1945 Atomic Bombs Vs Global Warming?

Question

Could it be the cause of our "global warming/cooling" issues?

Answer 1

the only effect from atomic bombs on the climate is to cause cooling from the particulates thrown into the upper atmosphere blocking sunlight. this is exactly the same cooling effect that we get from volcanic eruptions.

when the particulates settle out in 2 or 3 years the temperature warms back up to normal.

the radiation would have an effect on life but not on the climate.

this was confirmed by the many above ground atomic tests done in the 1950s & 60s.

a large volcanic eruption has more effect on the climate( mainly through sulfur dioxide emissions) than thousands of atomic bombs.

Answer 2

Absolutely Not!

Even with a relatively minor volcanic explosion like Mount St. Hellens, (I was living 90 miles away at the time and had a spectacular view of the first eruption) was something like the equivalent of 10,000 Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs!

Man has not detonated that many, even in underground testing!

It does show in a way however how 'insignificant' man really is on a global scale.

Answer 3

No, it has been over fifty years so any dust and debris would already have settled.  

Once we stopped surface testing this caused this source to be nullified.  Most of the green house gases is water vapor followed by CO2 and methane.  Most of these green house gases are natural made.

Answer 4

Atomic bombs were only used and tested in relatively small areas. My comparision is Mt St Helen. We saw debri clouds from that for a few months in Minnesota, but after a few good rain showers those clouds dissapated. That would be the same for Atomic Bomb ash.

Now if we were to have an actual nuclear war - all bets are off and we'd have to live under ground for at least one hundred years to allow all the nuclear fall out to become inactive. In a scenario I use for a novel I even realized the devastation that could happen even if most of the bombs were exploded in the atmosphere.

It would take years for our planet to repair the damage caused by thousands of nuclear bomb explosions even in the the skies above us. Not to mention the nuclear particles that would fall back to earth our atmosphere would most likely be damaged due to the explosions.

That's why the threat of people still thinking it's a good idea to create such weapons is so bad. I feel that is the message we need to be preaching to the world and not this message that we are changing our global climate, since if we use such weapons we are going to be changing our climate faster than what's slowing occuring now.

Edit: True - But if you do the half life equation, the amount of radio activity would be close to nil in a hundred years with no new source of radiation adding to it.

Answer 5

No, the bomb was small in comparison to natural volcanoes and other things. Global Warming is caused by burning fossil fuels that lead to green house gas emissions.