Remember me
▼ Content

Atmospheric nuclear bombs


Atmospheric nuclear bombs17-03-2017 00:46
Jsurguy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I just saw a video from CNN showing some of the 210 "atmospheric nuclear bombs" detonated by the US between 1945 - 1962. Reportedly, between the years 1945 - 1974, a world wide total of 1,281 nuclear bombs were tested and detonated throughout the world. I've read that many models, specifically NASA, use data between 1951 - 1980 as the baseline data. I've read many articles that state even small nuclear exchanges would result in devastating climate changes. If that is true, how can data from 1951 - 1980 be used as a baseline measurement? It could not even come close to what would be considered normal. Why is this never discussed?
17-03-2017 01:48
still learning
★☆☆☆☆
(136)
Jsurguy wrote:
..... I've read that many models, specifically NASA, use data between 1951 - 1980 as the baseline data. I've read many articles that state even small nuclear exchanges would result in devastating climate changes......


You've read many articles that "even small nuclear changes would result in devastating climate changes?"
Even small? Could you point to some of those articles?

The "nuclear winter" that people were concerned about referred to large scale nuclear war. I think. Cooling because of large amounts of dust lofted into the atmosphere all at once, reflecting more sunlight. Atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs didn't do that, not enough to matter.

If you were thinking that direct heat from nuclear bomb tests affected global temperature measurably, forget it.
Try https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html
17-03-2017 09:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
SMH
17-03-2017 15:41
Jsurguy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I read over "the effect of nuclear war on the climate" by Dr Jeffery masters
"The climate impacts of nuclear war" A Robuck, OB Toon
"Nuclear winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions" RP Turco, OB Toon, TP ackerman,
17-03-2017 16:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Jsurguy wrote:
I read over "the effect of nuclear war on the climate" by Dr Jeffery masters
"The climate impacts of nuclear war" A Robuck, OB Toon
"Nuclear winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions" RP Turco, OB Toon, TP ackerman,


Here are links for 2 of your references:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/222/4630/1283

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/nuke.asp

They're about what might be the impacts of a nuclear war.

I'm not aware of any 'nuclear war' between 1951 - 1980.
Edited on 17-03-2017 17:27
17-03-2017 19:13
Jsurguy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Well, the nuclear tests are in fact detonating nuclear bombs, so no there hasn't been a nuclear war, however, reportedly thats how many nuclear bombs have been tested (by shooting and detonating them) just between 1945 - 1974 I think it was. How could these weapons not be having an impact on climate
17-03-2017 19:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Jsurguy wrote:
Well, the nuclear tests are in fact detonating nuclear bombs, so no there hasn't been a nuclear war, however, reportedly thats how many nuclear bombs have been tested (by shooting and detonating them) just between 1945 - 1974 I think it was. How could these weapons not be having an impact on climate


There's a huge difference between a full on nuclear war and just testing. I;m surprised you didn't understand that from reading the articles you referenced.

still learning already posted a link for you. I suggest you read it.
Edited on 17-03-2017 19:26
18-03-2017 00:23
Jsurguy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
What is the huge difference? In some years over 150 nukes were detonated. It's kind of like testing a fire arm. The gun still shoots the bullet, the bullet still does damage, just because you didn't shoot someone doesn't mean you didn't shoot the gun. That would be like going to the doctor for hearing loss and he asks you if you're around loud sounds, you reply no and then later mention you're firing guns all day long. The doc asks about this and you say no, it's a huge difference because you weren't shooting at someone
18-03-2017 01:46
still learning
★☆☆☆☆
(136)
Jsurguy wrote:
What is the huge difference?.......


You're referring to the effects of dust and smoke in the atmosphere? The cooling effect of particles reflecting sunlight?

Place of detonation would have an effect. Many of the tests, especially later ones, were underground. No dust or smoke then. All the aboveground tests were done in remote areas, deserts or islands. Not much to set on fire. Much of the expected effect of a nuclear war would be from the burning of cities, lots of smoke. None of that in the testing.

Might want to look over this: https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/nuclear/209chron.pdf
Many tests look like they had relatively low yield, so not so much dust even if aboveground.
18-03-2017 03:59
Jsurguy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Not true, you might want to glance over this. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/04/claim-nuclear-tests-stopped-global-warming-in-the-20th-century/
19-03-2017 02:55
still learning
★☆☆☆☆
(136)
Jsurguy wrote:
Not true, you might want to glance over this......


Not true what? Not true my last posted statement? Something else?
If my last statement "Many tests look like they had relatively low yield, so not so much dust even if aboveground," then when I look at the pdf that I linked to in that post, I can see tests that are rated at, in operation Teapot, at 1 kiloton, 2kt, 7kt, 43kt, 4kt, 8kt, 1kt, 14kt, 3kt, 3kt, 2kt, 22kt, 29 kt, 28 kt. Some relatively low-yield explosions there (for nuclear bombs anyway.)

Anyway, back to what I think is your is your main issue in this thread, whether or not bomb dust been accounted for, I'm pretty sure the dust/soot from nuclear testing is accounted for as aerosol, included in with other dust and smoke. Affects the albedo (and maybe emissivity) values used in figuring out climate effects.

Regarding the
Included here, I think: (from Wikipedia)
A very simple model of the radiative equilibrium of the Earth is
(1-a)S pi r^{2}=4 pi r^{2}\epsilon sigma T^{4}
Where "a" is albedo and "epsilon" is emissivity.

Regarding the abstract referred to in your link, the full length article has some kind of interesting stuff. Visible here: http://rock.eng.hokudai.ac.jp/fujii/publ/2011/Fujii2011AuthorVersion.pdf
19-03-2017 04:38
Jsurguy
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
I've never seen it mentioned at all, any where. As far as the effects of the explosions,
From 1946 to 1958, the United States conducted 67 tests in the Marshall Islands. If their combined explosive power was parceled evenly over that 12-year period, it would equal 1.6 Hiroshima-size explosions per day. The second of 67 American nuclear tests conducted in the Marshall Islands blew 2 million tons of lagoon a mile into the sky. But back to my original point, how can those years be selected as the base line for comparison when such an anomaly was taking place? Your base line is supposed to be the "norm." also, I highly suggest watching some of the explosions, and all the ones just mentioned were outside.

https://youtu.be/s5U6j7WEMNA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/27/a-ground-zero-forgotten/?utm_term=.d243caeb8524
19-03-2017 17:28
still learning
★☆☆☆☆
(136)
Jsurguy wrote:
......such an anomaly was taking place? Your base line is supposed to be the "norm.".....


Which anomaly?

There was a warming pause, even a little cooling from about 1940 to 1975. Apparently mostly caused by sulfate aerosols from powerplant and industrial sources. Manmade sources. Nuclear bomb dust lumped in with other human aerosols. See https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm

Regarding which particular years are used as a baseline for temperature anomaly purposes doesn't really matter that much, near as I can tell. What matters is the long term temperature change, the delta, not so much the actual temperature. Pick different years as a baseline and an anomaly graph is displaced up or down a little, but the shape of the graph is unchanged. An upward or downward trend remains unchanged. See "defining the baseline at" https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/483.htm




Join the debate Atmospheric nuclear bombs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Secret kf Atmospheric Forcing1122-05-2017 16:31
temperature increasing because the atmospheric mass is increasing816-09-2016 19:00
How can scientists know Earth's greenhouse effect is not because of its atmospheric pressure?5829-02-2016 16:01
Why nuclear will not be a knight in shining armor in the United States522-12-2015 21:37
Are we really blowing up 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day?508-10-2015 14:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact