1-dimensional computational modeling study of the atmospheric consequences of nuclear war/soot in the stratosphere, though they would not publish a paper in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' magazine until late-December 1983.<ref name="CITEREFTurcoToonAckermanPollack1983">{{cite journal |last1=Turco |first1=R. P. |last2=Toon |first2=O. B. |last3=Ackerman |first3=T. P. |last4=Pollack |first4=J. B. |last5=Sagan |first5=Carl |date=December 23, 1983 |title=Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions |journal=Science |volume=222 |issue=4630 |pages=1283–1292 |bibcode=1983Sci...222.1283T |doi=10.1126/science.222.4630.1283 |pmid=17773320 |s2cid=45515251}}</ref> The phrase "nuclear winter" had been coined by Turco just prior to publication.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Dörries |first=Matthias |date=2011 |title=The Politics of Atmospheric Sciences: "Nuclear Winter" and Global Climate Change |url=https://univoak.eu/islandora/object/islandora%3A62598 |journal=Osiris |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=198–223 |doi=10.1086/661272 |jstor=10.1086/661272) |pmid=21936194 |s2cid=23719340}}</ref> In this early paper, TTAPS used assumption-based estimates on the total smoke and dust emissions that would result from a major nuclear exchange, and with that, began analyzing the subsequent effects on the atmospheric [[radiation balance]] and temperature structure as a result of this quantity of assumed smoke. To compute dust and smoke effects, they employed a one-dimensional microphysics/radiative-transfer model of the Earth's lower atmosphere (up to the mesopause), which defined only the vertical characteristics of the global climate perturbation.

Interest in the environmental effects of nuclear war, however, had continued in the Soviet Union after Golitsyn's September paper, with [[Vladimir Alexandrov]] and G. I. Stenchikov also publishing a paper in December 1983 on the climatic consequences, although in contrast to the contemporary TTAPS paper, this paper was based on simulations with a three-dimensional global circulation model.<ref name="Alexandrov, V. V 1983" /> (Two years later Alexandrov disappeared under mysterious circumstances). Richard Turco and Starley L. Thompson were both critical of the Soviet research. Turco called it "primitive" and Thompson said it used obsolete US computer models.{{Sfn | Badash |2009 | p = 219}} Later they were to rescind these criticisms and instead applauded Alexandrov's pioneering work, saying that the Soviet model shared the weaknesses of all the others.<ref name="babel.hathitrust.org"/>

In 1984, the [[World Meteorological Organization]] (WMO) commissioned Golitsyn and N. A. Phillips to review the state of the science. They found that studies generally assumed a scenario where half of the world's nuclear weapons would be used, ~5000 Mt, destroying approximately 1,000 cities, and creating large quantities of carbonaceous smoke – 1–{{val|2|e=14|u=g}} being most likely, with a range of 0.2–{{val|6.4|e=14|u=g}} (NAS; TTAPS assumed {{val|2.25|e=14}}). The smoke resulting would be largely opaque to solar radiation but transparent to infrared, thus cooling the Earth by blocking sunlight, but not creating warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of the smoke can be much greater than unity. Forest fires resulting from non-urban targets could increase aerosol production further. Dust from near-surface explosions against hardened targets also contributes; each megaton-equivalent explosion could release up to five million tons of dust, but most would quickly fall out; high altitude dust is estimated at 0.1–1 million tons per megaton-equivalent of explosion. Burning of crude oil could also contribute substantially.<ref>Golitsyn, G. S. and Phillips, N. A. (1986) "Possible climatic consequences of a major nuclear war", ''[[World climate research programme|WCRP]]'', World Meteorological Organization, WCP-113, WMO/TD #99.</ref>

The 1-D radiative-convective models used in these{{which|date=October 2016}} studies produced a range of results, with cooling up to 15–42&nbsp;°C between 14 and 35 days after the war, with a "baseline" of about 20&nbsp;°C. Somewhat more sophisticated calculations using 3-D [[Global climate model|GCMs]] produced similar results: temperature drops of about 20&nbsp;°C, though with regional variations.<ref name="Alexandrov, V. V 1983"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Covey |first1=C. |last2=Schneider |first2=S. |last3=Thompson |first3=S. |title=Global atmospheric effects of massive smoke injections from a nuclear war: results from general circulation model simulations |journal=Nature |volume=308 |pages=21–25 |date=March 1984 |issue=5954 |doi=10.1038/308021a0 |bibcode=1984Natur.308...21C |s2cid=4326912 |url=http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/CoveySchneiderThompson.pdf |access-date=2021-09-04 |archive-date=2021-09-04  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210904215009/http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/CoveySchneiderThompson.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

All{{which|date=October 2016}} calculations show large heating (up to 80&nbsp;°C) at the top of the smoke layer at about {{Cvt|10|km|}}; this implies a substantial modification of the circulation there and the possibility of [[advection]] of the cloud into low latitudes and the southern hemisphere.

=== 1990 ===
In a 1990 paper entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter", TTAPS gave a more detailed description of the short- and long-term atmospheric effects of a nuclear war using a three-dimensional model:<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite Q|Q63169455}}</ref>

First one to three months:
* 10–25% of soot injected is immediately removed by precipitation, while the rest is transported over the globe in one to two weeks
* SCOPE figures for July smoke injection:
** 22&nbsp;°C drop in mid-latitudes
** 10&nbsp;°C drop in humid climates
** 75% decrease in rainfall in mid-latitudes
** Light level reduction of 0% in low latitudes to 90% in high smoke injection areas
* SCOPE figures for winter smoke injection:
** Temperature drops between 3 and 4&nbsp;°C

Following one to three years:
* 25–40% of injected smoke is stabilised in atmosphere (NCAR). Smoke stabilised for approximately one year.
* Land temperatures of several degrees below normal
* Ocean surface temperature between 2 and 6&nbsp;°C
* Ozone depletion of 50% leading to 200% increase in UV radiation incident on surface.

=== Kuwait wells in the first Gulf War ===
{{main|Kuwaiti oil fires}}
[[File:F-14A VF-114 over burning Kuwaiti oil well 1991.JPEG|thumb| The [[Kuwaiti oil fires]] were not just limited to [[oil well fire|burning oil wells]], one of which is seen here in the background, but burning "oil lakes", seen in the foreground, also contributed to the smoke plumes, particularly the sootiest/blackest of them.<ref name="gulflink.osd.mil">{{cite web |website=GulfLINK |url=http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_s04.htm#IV.%20AIR%20POLLUTANTS%20FROM%20OIL%20FIRES%20AND%20OTHER%20SOURCES |title=IV. Air Pollutants From Oil Fires and Other Sources |access-date=2014-06-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924024302/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_s04.htm#IV.%20AIR%20POLLUTANTS%20FROM%20OIL%20FIRES%20AND%20OTHER%20SOURCES |archive-date=2015-09-24 |url-status=live}}</ref>]]
[[File:KuwaitiOilFires-STS037-152-91-(2).jpg|thumb|Smoke plumes from a few of the [[Kuwaiti Oil Fires]] on April 7, 1991. The maximum assumed extent of the combined plumes from over six hundred fires during the period of February 15 – May 30, 1991, are available.<ref name="gulflink.osd.mil"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_tabj.htm#TAB%20J%20%E2%80%93%20Plume%20Configurations |title=Tab J – Plume Configurations |website=GulfLINK |access-date=2014-06-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924024306/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_tabj.htm#TAB%20J%20%E2%80%93%20Plume%20Configurations |archive-date=2015-09-24 |url-status=live}}</ref> Only about 10% of all the fires, mostly corresponding with those that originated from "oil lakes" produced pure black soot filled plumes, 25% of the fires emitted white to grey plumes, while the remaining emitted plumes with colors between grey and black.<ref name="gulflink.osd.mil"/>]]

One of the major results of TTAPS' 1990 paper was the re-iteration of the team's 1983 model that 100 [[oil refinery]] fires would be sufficient to bring about a small scale, but still globally deleterious nuclear winter.<ref name="sgr.org.uk">{{cite web|url=http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/does-anybody-remember-nuclear-winter|title=Does anybody remember the Nuclear Winter? |website=www.sgr.org.uk|access-date=2016-02-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216064753/http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/does-anybody-remember-nuclear-winter|archive-date=2016-02-16|url-status=live}}</ref>

Following Iraq's [[invasion of Kuwait]] and Iraqi threats of igniting the country's approximately 800 oil wells, speculation on the cumulative climatic effect of this, presented at the [[World Climate Conference]] in Geneva that November in 1990, ranged from a nuclear winter type scenario, to heavy [[acid rain]] and even short term immediate global warming.<ref name="Tahir Husain">{{cite journal |author=Husain |first=Tahir |date=July 1994 |title=Kuwaiti oil fires—Modeling revisited |journal=Atmospheric Environment |volume=28 |issue=13 |pages=2211–2226 |bibcode=1994AtmEn..28.2211H |doi=10.1016/1352-2310(94)90361-1 |issn=1352-2310}}</ref>

In articles printed in the [[Star-News|''Wilmington Morning Star'']] and the [[The Baltimore Sun|''Baltimore Sun'']] newspapers in January 1991, prominent authors of nuclear winter papers – Richard P. Turco, John W. Birks, Carl Sagan, Alan Robock and Paul Crutzen – collectively stated that they expected catastrophic nuclear winter like effects with continental-sized effects of sub-freezing temperatures as a result of the Iraqis going through with their threats of igniting 300 to 500 pressurized oil wells that could subsequently burn for several months.<ref>{{cite web |author=Roylance |first=Frank D. |date=January 23, 1991 |title=Burning oil wells could be disaster, Sagan says |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/1991/01/23/burning-oil-wells-could-be-disaster-sagan-says/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006144456/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-01-23/news/1991023131_1_kuwait-saddam-hussein-sagan |archive-date=October 6, 2014 |access-date=June 11, 2014 |work=Baltimore Sun |page=1}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Evans |first=David |date=January 20, 1991 |title=Burning oil wells could darken U.S. skies |work=Wilmington Morning Star |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6tEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6851,2148654&dq=world-climate-conference+oil+fires&hl=en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160312090836/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6tEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6851,2148654&dq=world-climate-conference+oil+fires&hl=en |archive-date=2016-03-12}}</ref>

As threatened, the wells were [[Kuwaiti oil fires|set on fire]] by the retreating Iraqis in March 1991, and the 600 or so burning oil wells were not fully extinguished until November 6, 1991, eight months after the end of the war,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_tabc.htm|title=TAB C – Fighting the Oil Well Fires |website=GulfLINK |access-date=2009-10-26|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150220213449/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_tabc.htm|archive-date=2015-02-20}}</ref> and they consumed an estimated six million barrels of oil per day at their peak intensity.

When [[Operation Desert Storm]] began in January 1991, coinciding with the first few oil fires being lit, Dr. [[S. Fred Singer]] and [[Carl Sagan]] discussed the possible environmental effects of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] program ''[[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]]''. Sagan again argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of a nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the stratosphere, beginning around {{convert|48000|ft|m}} above sea level in Kuwait, resulting in global effects. He also argued that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the [[1815 eruption of Mount Tambora]] in Indonesia, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the "[[Year Without a Summer]]".

Sagan listed modeling outcomes that forecast effects extending to South [[Asia]], and perhaps to the Northern Hemisphere as well. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "It should affect the war plans."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119014904/https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html|archive-date=19 January 2012|title=A lecture by Michael Crichton|date=19 January 2012}}</ref> Singer, on the other hand, anticipated that the smoke would go to an altitude of about {{convert|3000|ft|m}} and then be rained out after about three to five days, thus limiting the lifetime of the smoke. Both height estimates made by Singer and Sagan turned out to be wrong, albeit with Singer's narrative being closer to what transpired, with the comparatively minimal atmospheric effects remaining limited to the Persian Gulf region, with smoke plumes, in general,<ref name="gulflink.osd.mil"/> lofting to about {{convert|10,000|ft|m}} and a few as high as {{convert|20,000|ft|m}}.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Kuwaiti Oil Fires |last=Hirschmann|first=Kris|publisher=Facts on File |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/4960296/The-Kuwaiti-Oli-Fires|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140102193647/http://www.scribd.com/doc/4960296/The-Kuwaiti-Oli-Fires |archive-date=2014-01-02|via=Scribd}}</ref><!--The reference for this is a hardcopy transcript of the episode, excerpts on the Fred Singer talk page.--><ref>{{cite episode |title=First Israeli Scud Fatalities, Oil Fires in Kuwait |series=Nightline |series-link=Nightline (US news program) |network=ABC |air-date=1991-01-22 |transcript=yes}}</ref>

Sagan and his colleagues expected that a "self-lofting" of the sooty smoke would occur when it absorbed the sun's heat radiation, with little to no scavenging occurring, whereby the black particles of soot would be heated by the sun and lifted/lofted higher and higher into the air, thereby injecting the soot into the stratosphere, a position where they argued it would take years for the sun-blocking effect of this aerosol of soot to fall out of the air, and with that, catastrophic ground level cooling and agricultural effects in Asia and possibly the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.<ref>{{cite web |author=Roylance |first=Frank D. |date=January 23, 1991 |title=Burning oil wells could be disaster, Sagan says |url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/1991/01/23/burning-oil-wells-could-be-disaster-sagan-says/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006144456/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-01-23/news/1991023131_1_kuwait-saddam-hussein-sagan |archive-date=October 6, 2014 |access-date=June 11, 2014 |work=Baltimore Sun |page=2}}</ref> In a 1992 follow-up, [[Peter V. Hobbs]] and others had observed no appreciable evidence for the nuclear winter team's predicted massive "self-lofting" effect and the oil-fire smoke clouds contained less soot than the nuclear winter modelling team had assumed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.orlandosentinel.com/1992/07/26/kuwait-fires-failed-to-bring-doomsday/|title=Kuwait Fires Failed To Bring Doomsday|date=July 26, 1992 |access-date=2016-12-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202053517/http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-07-26/news/9207260223_1_nuclear-winter-carbon-dioxide-smoke|archive-date=2017-02-02|url-status=live}}</ref>

The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the [[National Science Foundation]], Peter V. Hobbs, stated that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis]... were probably a little overblown."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7124.htm |title=Dossier, A publication providing succinct biographical sketches of environmental scientists, economists, "experts", and activists released by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Environmental Scientist: Dr. Carl Sagan|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714131601/http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7124.htm |archive-date=2014-07-14 }}</ref>

Hobbs found that at the peak of the fires, the smoke absorbed 75 to 80% of the sun's radiation. The particles rose to a maximum of {{convert|20,000|ft|m}}, and when combined with scavenging by clouds the smoke had a short residency time of a maximum of a few days in the atmosphere.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |first1=Peter V. |last1=Hobbs |first2=Lawrence F. |last2=Radke |title=Airborne Studies of the Smoke from the Kuwait Oil Fires |journal=Science |date=May 15, 1992 |doi=10.1126/science.256.5059.987 |volume=256 |issue=5059 |pages=987–991 |pmid=17795001 |bibcode=1992Sci...256..987H |s2cid=43394877 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1231018 |access-date=2018-09-13  |archive-date=2020-07-28  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728023037/https://zenodo.org/record/1231018 |url-status=live }} [http://europepmc.org/article/MED/17795001 Full text via Europe PMC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210905005958/http://europepmc.org/article/MED/17795001 |date=2021-09-05  }}</ref>

Pre-war claims of wide scale, long-lasting, and significant global environmental effects were thus not borne out, and found to be significantly exaggerated by the media and speculators,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Khordagu |first1=Hosny |last2=Al-Ajmi |first2=Dhari |date=July 1993 |title=Environmental impact of the Gulf War: An integrated preliminary assessment |journal=Environmental Management |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=557–562 |bibcode=1993EnMan..17..557K |doi=10.1007/bf02394670 |s2cid=153413376}}</ref> with climate models by those not supporting the nuclear winter hypothesis at the time of the fires predicting only more localized effects such as a daytime temperature drop of ~10&nbsp;°C within 200&nbsp;km of the source.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1038/351363a0|title = Environmental effects from burning oil wells in Kuwait|journal = Nature|volume = 351|issue = 6325|pages = 363–367|year = 1991|last1 = Browning|first1 = K. A.|last2 = Allam|first2 = R. J.|last3 = Ballard|first3 = S. P.|last4 = Barnes|first4 = R. T. H.|last5 = Bennetts|first5 = D. A.|last6 = Maryon|first6 = R. H.|last7 = Mason|first7 = P. J.|last8 = McKenna|first8 = D.|last9 = Mitchell|first9 = J. F. B.|last10 = Senior|first10 = C. A.|last11 = Slingo|first11 = A.|last12 = Smith|first12 = F. B.|bibcode = 1991Natur.351..363B|s2cid = 4244270}}</ref>

[[File:Hemel Hempstead fuel explosion map.jpg|thumb|This satellite photo of the south of [[United Kingdom|Britain]] shows black smoke from the 2005 [[Buncefield fire]], a series of fires and explosions involving approximately 250,000,000 [[litre]]s of [[fossil fuels]]. The plume is seen spreading in two main streams from the explosion site at the apex of the inverted 'v'. By the time the fire had been extinguished the smoke had reached the [[English Channel]]. The orange dot is a marker, not the actual fire. Although the smoke plume was from a single source, and larger in size than the individual [[oil well]] fire plumes in Kuwait 1991, the Buncefield smoke cloud remained out of the stratosphere.]]

Sagan later conceded in his book ''[[The Demon-Haunted World]]'' that his predictions obviously did not turn out to be correct: "it ''was'' pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6&nbsp;°C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared."<ref>{{cite book |author=Sagan, Carl |title=The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark |publisher=Random House |location=New York |date=1996 |page=257 |isbn=978-0-394-53512-8 }}</ref>

The idea of oil well and oil reserve smoke pluming into the stratosphere serving as a main contributor to the soot of a nuclear winter was a central idea of the early climatology papers on the hypothesis; they were considered more of a possible contributor than smoke from cities, as the smoke from oil has a higher ratio of black soot, thus absorbing more sunlight.<ref name="crutzen">{{cite journal |author=Crutzen |first1=P. |last2=Birks |first2=J. |date=1982 |title=The atmosphere after a nuclear war: Twilight at noon |journal=Ambio |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=114–125 |jstor=4312777}}</ref><ref name=CITEREFTurcoToonAckermanPollack1983/> Hobbs compared the papers' assumed "emission factor" or soot generating efficiency from ignited oil pools and found, upon comparing to measured values from oil pools at Kuwait, which were the greatest soot producers, the emissions of soot assumed in the nuclear winter calculations were still "too high".<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Following the results of the Kuwaiti oil fires being in disagreement with the core nuclear winter promoting scientists, 1990s nuclear winter papers generally attempted to distance themselves from suggesting oil well and reserve smoke will reach the stratosphere.

In 2007, a nuclear winter study noted that modern computer models have been applied to the Kuwait oil fires, finding that individual smoke plumes are not able to loft smoke into the stratosphere, but that smoke from fires covering a large area, like some forest fires, can lift smoke into the stratosphere, and recent evidence suggests that this occurs far more often than previously thought.<ref name="agu.org"/><ref name="Fire-Breathing Storm Systems"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/main/siberia-smoke.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120717141349/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/main/siberia-smoke.html |archive-date=2012-07-17 |title=Satellite Sees Smoke from Siberian Fires Reach the U.S. Coast |date=2012-06-11 |publisher=NASA}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=NRL scientist seeing clearly the effects of pyrocumulonimbus |url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/nrl-nss082610.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130129195204/http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/nrl-nss082610.php |archive-date=2013-01-29 |date=August 26, 2010 |website=EurekAlert!}}</ref> The study also suggested that the burning of the comparably smaller cities, which would be expected to follow a nuclear strike, would also loft significant amounts of smoke into the stratosphere:

{{blockquote|Stenchikov et al. [2006b]<ref name="Georgiy Stenchikov">{{cite journal|last1=Stenchikov|first1=G. L. |last2=Fromm|first2=M.|last3=Robock|first3=A.|date=2006|url=http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-05%22 |title=Regional Simulations of Stratospheric Lofting of Smoke Plumes |journal=EOS Trans. |publisher=AGU |volume=87 |issue=52 Fall Meet. Suppl |bibcode=2006AGUFM.U14A..05S |at=Abstract U14A-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080124034046/http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-05%22 |archive-date=2008-01-24}} <!--The following may be helpful if you are willing to install whatever they are selling-->{{cite web |title=Slides |access-date=2014-08-08 |url= http://www.slidefinder.net/s/stenchikov_nwinter_agu_8short/stenchikov_nwinter_agu_8short/29710541 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140810030820/http://www.slidefinder.net/s/stenchikov_nwinter_agu_8short/stenchikov_nwinter_agu_8short/29710541|archive-date=2014-08-10 }}</ref> conducted detailed, high-resolution smoke plume simulations with the RAMS regional climate model [e.g., Miguez-Macho, et al., 2005]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_downscaling/GonzaloJC2005.pdf |last1=Miguez-Macho|first1=G. |last2=Stenchikov|first2=G. L.|last3=Robock|first3=A.|date=15 April 2005 |title=Regional Climate Simulations over North America: Interaction of Local Processes with Improved Large-Scale Flow |access-date=2008-01-24 |archive-date=2008-04-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080410131929/http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_downscaling/GonzaloJC2005.pdf}}</ref> and showed that individual plumes, such as those from the Kuwait oil fires in 1991, would not be expected to loft into the upper atmosphere or stratosphere, because they become diluted. However, much larger plumes, such as would be generated by city fires, produce large, undiluted mass motion that results in smoke lofting. New [[large eddy simulation]] model results at much higher resolution also give similar lofting to our results, and no small scale response that would inhibit the lofting [Jensen, 2006].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Jensen|first=E. J.|date=2006|url=http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-06%22 |title=Lofting of Smoke Plumes Generated by Regional Nuclear Conflicts |journal=EOS Trans. |publisher=AGU |volume=87 |issue=52 Fall Meet. Suppl |bibcode=2006AGUFM.U14A..06J|at=Abstract U14A-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080124034052/http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22U14A-06%22 |archive-date=2008-01-24 }}</ref>}}

However, the above simulation notably contained the assumption that no dry or wet deposition would occur.<ref name="Georgiy Stenchikov"/>