How much did the atomic bomb blast contribute to global warming?

I'm told atomic bombs release large amounts of energy. Compared to major contributeors being considered as causing GLOBAL WARMING how do these rate?

Atomic bombs may release a large amount of energy in a small area, however on a global scale the contribution is very small.

Also, Global Warming generally refers to the phenomenon where greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane interfere with the ability of the earth to radiate heat back to space. Global warming does not refer to the energy released by nuclear fission.
very little
More than a car, less than a cow. ;-)
Guess you would have to believe in global warming, too bad there isn't more discussion on the global warming question instead of being shouted down if you have doubts, good grief in the 70's time/newsweek were warning of a coming ice age. Ooops look at me, off my soapbox and the answer would be...none
True, atomic bombs release large amounts of energy, but they are hardly responsible for recent changes in global warming trends. The issue with global warming is the sun. The sun's rays bring in far more thermal energy than any and all of the bombs that have ever been detonated. This is nothing new. In fact, the fact that so much energy arrives on Earth from the Sun is the very reason that life on Earth is possible. The issue, however is that greenhouse gases like carbon-dioxide and methane are trapping that energy within the atmosphere and preventing excess energy from leaving. For a comical explanation, check out Youtube.
There haven't been any outdoor nuclear tests since SALT II, years before the Libtards even conceived of Global COOLING. So the answer is: None.
as compared to methane&carbondioxide, this is only little
So do volcanoes. And big ones exploding can depress the average temperatures worldwide for a year or more.

But no known atomic bomb releases even a big fraction of the energy of a Krakatoa. However, if we placed all the known bombs carefully, and blew them all off at once, we could raise enough dust into the air to reflect solar radiation for maybe a couple or 3 years, and make the so-call "nuclear winter" a reality. But the radiation would get us first!!

However, manufacturing smokes and dusts are in quantities great enough to overcome present Global warming, and I have read that the upturn back to warming after the dip in the 50-70's seems tied to the amounts of dust in the factory pollutions being reduced to near 0.

So, in theory, if we put calculated leaks in all the dust-catchers on our industry, we could control global warming and cooling by how wide we opened the leaks! This theory is proven in practice in Nature whenever a big volcano really blows off! No reason we could not domesticate it, that I see.

And instead of the present mess of corruption and disaster for the jungles and their peoples, issue "dust credits" to factories that would emit certain amounts of selected dusts to increase the reflectivity of the earth and cool it as needed.

A lot simpler and cheaper, making use of a byproduct that otherwise has to be disposed of. And selected dusts would even act as soil rebuilders, long term.

Expect the liberals to scream since this would remove their control over the people in large measure, and would give us no cause to complain about Global warming or cooling! The US could by itself probably control the whole world then!

But shortsighted Liberals would not think that far ahead!

But to the question, those who say one blast is like a grain of sugar in a gallon of coffee are right.

And one hit from an errant asteroid would negate all of our thinking; why are we not getting things into space since I hear astronomers have their eyes already on some possible asteroids targeting earth down the way a very few decades from now?

Carbon Credits and dinky electric cars are not going to protect us if an asteroid comes, but taking bombs and bomb tubes into space and deflecting the incoming could be the thing to save all our efforts from being in vain.

Mmmm...philosophical question; is preserving the human race worth the money to put us into space, vs spending it on things earthborne to fight the global warming now, that may or may not work, and leave us vulnerable to the fate of the Past, a big asteroid hit that changes the earth's axis even?
No. First, its not THAT much energy--any hurricane releases much more. Second, the last atmospheric detonation was decades ago. Global warming is happening now.
there have been several nuclear exsplosions through human error (chernobel, russia) or from war (yagasaki and heroshima) these exsplosions though devastateing as they seemed are nothing compared to the constant out put from cars across the world, emissions from the 1.5 billion or so vehicles in the world are a constant polutant that produce a copious amount CO2 and Nitrogen which lead to earth's over loading of green house gases
Actually, the theory is that nuclear blasts will contribute to global COOLING. Reason being is that the blasts will through so much dust into the air that it will block energy from the sun from reaching the earth's surface.
Nuclear bombs, according to Carl Sagan, cause nuclear winter that will cause the planet to be in a deep freeze for eons.

Yea, that didn't happen either. Scientist knew this was bunk, but kept quite because the dude had cancer.

The answers post by the user, for information only, does not guarantee the right.

More Questions and Answers:
  • Is global warming anthropogenic (caused by humans)?
  • Why are Brazilian rainforests being destroyed for sugar cane to be planted and used for biofuel?
  • 175-Environment-4.html
  • Going green?
  • Vermicomposting - Where do I begin? Will worms get loose?
  • Recycling Cans for money?
  • Blasphemy and the Green Religion?
  • What is the carbon footprint fir the live earth concerts?
  • Wave cover the hold IIsland .do you think this could happen LA NY MA and other state?