OnCue wrote:
I can say, using the same evidence they have, that if we go on populating the planet, we will harm the ecosystem. Delineate the difference between those two statements.

OnCue wrote:~2000 of these on the scope of 90 years must have some effect on that NASA temperature profile..no?

OnCue wrote:



My Question/Observation:


[*]The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests between 1945 and 1992.
[*]The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests between 1949 and 1990, including 219 atmospheric tests. Some of these were oceanic as well
[*]France conducted 210 nuclear tests between February 13, 1960 and January 27, 1996
[*]The People's Republic of China and the UK each conducted ~ 45 tests, both atmospheric and 22 underground


~15-45% of the energy for every one of these events is thermal radiation. Neglecting CO2 from burned structures, increased water vapor etc...the thermal "dumping" into the atmosphere needs to be accounted for.

I took the following from FAS.org...
"The fireball from a nuclear explosion reaches blackbody temperatures greater than 10 7 K... For detonations occurring below 30,000 m (100,000 ft) these X-rays are quickly absorbed in the atmosphere, and the energy is reradiated at blackbody temperatures below 10,000� K. Both of these temperatures are well above that reached in conventional chemical explosions, about 5,000� K. For detonations below 100,000 feet, 35 percent to 45 percent of the nuclear yield is effectively radiated as thermal energy."

~2000 of these on the scope of 90 years must have some effect on that NASA temperature profile..no?

ppnl wrote:

OnCue wrote:
Uh...no. I'm sorry but this is going to seem dismissive but... if you can't demonstrate a better grasp of order of magnitude effects than this its hard to imagine you in any technical field. The most trivial back of the envelope calculation will show how bad this argument is.

We burn something like seven billion tons of coal every year. This releases the thermal energy at least seven times larger than our entire nuclear weapon inventory. Even so this direct heating from burning coal is to small to have any effect by many orders of magnitude.

The co2 released from atomic testing is even more trivial. By contrast the coal we burn adds over 20 billion tons of co2 to the atmosphere.

The water vapor is even more trivial by orders of magnitude. The atmospheric residency time of water is only a hand full of days. Anyway world coal plants probably produce more water vapor every year than was released in all the nuclear testing. I'm not even going to do the calculation because it is irrelevant.

Again I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting. But I have to say this is the stupidest argument I have seen in a long time.

susu.exp wrote:

OnCue wrote:~2000 of these on the scope of 90 years must have some effect on that NASA temperature profile..no?

Let´s look at this. Let´s assume we detonated all the nuclear weapons we currently have. That´s 5 gigatons TNT equivalent or 2.1*1019 J.
The incoming energy flux from the sun is 173 PW, or 1.7*1017J/s. This means that the thermal energy coming from the sun would exceed the thermal energy released by all the nuclear potential in the world in 2 minutes and 5 seconds.
We did bring to detonation far less than all the nuclear weapons we have on earth (of the 5000 existing warheads, most are bigger than the ones that got tested). And thus, nope, the thermal energy released there is like a drop of water in an ocean.