Notices

View Poll Results: Have nuclear bombs had a permanent affect on the environment?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 28.57%
  • No

    5 71.43%
  • Possibly

    0 0%
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Another theory on global warming

  1. #1 Another theory on global warming 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    3
    The general consensus is that deforestation and methods of mass-production/transportation are to blame, yet here is another interesting alternative theory we should perhaps consider. I think Nuclear bombs caused global warming. And one more drops; it may become irreversable. Or worse.

    Einstein had a fear that a nuclear bomb could cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere that could destroy it. Well; I think he's right in a roundbout way. How much carbon does the worlds biggest bomb release? Probably a lot. Does the resulting radiation mixing with oxygen release even more? Maybe. But all these countries have nukes and are willing to use them. I feel like I'm the only human seeing the correlation; because if I wasn't; people would be screaming about it and protesting. It seems obvious to me. Monsterous bomb=hole in atmosphere.

    So we can all either call the right specialists and get science looking at this idea, or we can all have as much sex and drugs as possible before some peabrain politician kills us all in the name of ''keeping us safe from terror''.

    Anyway, I'll warrant that you folks have more knowledge of the science behind this claim than I. Perhaps you can confirm or dissuade my theory. What do you think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Your poll question doesn't match your OP.

    Yes, it's possible nuclear bomb detonation has a permanent effect on the environment.
    No, I don't think that effect is one which causes the planet to warm at an incredible rate... an incredible rate which by all accounts is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 contributions to the atmosphere.

    So... How do I vote?

    (also... it wouldn't be too hard to detect your supposed "hole in the atmosphere," yet... we haven't).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    If your theory was correct, it would require a long incubation time. The first nuclear weapons were detonated at the beginning of a period of global cooling. The world did not begin global warming properly till the mid 1970's, and a lot of test nuclear detonations occurred well before that, during the cooler interval.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    3
    Fair enough. I wanted some second opinions, mostly. An epic win (do we use words like 'epic win' here?) to the Pale Blue Dot signature quote. Carl Sagan was incredible. And his voice is just so... soothing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by dark explorer
    An epic win (do we use words like 'epic win' here?) to the Pale Blue Dot signature quote.
    I like it, too, and I'm glad you enjoyed it. Epic win, indeed. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    If nuclear testing did produce large amounts of co2 and other greenhouse gases, you would expect to see a large rise in atmospheric readings during the land based nuclear testing period. As far as i am aware, nuclear testing produces a cooling affect and a nuclear war (hence the term nuclear winter) an even greater cooling affect as the materials and gases from an urban area would reach a higher level of the atmosphere.

    It maybe more interesting to look at the affects of land based nuclear testing on global temperatures as during that period the global temperature levelled off as Skeptic suggests.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    If nuclear testing did produce large amounts of co2 and other greenhouse gases, you would expect to see a large rise in atmospheric readings during the land based nuclear testing period. As far as i am aware, nuclear testing produces a cooling affect and a nuclear war (hence the term nuclear winter) an even greater cooling affect as the materials and gases from an urban area would reach a higher level of the atmosphere.

    It maybe more interesting to look at the affects of land based nuclear testing on global temperatures as during that period the global temperature levelled off as Skeptic suggests.
    I don't think we cold affect enough sea water volume. I think it would be insignificant. I think the mechanism that would cause changes, if any, would be the heat added to the water in underwater testing, and the change of water chemistry. Nearly all the energy is converted to heat or chemical reaction after the matter change. Then there is the physical shock wave also. There could be unforeseen problems outside of the radioactive pollution of the sea as well, but I'm not going to try to quantify that, or anything else. Just that I see it all trivial compared to the volume of the oceans.

    Do you even know what a large enough volume of CO2 would be? If you look at a carbon cycle depiction, it is estimated that there is 750 gig-tons of carbon in the atmosphere. Most is in the form of CO2 and that would make it over 2,700 giga tons of CO2! How much do you think we can change that by? If I did a quick calculation right, there is about 6.4 giga tons of methane. This would be easier to add to and has a greater remaining warming potential left that CO2 does, which is close to temperature trapping saturation. Most of the spectra related to heat absorption for methane is already saturated by water vapor. Increased methane would only have an effect in low humidity cooler areas. Same with CO2 for that matter. It has little effect when you look at the spectra of absorption compared to water vapor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I didn't take this very serious because of the title and implication that nuclear testing was done in the atmosphere. That was long ago, and testing since had been in the ocean, and underground. Now if we continued atmospheric testing, I could see problems being caused. I guess what you are really concerned about is if we actually used more than a handful in war?

    That would change everything...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3
    It may be :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    31
    As I described in this topic:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/About...%21-21483t.php

    there's a great theory about global warming that indicates that the grow of temperature could be not connected with the green house gasses and instead the major responsables of this natural and cyclic warming are the interaction between cosmic rays and solar rays...

    I do not want to convince you that the propaganda that stands sround this global problem is wrong because it will produce a great and inveitable changement of our point of view of the economic model... but the idea of green houses use to be only an invention.... or a contribution of the globl warming that is produced by a huge generator of heat: our sun!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    As I described in this topic:
    And in that same thread, your description has been shown lacking.


    Quote Originally Posted by gius
    but the idea of green houses use to be only an invention...
    Uh huh... Mmm'Kay...
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm


    Just because you repeat a lie often does not mean it's true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •