It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nuclear (test-)bombing for a part responsable for Global warming.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:07 AM
A thought that crossed my mind earlier.

The nuclear bombs are a harrasment for our environment,

couldn't it be that the bombing Hiroshima and Nahasaki (am I correct on that latter one?) and test bombings with nuclear bombs are part of the cause for global warming. They **ck up our environment completely don't they, intense heat, molecular changes, an electromagnetic wave pulse.

Environment disturbed with the dropping of one.

Just the thought crossed my mind. This can be a big cause of global warming.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:48 PM
Do me a favor and shut up until you know what you're talking about. If you do, explain how the hell you got this idea.

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:02 AM
the thought just crossed my mind Johnmike.

Imagine what a nuke does to our environment, the effects of it. There's this thermal pulse, an immense heat-wave caused by the bombing. I don't know how far it spreads though. This was probably my thought on it, this immense heat wave.

Wikpedia says: Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing and demonstration purposes.

that's a lot, not? didn't know it were that much.

still, there are other heat-sources, natural, like vulcanos and so, but this is just a part of our environment, I just mean, inuclear weapon detonating is another factor in the human intake on global warming, and a bad one.

Well, at least I think it is.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by etherical waterwave]

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:30 AM
John Mike do me favour and only speak WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Please reply to a similar statement in this thread


I say this as the poster did not claim to "study" anything and clearly states its just an idea and is looking for information discussion on this. Well what in your professional opinion is the science behind the facts that indeed thermonuclear detonations do not affect our climate. Please state openly what facts and knowledge you have to provide the poster with in helping them explore this hypothesis?

Etherical Waterwave. I have to say that I find it highly improbable that they have had that much effect. the heat and energy liberated by an large volcanic eruption would be of about the same order as all the nuclear detonations in earths history. However where you may be close to the truth is the fact that The industrial processes and the amount of energy needed to create such weapons is huge. This has meant the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels greenhouse gases in their design, testing and storage.

This has undoubtedly had a large impact on the rate of global warming. In my opinion the risks from nuclear weapon testing environmentally is more of an issue of direct danger i.e. chemical ,genetic and radiation damaging events on the environment. Every living entity on earth has some Calcium 35 an isotope in their bones from previous US tests in Nevada. Its in your teeth and bones now, in everyone’s who reads this.

I couldn’t find any studies on what you wanted to explore. But having said what I have and know to be true about the energy in the form of heat liberated as versus natural events I would have to say That I doubt there is any links in this. Thanks though for making me have a good think and checking out roughly the figures about this.

Kind Regards


[edit on 9-9-2006 by MischeviousElf]

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:32 AM
It's a valid idea for consideration

However, most warming has occurred since the 1980s - most testing occurred before then. Were nuclear testing responsible we'd need a mechanism whereby the warming is delayed, otherwise we'd expect the 60s and 70s to show the biggest rises. In fact, this period showed a drop in temps. So it may even be that nuclear testing played a part in reducing global temps...

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 07:01 AM
correct me if i am wrong but he could be correct on the nuke theory, if the nukes made temps drop for abit that could latter be the cause of high temperatures latter on even decades the after effect of the lower temps.

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:56 AM

I cant see how Nukes could make the temp drop, and if they did there would be no long term process involves that would have an effect later on.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 03:16 PM
Ok, I'm going to add my 2 cents.

I've been wonderting about the same thing for a while now. If the bombs are partly responsable, one could explain the cooling to warming theory this way. A bomb no metter how small creates fine and large particles to disperse, correct? Yes.

Given the size of the explosions from dropping and testing the bombs most of which were larger than any created by a volcano in the known history of man. It is likely that the particles put into the atmosphere could have filtered or blocked enough solar radiation to cause global cooling much like the eruption of Krakatoa did in 1883, just on a larger scale. Repeated testing would only make things worse.

Now taking into consideration that in the 80's we started recording a rise in global temps, you can theorize that the particles had started to thin out allowing more solar radiation to pass through and warm the earth. With decades of testing and nowdecades of basically fall out from it we could see temp continue to rise with no limit in sight once you consider that we really have no idea how far it can go. Ever haerd of a nueclear winter?

On another note. Narrow minded people who spat off and tell others to shut up should first consider the content and if they can carry on a discussion on the same level, likely not!!

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:02 PM
I have another theory on nuclear testing & climate change.... nuclear testing underground is adding heat to the inside of the Earth, this additional heat is causing the oceans to warm, the oceans warming lead to changes in the ocean currents which then affect the global temperature. The CO2 levels are likely to be adding to the effect, but I seriously doubt they are the sole cause. The environment is never a simple cause and effect, any Earth scientist will tell you that, so how the "scientists" got the conclusion that the GHG are the sole cause is anyone's guess.

I know someone is going to say volcanoes are the cause, but volcanoes are not adding heat to the Earth, they are actually an outlet for the hot Earth to expell its heat.

The warmer oceans then cause the ice caps to melt - think about it - if you put an ice cube in a pot of cold water and blow hot air on it, versus heating the water - which will result in the ice melting? the process goes from solid to liquid to gas, not gas to solid to liquid. Once the ice caps are in the process of melting, they stop reflecting the radiant heat, contributing further heat into the atmosphere.

The time delay of the warming of the atmosphere from the nukes starting in the 1950's to the warming starting in the 1980's is completely plausible as there would be a delay due to a critical heat point being reached in the Earth before this starts the process of heating the land & the oceans and finally the atmosphere.

Whilst I'm not a global warming scientists, I really believe they have it all backwards - and I've tried to do some research on this theory and guess what? nothing comes up...

new topics

top topics


log in