The 3.2 Tg figure is their figure for the worst case scenario, based on 1 g/cm2 fuel loading. In their later paper they discuss this may be too high for a 1 g/cm2 scenario, as you say they mention that their soot conversion was set to be high for caution, and they could have it an order of magnitude or so lower, which Rutgers do.
However, this presents a bit of an issue for us in my calculations and factors. I’m comparing headline results there, and the 3.2 is the headline worst case result. It could be that they actually meant that the 100 fires generated just 0.32 Tg of soot total (or less), and we could take that as a fair comparison, but then we have a further issue in that Hiroshima led to an estimated 0.02 TG alone, meaning that seems to raise questions on if they’re calibrated correctly.
Again, you can assume that maybe India/Pakistan just don’t have the fuel to burn, maybe that keeps you that low, but then it’s not a relevant factor of comparison for a full scale exchange on dense cities which do have the fuel. Either way, for the full scale comparison, it returns to firestorms: will they form? Assumptions around fuel loading/combustion feed into that, but that’s the core.
we have a further issue in that Hiroshima led to an estimated 0.02 TG alone, meaning that seems to raise questions on if they’re calibrated correctly.
Would Los Alamos agree that is an issue? From Reisner 2019:
Of the two nuclear bombs detonated in WWII, a firestorm was reported in Hiroshima. The relatively dense wood structures (10-g/cm2 fuel loading) in Hiroshima promoted a long-lived (2 to 3 hr; Rodden et al., 1965) firestorm, but estimated BC production (0.02 Tg) over the entire firestorm and smoldering phases was similar to the estimate (0.037 Tg for one incident) produced by the no-rubble simulation in Reisner et al.
BTW, where did the estimate of 0.02 Tg come from? I did not find it in Rodden 1965 searching for “0.02”, “soot” and “carbon”.
Quick responses Vasco!
The 3.2 Tg figure is their figure for the worst case scenario, based on 1 g/cm2 fuel loading. In their later paper they discuss this may be too high for a 1 g/cm2 scenario, as you say they mention that their soot conversion was set to be high for caution, and they could have it an order of magnitude or so lower, which Rutgers do.
However, this presents a bit of an issue for us in my calculations and factors. I’m comparing headline results there, and the 3.2 is the headline worst case result. It could be that they actually meant that the 100 fires generated just 0.32 Tg of soot total (or less), and we could take that as a fair comparison, but then we have a further issue in that Hiroshima led to an estimated 0.02 TG alone, meaning that seems to raise questions on if they’re calibrated correctly.
Again, you can assume that maybe India/Pakistan just don’t have the fuel to burn, maybe that keeps you that low, but then it’s not a relevant factor of comparison for a full scale exchange on dense cities which do have the fuel. Either way, for the full scale comparison, it returns to firestorms: will they form? Assumptions around fuel loading/combustion feed into that, but that’s the core.
Thanks for the reply!
Would Los Alamos agree that is an issue? From Reisner 2019:
BTW, where did the estimate of 0.02 Tg come from? I did not find it in Rodden 1965 searching for “0.02”, “soot” and “carbon”.