Thank you Vitruvius, your reply was constructed well and very informative, however, it did not contribute much to the “problem” that I have been studying and very interested in for many number of years.
You posted that; “the idea of heat from the 20th Century nuclear tests contributing to climate change strikes me as incorrect.” Those were my thoughts back in the 1950es when the changes in the weather patterns became the subject of discussion, but the discussion made me curious and I figured that by studying the subject I could resolve the issue. The person that I was discussing the “weather” issues with, told me that he had a discussion with his father and grandfather about the “strange” changes in the weather and the “timing” of the seasons, he said that his grandfather told him that “nothing” like the changes presently (mid 1950 to 1960) had happened in his life time, and that the cause must be the nuclear bombs that were being exploded at the time.
So I started to study. I had seen the Einstein’s formula of E=mc2 and I found out that the formula indicates the relationship between mass and energy; in other words little bit of mass can be “converted” to a lot of energy. Later on I found out that one kilogram of uranium-235 (U-235) converted via nuclear processes releases approximately three million times more energy than a kilogram of coal that is burned. I also found out that nuclear bombs create huge amount of radioactive dust that can be distributed far and wide by the wind, perhaps even circling the world. Nuclear bombs have been exploded in the air, under water, under earth, and in space. There are at least 440 nuclear plants that create electricity, and there are nuclear submarines and ships that use nuclear power.
All nuclear plants that have a controlled nuclear chain reaction “create” nuclear energy, meaning that the “fuel” is more radioactive “after” use than before, and the decay time depends on the materials “half-life” and that can be very short or very long, some elements have a half-life of thousands of years.
Suppose that we “created” a radioactive element in our nuclear “furnace” that had a half-life of only 100 years then one year later we create the same type of an element with 100 year half-life and every year, for 100 years we create the same type of an element, we would have 100 elements that would decrease in intensity of energy only by half of the original amount; in other words, in 100 years we would still have 50% of the “energy” from the original amount and more than 50% from all the other “created” ones and this is in addition to the “energy” needed to create the element.
What I have concluded from my studies is the following.
It is not possible to have “energy” without mass. Nor is it possible to have “power” without energy.
For instance “heat” can be considered as “energy” but the “energy” is in the molecular motion; if the molecules are not moving then there is no “heat energy”.
The same concept is true for the intrinsic energy of atoms, if the particles in the atomic nucleus are not moving then there is no energy, if the nuclear particles are moving very rapidly then there is very much energy.
If the nucleus of an atom that is somewhat unstable all-ready is “disturbed” further by an addition of some neutrons, then the nucleus can break apart and in the process will create lot of motion that is equal to “energy”.
In other words: Energy = (u/k)c
M= (U/k)/C
E= (U/k)*C
C=300,000,000 m/s
U= (300,000,000 * k^2) / M
k=m
MY calculation
If m=2…… U= 2^2 = 4 * 300000000 = 1,200,000,000 /2 = 600,000,000 * 300,000,000 = 1.8*10^17
Einstein’s formula; E=mc^2
Calculation
300,000,000 * 300,000,000 = 9*10^16…..* 2 = 1.8*10^17
My calculation gives the same answer therefore Einstein must have been right. ;-)