People send me stuff.
Never mind the other aerosol sources, it was the Fat Man and Little Boy.
From the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics April 2011, these claims:
- Atmospheric nuclear explosions induced the stagnation in global warming in the mid 20th century.
- Atmospheric nuclear explosions can be regarded as full-scale in situ tests for nuclear winter.
- Global warming will be better predicted by considering atmospheric nuclear explosions’ effects.
The paper is: Fujii, Yoshiaki, 2011: The role of atmospheric nuclear explosions on the stagnation of global warming in the mid 20th century
Here’s the abstract, the HadCRUT -vs- nukes graph follows:
“This study suggests that the cause of the stagnation in global warming in the mid 20th century was the atmospheric nuclear explosions detonated between 1945 and 1980. The estimated GST drop due to fine dust from the actual atmospheric nuclear explosions based on the published simulation results by other researchers (a single column model and Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model) has served to explain the stagnation in global warming. Atmospheric nuclear explosions can be regarded as full-scale in situ tests for nuclear winter. The non-negligible amount of GST drop from the actual atmospheric explosions suggests that nuclear winter is not just a theory but has actually occurred, albeit on a small scale. The accuracy of the simulations of GST by IPCC would also be improved significantly by introducing the influence of fine dust from the actual atmospheric nuclear explosions into their climate models; thus, global warming behavior could be more accurately predicted.”
Somewhere, Carl Sagan is laughing.
Here’s a composite overlay graph of HadCRUT3 global temperatures from 1945-2010 via WoodforTrees.org onto the bar graph of known nuclear explosions for the same period from Wikipedia:
If the premise is true, one wonders how Trinity, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima started the sharp downtrend in global temperature in 1945, followed by Crossroads in 1946. These were all quite small in comparison to what followed.
Here’s the list of nuclear tests.
UPDATE: As Mike Lorrey points out in comments, after the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, nuclear tests were conducted underground. How then did the cooling of the 1970’s occur if the premise presented in this peer reviewed paper is true? I’ve updated the graph above to reflect this.


It’s as though NOTHING escapes the velcro fingers of the Climate Druids. Everything explains some aspect of this intangible glut of extreme temperatures and brimming seas.
You know I’m not a nuclear scientist or a climatologist, but I think even to a layman it’s fairly obvious that this is a little bit of shinola and a lot of the other thing.
so, what are we waiting for…sarc
So, the obvious conclusion is that IF “global warming” were to start up again, all we have to do is fire off some of the nukes that are just hanging around waiting.
Disarmament and planet-saving, hand in hand. Kumbaya!!!
This counts as peer-reviewed science?
Really?
Wow….
If you attempt to compare them to volcanoes the result is obvious. Small nukes are like small eruptions. They don’t show up on the radar. It takes an enormous volcano to have an effect. Krakatoa had an effect, but it was 200 Megton and injected millions of tons of SO2 into the stratosphere.
How much SO2 does a nuke put into the stratosphere? Zilcho would be the correct answer. So comparing the total amount of activity is garbage because a lot of zero’s are still zero.
Only the Tsar bomb at 50 Megaton is significant. That one in 1961 explains why 1961 was elevated for total yield. That one was large enough to put dust into the stratosphere, but it also detonated in the Arctic. The wind patterns there do not disperse globally.
Where was the peer-review for the basics of the climate. Argh!!!!!
Just looking at Global Hadcrut3 the temperature anomoly rose by 0.5 deg C between 1910 and 1945 (peak to peak). ie 0.14 deg C per decade If the above story is correct then without the Bomb temperatures would have risen from 1945 until about 2000 before flattening ie 0.5 deg C in 55 years ie 0.09 deg C per decade.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Quite a slowing to standstill in 2000 and for the last 10 years. How does the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis explain that whole scenario? I don’t think it can. Or maybe secret nuclear tests are still going on to stabilise the temperature (I think not).
Oh what a tangled web they weave.
Here’s a link to the author’s version of the paper:
http://rock.eng.hokudai.ac.jp/fujii/publ/2011/Fujii2011AuthorVersion.pdf
The graph uses the wrong data. The data of interest not the total number of tests, but the YIELD of ATMOSPHERIC tests. From 1961-1962, in just 18 months, there was a frenzy of testing in the USSR, with almost 300 megatons of H-bombs detonated in the atmosphere. This far exceeded all previous testing put together. After the atmospheric test ban in 1963, atmospheric tests dropped to a very small fraction of that, no more than 30 megatons spread over a couple of decades.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html
The incredible ‘explosion’ of testing in 1961/62 was followed immediately by a global cooling over the next 3-4 years. I don’t know if there was a connection (a large volcano in 1963 complicates things), but the idea is not ridiculous.
John Kehr
For a look at the glories of peer review and the protection it affords us from nonsense (do I really have to write ‘sarc’?), take a look at Doug Keenan’s piece in the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/articleSB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. It’s behind a paywall but you can reach it for free if you use Google to search “keenan wsj”.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc – it happened after, therefore it was caused by. The standard logical fallacy of apocalyptics, irrational crazies and other loons everywhere.
There was a large amount of dust produced by the Soviet nuke tests in the high Arctic, especially on Novaya Zemlya, which appeared to cause a 1-3 year drop in Arctic temperatures in the mid-1960s. But the cooling was already 20 years long by then.
After Fukushima Daiichi, expect a lot more “scientific” papers demonizing nuclear power. A veritable tsunami of crap, if you will.
Old hat.
Right through the ’50s (in Australia at least) every odd weather event was due to “the bomb”.
I seem to recall that a fifteen year old lady by name Kristen Byrnes wrote this up with a lot else besides in a 2007 essay titled, Ponder the Maunder. Can’t seem to locate her essay at the mo. but I do recall her mentioning the bomb test correlations. Plus ça change……..
There are several years that do not correlate! Perhaps they used the unadjusted data in error.
Was this paper peer reviewed or pal reviewed? Utter desperation!
So, essentially, who’s been nuking up the world in recent years? :p
Funny how the anti-nuclear hippies isn’t worried over the thousand and thousand year half-life radiation from all those h-bomb tests, but soil themselves when passing a nuclear power plant.
So let me get this straight;
The models to date are accurate to the point they can hind cast our past weather and should be used to predict the future [sorry, ‘project scenarios’]. However this major parameter wasn’t included in those models. So they can’t be accurate can they??
@Mike Bromley:
Please, sir, do not slander Druids so! Druids were well known for their keen understanding of nature and fidelity to the data and known mechanism of how things worked. They were also known for running some of the best schools in astronomy and navigation of the era. Even the Romans sent folks there to study…
No proper Druid would ever do what those “other folks” have done… ALL work was to be memorized and error was not tolerated. You either knew everything exactly and correctly and could recite perfectly, or you went back to study more. NEVER was the past “re-written” and you were not allowed to just make things up because of peer pressure. No, you watched the stars and nature and learned from them how things worked. Science at it’s best.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/marden-henge-and-durrington-walls-henge/
Don’t make me get out my eye of newt… 😉
So it’s not a natural 60-year cycle, then?
So what caused the drop before 1910, and the ‘pause’ we are in now?
Then the rises to 1880, to 1940 and up to 2000 could not possibly be natural, then?
That explains everything. /sarc if needed.
Anthony is the the graph relating to Atmospheric detonations only, as a large number of detonations where underground detonations which could not have any effect on weather/climate!
Would be nice to see two graphs one for Atmospheric detonations and one for underground detonations which would dilute the argument/theory even further!
I suppose when they say global warming, they mean AGW?
If yes, according to IPCC, AGW started in ~50s?
So, it is not possible that atmospheric nuclear explosions induced the stagnation in global warming in the mid 20th century.
The whole thing is an enormous cognitive dissonance. They are in the hole and they keep digging.
What is inducing cooling in the last and this decade? Mostly reduced solar activity, just like in the 60s/70s.
I thought you’d done the April 1st gag?
Pointman
What can we say about this study? Nice try? Thank you for playing, Vanessa has some fabulous prizes for you on the way out….
Underground testing stopped earthquakes, just saying.
Sarc/ off
Baxter75 says: (April 5, 2011 at 1:01 am)
I seem to recall that a fifteen year old lady…
Does it go something like this, Baxter?
Kristen Byrnes Ponder the Maunder
As more and more people spread the craziness of pseudo-science and post-modern nonsense such as this paper due to an unfortunate belief in the infallibility of the word once it is set down in writing in ‘proper’ publications and books, EM Smith’s excellent reply has reminded of the oral tradition of the New Zealand Maori, who, like the ancient British Druids, through a system of Wananga, or formal schools for selected students, memorised their history, lineage, voyages of exploration, astral navigation methods, decorative arts, planting calenders and other knowledge and information central to the survival of their culture under the tuition of experts. Europeans who first arrived in Aotearoa assumed the Maori to be an ignorant stone age people due to their lack of interest in writing and also assumed that the great Polynesian explorers had merely fetched up wherever they sailed due to happenstance.
Cultural arrogance has a lot to answer for.