<p>Since 1945 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2476</a>  nuclear bombs were exploded on this planet during tests with a total yield of 545 megatons. The <a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally" rel="nofollow noreferrer">peak of testing</a> took place in the late 50's and early 60's with 116 bombs exploded in 1958 and 178 bombs exploded in 1962 and in 1961 the USSR detonated an hydrogen bomb (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tsar Bomba</a>) with a yield of at least 50 megatons.</p>
<p>The article at this <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0710058105" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a> states that a regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (totaling 1.5 megaton)  would cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer.
This other <a href="https://www.authorea.com/users/519642/articles/593292-underground-nuclear-testing-the-leading-cause-of-global-warming#:%7E:text=The%20derivative%20carbon%20footprint%20of,Leading%20Cause%20of%20Global%20Warming." rel="nofollow noreferrer">paper</a> claims that the derivative carbon footprint of underground nuclear testing is colossal.</p>
<p>Because I know very little about the subject and because there may be many more results proving or disproving the implications of nuclear test on climate change and ozone layer depletion, I would like to ask for some more explanations and some references.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-10T21:42:30.407Z
I think you are much more likely to get good answers if you ask your questions separately.  Climate impact and ozone layer are two very different questions.
f.thorpe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-11T01:07:43.327Z
Are you asking about the affects of just the detonation of a large number of nuclear explosives? Manufacturing 2476 nuclear bombs & obtaining the materials for bomb construction would have consumed a vast amount of electrical energy, particularly obtaining U-235, separating it from U-238 & enriching it & the eventual production of plutonium. A significant amount of that energy would have been derived from coal fired power stations, which would have contributed to global warming & climate change.
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-11T09:02:17.910Z
any information about any remarkable  impact on the environment of those tests is interesting for me at any stage and even beyond climate change and ozone layer depletion if that happened, besides the obvious radioactive contamination
holmes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-11T10:06:44.267Z
At the risk of being mean to the author, that underground testing preprint is hilarious. It's such a treasure trove of how not to write a science paper that it would actually be a useful teaching aid for masters students.  It's a shame they didn't give it an open license.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-11T13:54:46.823Z
I would like to point out that while criticizing a source or another is a healthy part of commenting and answering  as long there is some clear elaboration and explanation to general readers in support of and against a thesis, writing a critic as a rant without any  elaboration and explanation  on the arguments to non specialists is not helpful  to me and other persons interested on this topic.
holmes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T12:16:39.373Z
I agree. I didn't post a longer critique of that preprint because it's really a side issue - it would be a distraction from and wouldn't actually answer your question. A big general problem with the preprint is that it doesn't quantify any of its claims, it just notes that peaks in CO2 growth rate sometimes line up with testing events, ignoring events that don't line up with peaks, and other sources of growth rate variability (ENSO, volcanoes).  It really needs to quantify the effect on the global C budget to justify the qualitative claims of "colossal" and "tremendous" amounts.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T19:25:29.210Z
@Fred - production of plutonium does not require enrichment at all. The Hanford reactors for plutonium production used natural uranium. As for the OP, above ground testing in, say, the Nevada Test Site, did not result in large scale fires as would occur in an actual weapon exchange.
Jon Custer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-12T14:41:20.123Z
This question has been partially answered in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127251/why-did-nuclear-testing-not-result-in-nuclear-winter. But I agree that it fits this site better than physics
Reverent Lapwing
<climate-change><ozone>
What was the impact of nuclear tests on climate change and ozone layer depletion?
holmes
# What was the impact of nuclear tests on climate change and ozone layer depletion?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-04-10)

Since 1945 [2476](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests) nuclear bombs were exploded on this planet during tests with a total yield of 545 megatons. The [peak of testing](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally) took place in the late 50's and early 60's with 116 bombs exploded in 1958 and 178 bombs exploded in 1962 and in 1961 the USSR detonated an hydrogen bomb ([Tsar Bomba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba)) with a yield of at least 50 megatons.

The article at this [link](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0710058105) states that a regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (totaling 1.5 megaton) would cause a significant depletion of the ozone layer.
This other [paper](https://www.authorea.com/users/519642/articles/593292-underground-nuclear-testing-the-leading-cause-of-global-warming#:%7E:text=The%20derivative%20carbon%20footprint%20of,Leading%20Cause%20of%20Global%20Warming.) claims that the derivative carbon footprint of underground nuclear testing is colossal.

Because I know very little about the subject and because there may be many more results proving or disproving the implications of nuclear test on climate change and ozone layer depletion, I would like to ask for some more explanations and some references.

**Tags:** climate-change, ozone

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think you are much more likely to get good answers if you ask your questions separately.  Climate impact and ozone layer are two very different questions.  
> **username_2**: Are you asking about the affects of just the detonation of a large number of nuclear explosives? Manufacturing 2476 nuclear bombs & obtaining the materials for bomb construction would have consumed a vast amount of electrical energy, particularly obtaining U-235, separating it from U-238 & enriching it & the eventual production of plutonium. A significant amount of that energy would have been derived from coal fired power stations, which would have contributed to global warming & climate change.  
> **username_0**: any information about any remarkable  impact on the environment of those tests is interesting for me at any stage and even beyond climate change and ozone layer depletion if that happened, besides the obvious radioactive contamination  
> **username_3**: At the risk of being mean to the author, that underground testing preprint is hilarious. It's such a treasure trove of how not to write a science paper that it would actually be a useful teaching aid for masters students.  It's a shame they didn't give it an open license.  
> **username_0**: I would like to point out that while criticizing a source or another is a healthy part of commenting and answering  as long there is some clear elaboration and explanation to general readers in support of and against a thesis, writing a critic as a rant without any  elaboration and explanation  on the arguments to non specialists is not helpful  to me and other persons interested on this topic.  
> **username_3**: I agree. I didn't post a longer critique of that preprint because it's really a side issue - it would be a distraction from and wouldn't actually answer your question. A big general problem with the preprint is that it doesn't quantify any of its claims, it just notes that peaks in CO2 growth rate sometimes line up with testing events, ignoring events that don't line up with peaks, and other sources of growth rate variability (ENSO, volcanoes).  It really needs to quantify the effect on the global C budget to justify the qualitative claims of "colossal" and "tremendous" amounts.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 - production of plutonium does not require enrichment at all. The Hanford reactors for plutonium production used natural uranium. As for the OP, above ground testing in, say, the Nevada Test Site, did not result in large scale fires as would occur in an actual weapon exchange.  
> **username_5**: This question has been partially answered in https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127251/why-did-nuclear-testing-not-result-in-nuclear-winter. But I agree that it fits this site better than physics  

---

## 0 answers

