Arguments
How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Posted on 24 August 2012 by Tom Curtis
A reasonable estimate indicates that the total energy released by nuclear explosions in the twentieth century amounts to six hundred megatons TNT equivalent of energy, or 2.5 billion, billion Joules (2.5 x 1018 J). That estimate is larger than the five hundred and thirty megatons TNT equivalent estimated by UNSCEAR (also), so it can be considered a conservative estimate. Divided over the five hundred and ten million, million square meters of the Earth's surface (510 x 1012 m^2), and over the two decades of peak testing, that represents eight millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power. For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year that the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world has generated.
That is not the whole story. Many nuclear tests kick up a lot of dust, which reflects sunlight, thereby cooling the Earth. Indeed, according to Turco et al, 1983, that is the dominant effect of nuclear explosions on climate. The result is that nuclear testing is likely to have reflected more energy from the Sun than they generated. That is, nuclear testing is likely to have been a net cooling factor.
Let us ignore that possibility, and the large proportion of energy released to space as radiation. In that case, during the period of maximum nuclear testing it may have contributed 0.62 millionth of a degree Centigrade (0.62 x 10-6 C) to temperature increase, a contribution too small to notice, and likely to have entirely dissipated since the reduction in nuclear testing in the 1990s. The peak contribution was in 1962, when nuclear testing may have contributed as much as one hundred and seventy megatons TNT equivalent of energy in 1962. Averaged over the year and the Earth's surface, that represents forty-four millionths of a Watt (44 x 10-6 W m-2), for a warming contribution, ignoring dust effects, of around thirty-five millionths of a degree Centigrade (35 * 10-6 C), still too small to notice.
(Source)
Note: this is the intermediate rebuttal to 'nuclear testing is causing global warming' and can be found at the short URL sks.to/nuclear
Please my ignorance, but the way it was described to me many years ago in high school, dropping an h-bomb was equal to taking a teaspoon of the sun and exposing it to Earth's atmosphere. Is there any way someone might describe the thermal change caused by above ground testing in terms of heat from automobiles or dmage done by coal emissions?
earthhouse
As a comparison, a common unit that is being used to describe the amount of heat accumulating in the worlds oceans, where over 90% of the heat is going, is the Hiro. The Energy of 1 Hiroshima bomb. Energy is accumulating in the oceans at around 4 Hiro's per second. The very largest bombs ever exploded were of the order of a 1000 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb but only a tiny number of those were ever tested. quite a few bombs that were 10 to 100 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb were tested. Possibly hundreds.
Wikipedia suggests there have been nearly 2000 tests.
So lets say as an upper limit that there were 2000 tests at 100 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. 200,000 Hiro's. That is the equivalent of just under 14 hours worth of heat accumulation in the oceans. So totally insignificant compared to the heating being observed.
It can be hard to get our heads around the relative magnitudes of different very large quantities.
earthhouse @26, that is an interesting analogy.
Assuming that all energy from nuclear tests was dissipated as heat in the Earth's atmosphere (which without doubt over estimates the amount of heat generated), 0.000044 W/m^2 of energy was generated over the years of nuclear testing. For comparison, the total waste heat from human industry, power generation and transport is 0.028 W/m^2, or 636 times as much. The current Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance is approximately 0.6 W/m^2, or 13,636 as much. The current forcing by CO2 is 1.9 W/m^2, or 43,368 times as much.
Comparison with the power output of individual cars could, no doubt, be calculated, but I do not think the result would be informative. However, the total energy released by nuclear testing (2.5 x 10^18 Joules) is equivalent to that which would be released by burning 71.4 billion liters of gasoline, or 18.9 billion gallons. However, actually burning that amount of gasoline would release 164 million tonnes of CO2, which as it happens is a mere 0.012 ppmv of atmospheric content, considering only the portion retained in the atmosphere. The additional greenhouse effect of that tiny amount of additional CO2 would be 0.00016 W/m^2, or 3.6 times the amount from the total energy release from nuclear testing, with the difference being that that increased greenhouse effect would continue year on year, while the nuclear testing is over and done, and it forcing along with it.
Glenn @27, as you know I strenuously object to the use of the "Hiro" as a unit of energy, both because (as I understand it), the residents of Hiroshima find it offensive, and because its impact factor comes from its association with the explosion of Little Boy at Hiroshima, with the deaths of 100,000 people immediately or from injuries recieved, and further deaths of 100,000 people +/- from radiation exposure.
I also consider it a scientifically limited comparitor with the total forcing or TOA energy imbalance because it leaves out the essential factor of entropy. The energy imbalance due to the greenhouse effect is not like the dropping of four atomic bombs a second at random over the Earth's surface because far less destructive (while noting that the much less destructive effects will also be much longer lasting, and indeed will outlast the energy imbalance itself).
I read somewhere that the dust from nuclear testing might have had a cooling affect from increased albeido. Does anyone know if that is real or just something that is spread on the internet?
Google finds this article, unfortunately behind a pay wall. The abstract claims that the global temperature hiatus from 1950-1970 can be attributed to fine dust from above ground nuclear tests. Very few cites by scientists so apparently other scientists did not think much of the hypothesis.
michael sweet @30, based on Turco et al that would have been the dominant impact of nuclear testing on climate. I believe Turco et al over estimated the impact of nuclear exchanges on climate, primarilly by underestimating the moderating effect of the thermal mass of the oceans. Further, many nuclear tests were underground (eliminating the aerosol forcing) or at sea (minimizing it), so it is not certain that he net forcing would have been negative, though still likely. However the effect in either direction would be far to small to distinguish from the impact of other factors on Earth's short term climate in the fifties and sixties.
Could limited detonations of nuclear warheads be a short-term stop-gap measure to fight global warming, then? The world might be willing to trade lowered food production and a slight increase in cancer rates to buy some time to solve global warming permanently. As for wildlife, Chernobyl shows that human habitation is far deadlier to wildife than radiation is. How many detonations do you think it'd take?
Did nuclear testing cause current warming trends? Stop looking at the energy released and look at the impact of the energy.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/space-weather-events-linked-to-human-activity
Simply put, HANT impacted the magnetosphere in ways they are still trying to understand and was classified until recently. There's a reason this has been classified for the last 50 years.
The magnetosphere is weakening folks and maybe accelerating. Thats established science. That means greater amounts of radiation is able to penetrate into the atmosphere. What happens when you increase energy input of an object? It heats up. It also means more potential cloud cover. Clouds were thought to increase cooling, well thats true but clouds can also increase warming. Clouds can work as either a reflective blanket or thermal blanket depending on type. Consider for a minute the desert. It absorbs the most energy heating up. It also releases that energy into space which is why deserts experience biggest temperature swings. Add cloud cover, less energy gets in but also less energy escapes. Studies have shown that we are experiencing surface warming but cooling troposphere which correlates with an effect clouds can do. Hold energy in reflecting incoming energy back to space.
[DB] Space weather is not surface weather. That NASA link does not support your claims.
From 1945-2009 there were 2,402 surface and underground nuclear weapon tests. Of those, 527 were conducted above-ground. Of those, some 458 were conducted in the first 20 years of nuclear weapons testing.
Looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.
For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQSNuclearWeaponsTesting01.jpg
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_B.pdf
http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pages/RadioPDF/unscear_artificielle.pdf
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Why would you remove my post about what chemtrails really are? A combination of airplane aerosol emissions with cosmic rays. A natural phenomenon caused when increase cosmic radiation is incoming from outside our solar system or our sun.
[BL] Moderation complaints are a pretty fast way to get things deleted.
General Warning
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
BTW a decreasing magnetic field means increased cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation can increase cloud cover, increase hurricane strength, and even lead to massive polar air moving to lower latitudes .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171219091320.htm
Link to PDF
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AdSpR..54.2467V/abstract
[BL] If you want to argue cosmic rays, it is on-topic on this thread:
https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
Please read the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced tabs, and make sure you follow the Comments Policy.
I understand that cosmic rays aren't germain to the articlr directly. However a weakened magnetic field allows more CR energy in. Its possible that the nuclear testing accelerated that weakening.
The problem with compartmentalization by article topic is that no 1 thing is causing global warming. Multiple factors are at play. Thus its difficult to discuss.
The earths orbit around the sun has brought the earth as close to the sun as it gets in a 400,000 year cycle. Thus the earth is receiving about maximum solar radiation. With a weaker field, more solar radiation gets through and thus more absorption.
Cloud cover is also a factor, which is impacted by moisture in the air, aerosols, & CRs. Clouds can reflect energy or keep radiation in like a thermal blanket.
The Magnetic Field Is Shifting. The Poles May Flip. This Could Get Bad.
[DB] Please limit image widths to 450.
Earth’s magnetic field is powered by fluid movements in the Earth’s liquid iron outer core, a convective flow called a geodynamo and is powered by gravity and the rotation of the Earth itself. The solid iron inner core inhibits polarity reversals, with the result that such reversals seldom happen, even on geologic timescales.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html
https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/gngphys/index.php?section=411
https://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/dynamos2.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/hassler02.html
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-dynamo-0325
While the Earth's magnetic field is weakening a bit and its magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, magnetic field polarity changes have no effects on climate on the timescale of human lifetimes because air isn’t ferrous. The effects on hand-held compasses are insignificant. For purposes of electronic navigation, changes in the position of the magnetic poles are constantly updated in navigational databases.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/tracking-changes-earth-magnetic-poles
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/world-magnetic-model-out-cycle-release
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/faqgeom.shtml
"The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record."
And
"The science shows that magnetic pole reversal is – in terms of geologic time scales – a common occurrence that happens gradually over millennia. While the conditions that cause polarity reversals are not entirely predictable – the north pole's movement could subtly change direction, for instance – there is nothing in the millions of years of geologic record to suggest that any of the 2012 doomsday scenarios connected to a pole reversal should be taken seriously."
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/earths-magnetosphere
"Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms."
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html
Answers to many other related questions on that subject can be found here:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/faqgeom.shtml
Boston745 :
With or without nuclear explosions, the Earth's magnetic field has negligible effect on climate. Magnetic "reversals" are also of trivial importance. The magnetosphere is very useful in protecting the planetary atmosphere from (geologically) rapid ablation . . . and useful for (partly) protecting your DNA from cosmic ray damage. Another plus, is producing the beautiful auroral lights displays . . . and helping ham-radio operators etc with their long-wave communications. But that's about it. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Likewise, with the idea of cosmic rays somehow altering climate. There's lots of empirical evidence (plus experimental evidence) that the cosmic ray effect on climate is approximately zero [see the appropriate thread ~ linked at #37 above]. Forget about the cosmic-ray / climate connection. It ain't there. You are completely wasting your time on these things.
Boston745 , you really should educate yourself by reading the large amount of scientific information available here on the SkS [SkepticalScience] website ~ included are links to peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals, and summaries given by NASA, NOAA, the American NAS, the UK Royal Society . . . in short, by all the peak scientific bodies internationally. No exceptions. Yes there are a few qualified scientists who disagree with the mainstream science ~ but those few "contrarian" scientists have only their opinions (They don't have any facts to back their opinions. They are just hot air.)
I reckon you're pulling my leg regarding: "I know it's not CO2 though".
Barking up the wrong tree . . . could be worse! Like: just barking . . . and no tree in sight.
You failed to address a single observation Ive made. You completely dismiss qualified scientists who disagree with the mainstream. And you put your faith in climate models that do not factor in things like clouds nor weakening magnetosphere. I'm sorry but it doesn't seem like you're after honest dialog.
[DB] Sloganeering and moderation complaints snipped. Merely repeating a refuted assertion without citing credible sources to support your claims is sloganeering. Models do indeed factor in cloud effects. By definition, surface weather and climate are a product of phenomena and physical processes occurring primarily in the troposphere, with some effects occurring above the tropopause in the stratosphere. A weakening magnetosphere or changes in magnetic field strength or polarity have no effects on surface climate because, essentially, air is not ferrous. As for moderation complaints:
"Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted"
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
Boston745 , your "observations and associations" are just personal anecdotes. Not scientific evidence. They seem to be your "feelings". Contrarians have all sorts of "feelings" ~ often mutually contradictory. That's one of the reasons why they can't get their act together.
Yes, those "qualified scientists" (who are very, very, very few) do deserve to be completely dismissed, since they completely fail to provide any valid evidence to overthrow the mainstream climate science. They talk hot air ~ empty rhetoric.
Instances : Drs Lindzen, Spencer, Curry - failed ideas or vague blather based on religious beliefs. No actual backing from scientific observations. And even they don't bother to advocate "magnetospheres and cosmic rays".
Boston745 , have you other "qualified scientists" who are contrarian enough to disagree with the mainstream science - and what is their substantive evidence that they are right and the mainstream is wrong? And why haven't they published it? Major scientific journals would be enthusiastic & delighted to publish some really cutting-edge ground-breaking stuff ! But the contrarians can't come up with anything valid.
Genuine science exists in the collective summary of peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals - it does not reside in fruitcake blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. (If you wonder why I use the label fruitcake, then just go and read through WUWT. )
Boston745 @ 37 above, the known cycles of the Earth orbit are in the order of 100,000 yrs (eccentricity), 26,000 yrs (axial precession), 112,000 years (apsidal precession) and 41,000 yrs (obliquity). Can you reference your 400,000 years cycle?
There is also ample evidence that the variations due to distance to the Sun are in fact minor factors in climate. All this can easily be found on NASA's web site.
[DB] Unfortunately, user boston745 has recused themselves from further participation here.
The contribution of nuclear testing to global warming should be analyzed not by the total energy released by nuclear explosions wich is of course negligible over the earth surface but rather by the impact of radioactive radiation lasting for decades in the strata especially in the ozone layer wich has a very destructive and complex effect. Please see new study here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211013174023.htm
I'm a professional chemical engineer with a bakground in nuclear weapons and an eidetic memory. I have compiled a huge amount of data that proves that underground nuclear testing is the root cause of climate change. In addtion, we have developed the thermodynamic equations, following the laws of Newton and Boltzman, that show us where we are headed and about how long it will take. Please read the attached technical article that explains the reasoning. In addition, there are links to my original hypothesis and the video I put out.
Change the paradigm, save the world
Clay W Hansen PE
What really causes Global Warming and How it can be attenuated
Clay Hansen:
Thank you for bringing data to Skeptical Science. When I click on your link nothing opens.
I note that in the counter in the upper right corner that the atmosphere has absorbed more than 3 billion Hiroshima bombs worth of energy. I cannot imagine that the underground nuclear tests released a comparable amount of energy. In addition, all of the energy was released decades ago while the climate continues to warm. Perhaps you could summarize your findings here so that we do not have to access your entire original document.
Please see my posts at https://aplausibletruthaboutclimatechange.com/
Basically, the article describes the earth based on a thermodymanic balance. Using equations from Newton and Stephan/Boltzmann, we can determine, with confidence, how an impulse of quantum energy affects our climate. With it, we can model a solar flare, an above ground nuclear test and a below ground nuclear test. In each case, the energy of the earth increased and must therefore be dissipated to return to our previous state of equilibrium. Above ground, the amount of energy we receive is only a fraction of the total amount possible. In engineering terms, we call it the Shape Factor. A shape factor on 1 is 100% and 0.5 is 50%, etc. Above ground, the shape factor of a nuclear bomb is only maybe 20%. In addition, the rock will reflect most of that 20% back. However, underground, 100% of the energy is absorbed.
Based on 89 megatons of TNT worth of nuclear detonations underground only, our temperature rise should be 2.95K by 2118, using standard thermodynamic equations.
I do try to take a stab at how the energy got through the rock in my hypothesis. I also show reliable correlations to recent nuclear testing and direct changes in CO2 global average delta.
Our team has what I believe to be the perfect solution. These data are also available on my website.
Change the Paradigm, Save the world
[DB] Please read the opening post and all the comments in this thread in their entirety before commenting further. As noted in an earlier response, looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.
For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQSNuclearWeaponsTesting01.jpg
You are welcome to disagree with that, but in order to be taken seriously, you'll need to cite credible relevant sources and show your maths in your analysis.
Sloganeering snipped.
Thank you and I apologize. My lengthy text was in reply to someone asking for a summary of our article. The link isn't working. Of course, the article includes the math and citations. It was ignorant of me to post those data without showing reference to our original piece. Thank you very much for your advice!!!
Clay Hansen:
I was able to open the link in your first comment. It does not make your argument stronger.
A few key errors:
Given these fundamental errors in the first equations of your model, the rest is nonsense. I did not bother to try to follow the rest of your mathematics, as the initial assumptions are fundamentally wrong.
ClayHansen99,
While [roblems with your equations can presumably be sorted, there appears to be some fundmental problems with a thesis that argues the increase in atmospheric CO2 results from nuclear tests releasing CO2 from the oceans.
The generally accepted view (as set out by, for instance, the Global Carbon Project who enumerate rising atmospheric CO2 since 1780) is that there is today something like 11Gt(C) of CO2 is annually released by humankind into the atmosphere and any proposal of an alternative source for the atmospheric increase in CO2 will have to identify what happens to that annual 11Gt(C) of CO2 release by humankind.
And if an appropriate CO2 sink is identified allowing the true source to be argued as the oceans, the generally accepted view is that there are already CO2 sinks in operation as only half the humankind release remains in the atmosphere. One of those sinks is the oceans. So if the true source is to be argued as the oceans, the thesis would have to be backed by evidence showing a loss of CO2 from the oceans, this overturning the evidence currently generally accepted showing the oceans to be a major sink of atmospheric CO2 not a source.