Are you aware of analysis evaluating nuclear testing and Global Warming?

Very interesting points you’ve made there and I can clearly see why it may appear that there is a link between warming / cooling and nuclear testing activity.

There are two aspects to this answer, I'll deal with the nuclear component first.

A nuclear blast, like any other explosion, results in a significant amount of material being displaced from the blast site and entering the atmosphere in the form of various types of particulate matter. This matter is only of consequence in terms of the climate if it can in some way have an effect on the climate. This can happen in one of two ways; either the absorption of thermal radiation or the reflection of solar radiation.

Solar radiation is the incoming energy from the Sun and certain molecules have reflective properties which allow them to act like minute mirrors and reflect some of this radiation back into space before it reaches us. The most notable cause of this reflectivity is sulphur dioxide (SO2). This is more associated with volcanic activity than nuclear testing and in the aftermath of massive eruptions the average global temperature (AGT) falls quite significantly. This last occurred on a notable scale in the aftermath of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Such was the quantity of SO2 injected into the atmosphere that the AGT fell by 0.6°C.

SO2 has a relatively short atmospheric residency period (ARP) before being dissipated out of the atmosphere after undergoing a 2 and 3 stage chemical reaction to form sulphuric and hydrochloric acids (effectively acid rain).

Thermal radiation is the outgoing heat energy from the Earth (shortwave solar radiation warms the Earth and everything on it and is subsequently retransmitted as longwave thermal radiation). The wavelength of the outgoing thermal radiation is 3.3 micrometers – the same as the vibrational frequency of the gases we call Greenhouse Gases (GHG). The corresponding wavelengths enable the GHG’s to absorb and retransmit the thermal radiation. The downward retransmission is the component we call the Greenhouse Effect.

The greater the atmospheric concentrations of GHG’s the more heat can be retained. However, this isn’t a directly proportional relationship and a doubling of GHG’s won’t lead to a doubling of heat retention.

Returning to the nuclear question, the blasts produce neither the gases that lead to warming or cooling and in this respect they have no effect on the climate. However, the particulate matter produced has the ability to absorb incoming solar radiation and if enough black particulate matter (BPM) is thrown into the atmosphere it can absorb enough energy from the Sun for the effect to be measured using sensitive equipment. However, the effect is miniscule and for all intents and purposes it can be ignored.

The largest instance of BPM entering the atmosphere in recent times followed the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helen’s. When the volcano blew, billions of tons of BPM entered the atmosphere but even this amount had almost no effect on temperatures. Also, BPM has a very short ARP – a matter of only a few days (average 9).

So, despite extensive nuclear testing, the effect on the climate would have been miniscule. Basically because the physics are all wrong.

So what did cause the cooling in the middle of the 20thC?

This cooling is often referred to as global cooling or more correctly as global dimming. It was occasioned by a build up in the atmosphere of the various chloro / flouro / hydro / carbons such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). Like the aforementioned SO2, these gases have reflective properties and a build up of these gases led to an increased amount of sunlight being reflected back into space before reaching us – and consequently global cooling.

These same gases were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer and consequently their use has been all but banned. Ironically, banning the use of these gases paved the way for global warming to return to the fore.

I don't see how this could be a "new" model, i've known about this stuff since the 80's. And the particles and energy aren't only emitted up and down. But I don't see how any of the Neutron, gamma, alpha or beta radiations, much less any particles could make it to the core of the earth, much less cause any warming. You would have to have a proper education on particles created, energy levels of those particles, the tenth thicknesses for radiation and many other studies before even discussing it intelligably with you. However, unless you watched the movie 2012 way too many times, I doubt that tachyon particles or neutrino's would change thier physics. As neutrons slow down in water they thermalize, thus causing heat, that's about the only part that is true in the whole conjecture. But that they would actually reach the core and add to heat is an impossibility since you can't violate the laws of physics to explain away global warming.

The correlation is most likely to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which was in it's cool phase during the period 1940 to late 1970's

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

There is no link to Nuclear testing the majority of which were under ground anyway. Any heat effect is to localized to have any meaningful global effect.

The effect of nuclear detonations causing global cooling is called "Nuclear Winter".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

The effect was well documented with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH...

Note that the earth also cooled 0.2 K (see link above) after the eruption of Mt St Helens in 1980.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli...

While it is true that CFCs and CO2 were blamed for global cooling during the 1970s,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Aeroso...

they are now thought to be greenhouse gases, and as such, the EPA wishes to regulate them on a CO2 equivalency basis:

"Specifies that the following measurements are all equal to 1 ton of carbon dioxide for the purposes of establishing the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas (Sec. 311):

-25 tons of methane;

-298 tons of nitrous oxide;

-14,800 tons of HFC-23 (fluoroform);

-3,500 tons of HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane);

-1,430 tons of HFC-134a (tetrafluoroethane);

-4,470 tons of HFC-143a (trifluoroethane);

-124 tons of HFC-152a (difluoroethane);

-3,220 tons of HFC-227ea (heptafluoropropane);

-9,810 tons of HFC-236fa (hexafluoropropane);

-1,640 tons of HFC-43-10mee (decafluoropentane);

-7,390 tons of CF4 (tetrafluoromethane);

-12,200 tons of C2F6 (hexafluorethane);

-8,860 tons of C4F10 (perfluorobutane);

-9,300 tons of C6F14 (perfluorohexane);

-22,800 tons of SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride); and

-17,200 tons of NF3 (nitrogen fluoride)."

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_i...

In order for the dust to have more than a minor local effect, it is necessary for the dust to be blasted 10 - 15 Km up where it can persist for years blocking the sun.

http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/S.Utyu...

Thus, the Kuwaiti oil fires of 1991, failed to cause global temperature drop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires#Env...

yes