No. There are several ways to look at this to show why not. Let's try a couple out below:

When you "push" something like a spaceship through space, you do that by throwing a lot of mass / energy away from the rocket itself. All that stuff that comes out of the tail of the rocket is what does the "pushing".

In the case of nuclear explosions, a whole lot of energy got pushed outward from the explosions. But virtually none of it got "thrown away" from Earth as a whole. It just made the ground and atmosphere wobble a bit in the local vacinity.

But let's say that somehow all the energy from all the nuclear explosions ever done were added together and all were directed in exactly the proper way to push the Earth toward the sun and done in a way that could actually push. While that's a lot of energy released, it still doesn't add up to a tiny fraction of the amount of thrust needed to move the Earth's orbit even an inch. Our lovely Mother Earth, small as she is, is one heavy mother.

Hi Guest. You said: "In the case of nuclear explosions, a whole lot of energy got pushed outward from the explosions. But virtually none of it got "thrown away" from Earth as a whole. It just made the ground and atmosphere wobble a bit in the local vacinity." This not entirely true: The system [Earth+nuclear bomb] releases a large quantity of energy (thermal, light, kinetic energy of particles e.t.c.) and -at least- a part of it is, actually, leaving the Earth. This energy has an equivalent of mass and this mass has a momentum. Due to the conservation of momentum for the whole system, the result is a change of the Earth's momentum, hence a slight change of the Earth's velocity, although negligible (because of the Earth's huge mass). If a nuclear explosion happens on the surface of a very small asteroid, it will definitely change its orbit.

All energy has the relationship e=mc², therefore all heat gains and losses to background can be considered as mass entering and leaving the system.

So should one be more worried about all energy releases across the globe, and not just the intermittent letting go of the occasional big 'un?

Orbit is a mass-momentum thing. As big as a nuclear explosion is, the only mass "lost" to energy is a fraction of the weight of the uranium / plutonium in the bomb itself, which is in kilograms not tonnes. I'd reckon considerably more mass has already been lost into space as non-returning hardware and propellant for the many Moon, Mars and deep space probes since the 70's.

But for a real sense of perspective, Earth's gravitational dancing partner the Sun continually loses matter on a grand scale as ejecta that we know as the solar wind. Now there's a source of nuclear waste worth worrying about!

Earth's orbital distance is reflected by its orbital period. So until you see an announcement that the official length of one earth year has been shortened, well...

Hi every body,

I agree with G.K.,loosing mass tends to get Earth closes to the sun.

sayed sarhan

Nuclear explosions couldn't pull it off. The energy released from major volcanic erruptions and collisions with large meteors are even more energy rich, and there is no evidence that either has nudged us closer to the sun.

In 2001, Korycansky, Laughlin, and Adams proposed a plan gradually to shift Earth's orbit away from the sun by sling-shotting a LARGE object around Earth and Jupiter. The gravitaional pull of the object hurtling around Earth and returning to Jupiter would transfer gravitatoinal energy to the earth, causing its orbit to shift ever so slightly away form the sun. Their "plan" is/was to schedule such an encoutner every 6000 years to keep Earth a comfortable distance from Sol as Sol ages and enlarges. Here's a link to the abstract of the paper: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/41972.

Another thing to note is that a change in the earth's oribit would be noticed extremely quickly by anyone involved in astronomy or spaceflight -for instance the orbital distance is known very accurately since it is used to create very wide telescopic arrays (i.e. measurements are taken 6 months apart to create composite images from the opposite ends of the orbit).

Besides, moving the planet slightly closer to the sun would have a negligible effect on warming. It is the rate of heat loss that is changing, not the rate of heat gain.

Interesting question.

What also must be taken into consideration is the spacetime continum which depicts the relationship of all the plants of the solar system and the iterative relationship between the relative location of the plants and sun. To move the earth from the apex of the spacetime continum within which it is held due to the warp of relationships would not only influence the earths location but also the relative location of everyother gravitational body, no matter how large or small. Thus any energy event large enough to simple relocate the earth, by even fractional variation, would be similar to picking up a salt shaker and dumping out the contents a on table or an even better analogy would be the actions of pool balls on a table.

The original machine used for calculating the relationship of all the plants in the solar system had a base-plate of prefabulated amulite, surrounded by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in direct line with the pentametric fan, the latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzelvanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar vaneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus- o-delta type placed in panendermic semiboloid solts in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible termic pipe to the differential girdlespring on the 'up' end of the grammeter.

Using this machine helped calculate the salt shaker to pool ball ratio that stabilizes the gravimetric plant infusion spurs throughout the universe.

-A-

I have no idea what you're talking about, not a clue... as an accused pedantic sesquipedalian I have to say that that is quite an accomplishment... I assume that either you're blowing smoke up our collective skirts (seems unlikely given the GA) and/or I'm amazingly ignorant of the topic (which I wouldn't doubt) and/or your typos have served to thoroughly befuddle me (e.g. I'm pretty sure that the machine wasn't calculating the relationships of plants but rather planets... or was it..)

Could you please clarify? Maybe send me a link or something so I can fill some more brain cells with completely useless (to me) information? Or laugh at me for being dumb... either way, I'll sleep better.

Thats why we haven't stopped Pakistan and Korea from testing yet!!! Between All of of the US and USSR testing they have a lot of work to do to push us back into the right spot!

-T

No.

There is gyroscopic precession in the earth's rotation. It causes the "pole star" to not be Polaris every few millenia. The ellipse that the earth forms in its tour around the sun therefore results in greater or lesser extremes in the seasons, depending on the angle of the precession. When the precession is at maximum the same time the ellipse distance from the sun is a minimum, we get a "great summer". When the precession is at minimum, when the ellipse distance is at maximum, we get an "ice age".

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5207/59

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html

The CO2 content of the atmosphere affects global warming on a short term basis. Short term being decades rather than centuries. Also, CO2 content can be changed, increased or limited. Its a variable we can control.

Fascinating field. I don't think that nuclear explosions would have any more effect on the precession of the earth than, say, eruptions of Mount St. Helens, or meteor impacts. And since we know that the eruption of Krakatoa did not tumble the Earth's gyros,....how could a few nuclear tests do it?

Simply put, no. Any effect would be too small to detect, let alone affect Earth's insolation (how much sunlight strikes it).

First thing first: binding energy in the critical mass gets converted to light, sound, motion (of ground around the bomb), etc.

When everything's died down again, the only thing that'll escape Earth do any significant degree is the light emitted by the bomb. Since light DOES have a slight mass that means that the Earth will be pushed in the opposite direction of the each photon emitted to space.

As for other matter, air put in motion by the bomb's triggering will be subsonic after a very short while (can air go transonic if sufficient force is applied to it?). Indivual molecules could go transonic, but they'll extremely rapidly strikes other ones and their energy will be dissipated among the latter.

Now, since the speed of air molecules will rapidly drop to subsonic, and given that the escape velocity required to leave Earth and Earth orbit is much greater than that, no air molecules will be lost to space because of the bomb's going off.

So yes, the Earth's orbit WILL be slightly altered ... but the same effect is achieved by pointing a flashlight to the sky, albeit to a lesser degree. The effect won't be felt.

Cheers!
DZ

No it is trapped carbon dioxide gas.

Clearly and unequivocally true is the basis of quantum mechanics which quite simply states that we can calculate the energy of the mass or the location of the mass, but neither at the same time . . . therefore . . . comes the statement that we may know where we are, but we do not know how much energy it took to get there, or we know how much energy we have at the instant in time but we do not know where we are . . . clearly from this . . . the earth is full of energy . . . therefore we can possibly know where we are . . . which kind of sort-of . . . in a truly scientific way means we are lost in space.

What global warming?

No, I don't want to debate that.

To answer your question, the earth's orbit would change a very small fraction. I once calculated the amount of energy to stop the earth's rotation. It was close to the equivalent of one trillion 50-megaton hydrogen bombs (properly directed with all energy pushing). Considering the comments of others regarding how little push each one would give, I think you can see that the effect would be too small to notice.

-S