For years I have been hearing all sorts of conflicting information about global

Question

For years I have been hearing all sorts of conflicting information about global warming. Many say that scientists have proven that humans have been warming the Earth significantly with their actions. Specifically with the release of carbon into our atmosphere.

Others say that scientists have found other causes. Sources such as some animals or plants. Natural wobbles in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Increased activity from the sun due to normal cycles in the Sun's output. It goes on and on and on.

Recently I was watching a documentary on the creation and testing of nuclear bombs. These bombs seem to constantly increase in power and destructiveness. Between the United States and Russia, along with other countries, there have been hundreds of insanely powerful nuclear bombs that have been detonated for testing purposes (and a few other purposes).

My question is whether or not anyone has studied what effect, if any, this could have had on global warming. I would think such detonations would have a much more significant impact than carbon being slowly released into the atmosphere. Given how intense and wide reaching such things were.

I am not saying that this has caused all the problems. I am just curious what effect they could have had. I think that a lot of people always want to find the silver bullet. The one cause/cure of/for a problem. In the case of global warming we keep looking for one source. Those that want to believe mankind is causing it find a magic cause of it. Those that can't accept that possibility look for causes outside our control.

I think the truth is somewhere in-between. Our planet is a very complex and dynamic thing that is affected my millions of different things.

Explanation / Answer

Fortunately our puny nuclear bombs are no match for the mighty volcano.

Even Mt St Helens, a pretty pathetic volcano by historic standards, put out about the same energy as the largest bomb tested. It had a much greater effect on the atmosphere by putting an aerosol of nasty greenhouse chemicals as well as a few 10^9 m^3 of ash and dust.

In general tests underground tests tell you more, are safer and give less information to the opposition. The only really large atmospheric tests were the US Castle Bravo (which was accidentally about 3x as big as expected) and the USSR's Tsar test (which was just bat-shit crazy)

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.