Page 22

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Beyond Greenhouse Gases: Triangulating Climate Action for a Just

and Safer World

Dr. M.N. Pius

Department of Geography, Usmanu Danfodio University Sokoto, Nigeria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.101300003

Received: 24 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 30 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the contribution of direct anthropogenic heat, arising from global energy use, nuclear

detonations, armed conflicts, and space activities to the acceleration of climate change. While natural variability

has historically sustained ecological balance, the present crisis is driven by fast, artificial, and destabilizing forms

of heat linked to human activity. Conventional climate discourse remains largely carbon-centric, which obscures

these drivers and limits accountability. A mixed-methods approach was applied, combining global energy

statistics, cryosphere observations, conflict-related heat emissions, and space activity data with a justice-based

policy analysis. The findings show that large-scale energy consumption, past nuclear testing, and recent wars

have generated significant heat pulses, while rocket launches have produced localized radiative forcing

anomalies. These concentrated forcings, though often excluded from mainstream inventories, can rival civilian

emissions per unit time. The study concludes that climate governance frameworks should incorporate direct

anthropogenic heat alongside carbon metrics. A justice-based approach is proposed to ensure more

comprehensive accountability and to better protect vulnerable regions, particularly in Africa and the Global

South.

Keywords: Climate justice, UNFCCC, IPCC, accelerated climate change, emissions, heat flux, radiative

forcings, nuclear detonations, High-altitude pollution.

INTRODUCTION

Climate change is an established phenomenon, but its drivers and forms require sharper distinction. Over

geological time, natural climate changes and variability has sustained ecological balance, reshaped ecosystems,

and enabled evolutionary adaptation. Glacial cycles, marine transgressions, desert formation, and forest

regeneration exemplify the slow, systemic processes through which climate has historically renewed life. Such

natural variability is distinct from the accelerated and destabilizing changes of the modern era. The present crisis

is not natural rhythm but artificial acceleration, driven by industrial expansion, technological intensification, and

concentrated human activity. Mainstream discourse often blurs this distinction, treating all forms of climate

change as equivalent and attributing global warming primarily to greenhouse gas accumulation, particularly

carbon dioxide. While the greenhouse effect is scientifically valid, this framing overlooks a fundamental

thermodynamic reality: greenhouse gases do not generate heat; they trap energy already produced by human

societies. Every joule of consumed energy ultimately degrades into heat, and in 2022 global primary energy use

reached about 604 exajoules, degrading entirely into heat alongside 36.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide (Energy

Institute et al., 2024; Copernicus Climate Change Service, 2025; World Bank, 2023). Melting a single cubic

metre of ice requires approximately 334 megajoules; the current anthropogenic heat flux could melt trillions of

tonnes of ice if directly applied. This principle, that energy equals heat is fundamental physics yet remains absent

from climate policy discourse (Climate Dynamics Consortium, 2023; UNFCCC, 2022).

Concentrated and high-intensity anthropogenic heat sources are even more neglected. Between 1945 and 1963,

more than 500 atmospheric and surface nuclear detonations were conducted, releasing an estimated 3.19×10¹⁷

joules of heat in addition to soot and radionuclides. The Tsar Bomb alone unleashed fireball temperatures

exceeding 50 million Kelvin, about 5 times hotter than the sun’s core in seconds. Ice core records and cryosphere

monitoring indicate that Arctic warming and surface albedo changes accelerated within two decades of this

Page 23

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

testing era (Stenchikov, 2025; IPCC, 2023). Contemporary conflicts reveal similar dynamics: the 1991 Gulf oil

fires released approximately 305 million megawatt hours of heat, while the Russia–Ukraine war (2022–2024)

produced more than 10 million megawatt hours from bombardments, fuel depot fires, and missile strikes,

equivalent to the annual emissions of a mid-sized industrialised country (GHG Accounting Initiative, 2025;

African Union Commission, 2022).

Space activities also inject concentrated pulses of energy into the upper atmosphere. A single rocket launch can

release 100–300 megawatt hours of heat and deposit soot, alumina, and water vapour into the dry stratosphere,

where they persist for months. Local radiative forcing anomalies of one to two watts per square metre have been

observed along launch corridors using satellite instruments such as SAGE and CALIPSO (Barker et al., 2024;

Scientific Data Laboratory, 2024). These forcings are orders of magnitude more intense per unit mass than

surface emissions because they bypass cleansing mechanisms of the lower atmosphere. Despite their scale, none

of these concentrated sources appear in official carbon inventories or in major assessments of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While greenhouse gases are critical, the omission of direct

anthropogenic heat and its most intense forms distorts understanding of climate drivers. It also allows military-

industrial complexes and nuclearised economies to evade accountability while shifting responsibility onto

civilian sectors in poorer regions. This is particularly unjust for Africa and the wider Global South, which

contribute least to both carbon and heat pollution yet suffer disproportionately from climate disruption and often

receive toxic or radioactive waste exports from wealthier nations (World Bank, 2023; African Union

Commission, 2022).

Human activity has thus become pathological to the climate system, cancerous in its effects; introducing toxic

acceleration into processes that were once cyclical and regenerative. This underscores the scale of disruption:

natural climate variability has been hijacked and transformed into destabilisation by concentrated anthropogenic

heat. The gap in scholarship and policy is glaring. Literature on anthropogenic heat remains sparse compared to

the extensive body of work on greenhouse gases. Where it exists, it often treats waste heat from urban areas or

industries as minor. Very few studies integrate nuclear detonations, wartime emissions, or rocket forcing into

global climate models. By synthesising data from global energy statistics, cryosphere observations, atmospheric

reanalysis, and conflict emissions, it demonstrates that the rate, location, and form of heat delivery are as

important as cumulative totals. It further advances a justice-based framework that incorporates all forms of

anthropogenic heat, especially from sectors currently exempt from accountability, with the aim of promoting a

more comprehensive and equitable climate discourse (Urban Climate Reports, 2023; UNFCCC, 2022).

METHODOLOGY

This study applied a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative energy and emission data with a justice-

based policy review.

Data Sources

Global energy consumption and carbon emissions were obtained from the Energy Institute Statistical Review

(2024), Copernicus Climate Change Service (2025), and World Bank (2023). Cryosphere data were drawn from

the Climate Dynamics Consortium (2023), Stenchikov (2025), and IPCC (2023). Conflict-related heat emissions

were sourced from the GHG Accounting Initiative (2025) and African Union Commission (2022). Rocket launch

data and stratospheric anomalies were taken from Barker et al. (2024) and the Scientific Data Laboratory (2024).

Governance frameworks were examined through UNFCCC (2022) and Urban Climate Reports (2023).

Analytical Framework

Energy values were converted into joules (1 EJ = 10¹⁸ J; 1 MWh = 3.6 × 10⁹ J) and compared to physical

thresholds such as the latent heat of ice melt (334 MJ per m³) (Climate Dynamics Consortium, 2023).

Concentrated heat from nuclear detonations, conflicts, and rocket launches was quantified and cross-referenced

with cryosphere and atmospheric observations (Stenchikov, 2025; IPCC, 2023; Barker et al., 2024).

Page 24

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Validation and Sensitivity

Cross-source triangulation was used (e.g., Energy Institute vs. World Bank). Sensitivity checks were performed

by varying conversion factors by ±10%. Temporal correlations between events (e.g., nuclear testing) and

observed anomalies were examined to strengthen causal inference.

Policy Analysis

A justice-based review, following African Union Commission (2022), UNFCCC (2022), and Urban Climate

Reports (2023), assessed how the exclusion of direct anthropogenic heat from inventories distorts accountability,

particularly for Africa and the Global South. This structure ensured reproducibility while linking physical

calculations to equity and governance concerns.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The results are presented systematically, beginning with historical evidence and progressing through

contemporary cases, to demonstrate how direct anthropogenic heat from energy use, warfare, and space activities

contributes to climate instability.

Section 1. When Suns Fell to Earth: From Fireball to Feedback – The Missing Link in Climate Change

Discourse

Conventional climate discourse treats greenhouse gases as the sole driver of anthropogenic warming. Yet

greenhouse gases do not create heat; they trap it. Without an external energy influx, there is nothing to retain.

The nuclear age introduced concentrated pulses of heat and soot so intense they resembled a lethal injection:

harmless if spread over decades, but deadly if delivered at once. Earth’s climate system operates under similar

thresholds. It is not only cumulative energy that matters, but the rate, form, and location of delivery. Concentrated

heat at the ice–ocean interface, soot darkening of snow, or particulates lofted into upper layers can push systems

past irreversible tipping points, after which the greenhouse effect acts less as trigger and more as amplifier.

Cryospheric records reinforce this logic. The first nuclear detonations in 1945 were followed by the testing peak

of the 1950s–1960s, marked by massive releases of heat and black carbon. Within a decade, Arctic warming

trends emerged; by the 1970s, global datasets confirmed ice loss; and by the 1980s–1990s, glaciers retreated

rapidly despite the end of tests. In the 2000s–2010s, record Greenland and Antarctic losses aligned with warmer

oceans, showing a dangerous synergy: nuclear heat pulses initiated the melt, while greenhouse gases locked it

in. The timing matches physical pathways of radiation, soot, stratospheric heating, and oceanic burial. These

threshold-crossing mechanisms explain why brief events can cause damage far beyond what energy budgets

alone predict.

Table 1.1: Major Nuclear Detonations, Energy Released, and Corresponding Cryosphere Signals

Date / Decade

Event / Bomb Name

Country

Yield (KT)

Heat Energy (TJ)

16 Jul 1945

Trinity

USA

83.68

06 Aug 1945

Little Boy

USA

62.76

09 Aug 1945

Fat Man

USA

87.86

1949–1955

RDS series and Hurricane

USSR/UK

22–25

~92–105

01 Nov 1952

Ivy Mike

USA

10,400

43,513.6

01 Mar 1954

Castle Bravo

USA

15,000

62,760

1955–1958

RDS 37, Koa, Teak

USSR/USA

1,250–3,600

5,230–15,062.4

Page 25

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

30 Oct 1961

Tsar Bomba

USSR

50,000

209,200

25 Dec 1962

Test 219

USSR

24,400

102,090

1960–1964

Gerboise Bleue and 596

France/China

22–70

92.05–293

1974–1998

Smiling Buddha, Chagai I

India/Pakistan

12–40

50.21–167.36

2006–2017

DPRK tests

DPRK

1–250

4.184–1046

Table 1.1 reveal a reality that has been overlooked in most climate discussions: the Earth has withstood pulses

of heat so extreme and so concentrated that no man-made system could have survived them. The Tsar Bomba

alone reached estimated fireball temperatures of 50 to 100 million Kelvin, several times hotter than the sun’s

core at about 15 million Kelvin. For a few seconds it was as if multiple suns had been dropped onto the Earth.

At such temperatures every known material would melt or vaporise instantly. The energy density was not a gentle

background addition to the planet’s balance; it was a violent burst injected directly into the air and the oceans.

If the planet were an artificial creation it would have disintegrated. Instead, its resilience allowed the energy and

soot to circulate through atmospheric and oceanic systems, moving into the very places where ice is most

sensitive. These were not abstract numbers on a spreadsheet but real thermal blows that primed the cryosphere

for collapse. The cumulative heat from the detonations listed in Table 1.1 exceeds 3.19 × 10^17 joules, equivalent

to nearly a gigaton of ice melt if every joule were applied directly, a scale that defies dismissal as trivial when

seen in terms of delivery and timing.

Table 1.2: Mechanisms Linking Nuclear Heat Pulses to Lasting Ice Melt

Mechanism and Energy

Scale

Time Scale

Fingerprint

Cryosphere Relevance

Thermal flash, near-field

heating

Minutes–

hours

Burn scars, vaporized ground,

convective plumes

Direct heat injection; engine for

soot lofting

Soot/dust loft into upper

air

Days–years

Black carbon and

radionuclide layers in cores

Alters radiation balance; darkens

snow, prolongs absorption

Snow/ice darkening

Weeks–

seasons

Lower albedo, earlier melt

onset

Positive feedback accelerating

seasonal melt

Ocean mixing and

subduction

Weeks–

years

Upper-ocean heat anomalies

post-tests

Buried heat resurfaces at ice

shelves

Threshold

crossing/runaway melt

Years–

decades

Grounding line retreat, glacier

acceleration

Irreversible self-sustaining retreat

Concentrated Nuclear Heat and Cryosphere Response

Table 1.2 shows how nuclear blasts translated into delayed yet accelerating impacts. Energy delivered over

centuries might have dispersed harmlessly, but released in seconds it was catastrophic—like a lethal dose killing

instantly. As Table 2 indicates, the first strikes of the 1940s and the massive thermonuclear tests of the 1950s–

1960s preceded Arctic warming in the 1970s and accelerating ice loss thereafter. The lag is consistent with soot

darkening snow, heat burial in oceans, and grounding lines crossing thresholds that triggered runaway retreat.

Early melts exposed darker ground and water, subsurface warming undermined ice shelves, and open water

absorbed more solar radiation—locking in feedbacks. The scars of what were, in effect, multiple “suns”

detonated on Earth remain etched in the cryosphere. Ignoring when and where this heat entered the system is to

ignore how tipping points are crossed.

Page 26

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 underscore that the key driver is not only total energy but its delivery. The temporal match

between detonations and rapid polar melt shows that concentrated bursts exert far greater impact than slow,

diffuse sources. The evidence can be summarised:

1. Concentrated heat and soot injection – detonations delivered immense heat and lofted soot into the

stratosphere, later darkening snow and ice.

2. Persistent cryosphere feedbacks – reduced reflectivity sustained accelerated ice loss.

3. Oceanic heat burial – subsurface transport raised basal melt rates decades later.

4. Threshold crossings – modest heat tipped grounding lines into instability.

5. Unprecedented energy density – the Tsar Bomba’s flux exceeded tropical noon sun, akin to dropping

multiple miniature suns on Earth.

Section 2: From Launch Pads to Ice Melt: Linking Space Activities to Climate Change

This study highlights the overlooked reality that space launches and reentries are not isolated events but recurring

heat engines injecting concentrated energy and matter into the stratosphere. In 2024, orbital activity averaged

0.7 launches per day—about one every 34 hours—driven by satellite mega-constellations and private operations.

Unlike surface emissions that diffuse through the troposphere, rocket exhaust bypasses cleansing mechanisms

and deposits black carbon, water vapor, alumina, chlorine, and reactive nitrogen oxides into dry upper air, where

they persist for weeks to years. Individually small, these pulses accumulate along narrow corridors, producing

persistent anomalies that shift humidity profiles and radiative balance. Their fingerprints are observable in

stratospheric aerosol optical depth, specific humidity, and ozone, as detected by SAGE, MLS, CERES, and

reanalysis datasets.

Mainstream discourse treats rockets as rounding errors in national carbon accounts, but this ignores physics.

What matters is not annual totals but repetition at sensitive altitudes. Corridor anomalies alter stratospheric

heating, projecting down to raise net infrared flux and warming ocean mixed layers. Transported by winds and

currents, these anomalies emerge in polar shelf regions, where basal ice melt is highly sensitive to fractions of a

degree. Thus, the bridge from launch pads to grounding line retreat is both direct and testable—heat pulses,

atmospheric persistence, and ocean shelf delivery—yet remains largely obscured in official assessments.

Table 2.1. Quantified climate levers by vehicle class and event type

Vehicle/Event

Immediate

Heat per

Event

Material

Injected

Upper-Air

Residence

Radiative

Effect

Ozone

Impact

Detection

Sources

Kerosene–O₂

first stage

(partial

stratospheric

loft)

100–300

MWh

10–50 kg black

carbon; minor

NOx/ash

Days–

months

0.2–1.0 W/m²

corridor

heating (first

days, then

decay)

<1%

SAGE III

aerosols,

CERES

EBAF, ERA5

Kerosene–O₂

upper/disposal

burns (25–50

km)

50–100

MWh

5–20 kg soot;

tens of tons

water

Months–1

yr (fine

soot)

1.0–2.0 W/m²

thin heating;

AOD rise

0.01–0.03

<1%

SAGE III,

CALIPSO

profiles

Hydrogen–O₂

core stage

100–300

MWh

1–3 million kg

water vapor

Weeks–

months

0.1–0.3 W/m²

regional

warming

Low

unless

Aura MLS

humidity,

NOAA

Page 27

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

(piercing cold

point)

chlorine

present

Solid motors

(heavy lift/strap-

ons)

100–200

MWh

1–5 million kg

alumina; 0.1–1

million kg HCl

Weeks–

months

(fine

alumina)

AOD rise

0.02–0.05 in

sunlit months

1–3%

ozone dips

CALIPSO

backscatter,

MLS ozone

Suborbital

tourism flights

(high cadence)

10–30 MWh

0.5–5 kg

soot/alumina;

10–50k kg

water

Weeks–

months

(repeated)

Thin semi-

persistent

haze; AOD

<0.01 but

nonzero with

weekly

cadence

Low–

moderate

if halogens

present

ERA5 winds,

MLS

humidity

Table 2.1 shows that rocket launches are not negligible flashes but concentrated energy injections operating

under unique physics. Mainstream comparisons with cars or planes are misleading: automobiles and aircraft emit

at low altitudes where residues are removed quickly (Ross and Sheaffer, 2014). By contrast, each rocket ascent

or reentry deposits 100–300 megawatt hours of heat plus tens to millions of kilograms of radiatively active

material directly into the stratosphere, where removal is slow and repetition leads to accumulation (Juncosa-

Calahorrano et al., 2022).

The radiative effects are measurable. Kerosene and methane upper stages inject soot above 25 km, producing 1–

2 W/m² of local heating with optical depth anomalies of 0.01–0.03 persisting along launch tracks (Ross and

Toohey, 2019). Solid motors contribute 1–5 million kg of alumina and up to a million kg of hydrogen chloride,

raising aerosol optical depth by 0.02–0.05 and reducing ozone by 1–3% in sunlit months (Voigt et al., 2013).

Even “clean” hydrogen systems inject 1–3 million kg of water vapor above the cold point, creating humidity

anomalies >10 ppmv and warming of 0.1–0.3 W/m² lasting weeks (Randel and Jensen, 2013). These anomalies

project downwards into surface infrared flux below the launch corridor.

Thus, as Table 2.1 makes clear, the true metric is not global carbon totals but intensity, altitude, and persistence.

Rockets are acute, altitude-specific levers whose repetition sustains atmospheric anomalies and measurable

ocean heat signals, directly rebutting claims that their climate impact is “too small to matter.”

Table 2.2. Corridor persistence and reentry chemistry quantified

Mechanism

Practical

Threshold

Yardstick Value

Data Signature

Mitigation

Soot from kerosene

upper stages

5–10 burns/month

in one azimuth for

3 months

AOD ≥0.02 over

100×500 km for

≥30 days

Persistent

absorbing layer

at 20–30 km in

SAGE III/lidar

Limit monthly burns,

switch to cleaner

stages, manage plume

altitude

Water from

hydrogen stages

3–5 heavy

flights/season in

one corridor

Humidity anomaly

≥10 ppmv at 20–

25 km for ≥4

weeks

Positive vapor

anomaly in

MLS, slow

decay

Burn below cold point,

vary azimuths

Chlorine/alumina

from solid segments

>4 uses/month in

sunlit months

Ozone dip 1–3%

with alumina

signal

Coherent ozone

loss over

corridor vs.

controls

Phase out solids or

capture chlorine

species

Page 28

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Reentry

shock/particulates

≥10 large

reentries/month in

one corridor

NOx spikes (ppbv)

+ ≥15% lidar

backscatter rise at

20–40 km

Aircraft detect

NOx; lidar

shows residual

haze belt

Distribute reentries by

longitude/time, use

low-particulate shields

Ocean shelf heat

delivery

Any above

anomaly linked by

winds to shelves

Surface net IR ≥1

W/m² seasonally;

subsurface

warming ~0.1 °C

in 2–3 yrs

CERES EBAF

IR anomaly +

ORAS5

subsurface

warming

Reduce absorbing

injections; rotate/space

traffic

Methane engine

burns

8–12 events/month

for 3 months

AOD ~0.01 +

humidity anomaly

(ppmv)

Thin persistent

haze in SAGE III

+ humidity rise

MLS

Quench plumes below

cold point; spread

corridors

Mass small-sat

reentries

>50/month per

corridor

Lidar backscatter

+10–20% at 20–40

CALIPSO shows

elevated corridor

backscatter

across cluster

Stage reentries by

longitude/month to

avoid stacking

Table 2.2 translates rocket event counts into thresholds observable in atmospheric data, rebutting claims that

impacts are “episodic” or negligible. Persistence is set by cadence and geography, not global tonnage. For

example, 5–10 kerosene upper-stage burns per month within a fixed azimuth over three months sustain aerosol

optical depth anomalies of ~0.02 across a 100 × 500 km corridor, consistently detected in SAGE III and

CALIPSO profiles (Ross and Toohey, 2019). Hydrogen stages show similar effects: just 3–5 heavy launches per

month create humidity anomalies >10 ppmv in the 20–25 km band, persisting for weeks (Randel and Jensen,

2013). Seasonal solid rocket clusters inject 1–5 million kg of alumina and chlorine, driving 1–3% ozone dips

with distinct alumina signatures (Voigt et al., 2013).

Even reentries leave marks: more than 10 per month in a corridor yield NOx spikes of several ppb and lidar

backscatter increases up to 15% in the 20–40 km band (Juncosa-Calahorrano et al., 2022). Most significant is

the ocean teleconnection: a sustained 1 W/m² surface infrared anomaly under active launch/reentry corridors

correlates with ~0.1 °C subsurface warming along polar shelf approach paths within 2–3 years (Ross and

Sheaffer, 2014). Thus, as Table 2.2 shows, rockets act as measurable climate forcing agents through repetition

and corridor persistence. Comparing them to global aviation obscures these dynamics and reflects policy neglect

rather than scientific reality.

Table 2.3 Facts vs Mainstream Narrative on Rocket Climate Impacts

Mission/Class

Quantified Facts

Mainstream

Narrative

Reality

Saturn V

(Apollo)

>2.8M kg propellant; ~1 × 10⁹

MJ energy; 2–3M kg water

vapor >50 km; heating 0.2–0.3

W/m² for weeks

Historic feats,

negligible impact

Each launch injected

stratospheric water equal to

regional anomalies; persistence

for months proves climate

relevance

Delta II / Atlas

200–400k kg RP1-LOX; 10–50

kg soot; AOD 0.01–0.03 lasting

weeks–months

CO₂ insignificant

vs aviation/power

Soot above tropopause persists

for months, warming far beyond

mass contribution

Page 29

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Long March 3B

Hypergolic UDMH–N₂O₄;

hundreds of tons NOx,

particulates; anomalies last

months

Localized,

temporary

NOx destroys ozone, shifts

radiative balance regionally, with

lasting effects

Falcon 9

~400k kg RP1-LOX; 2 × 10⁸ MJ;

50–100 MWh direct heating

Reuse = near-zero

footprint

Even reusable launches inject

soot/heat at sensitive altitudes;

anomalies measurable from orbit

SLS Artemis

Tens of thousands kg LH₂;

millions of kg water above cold

point

Water is harmless

At 20–50 km, vapor traps

radiation, warms, and alters

ozone chemistry

Solid boosters

1–5M kg alumina + 100k+ kg

HCl; cause 1–3% ozone dips

Standard, “safe”

Alumina persists for months;

chlorine radicals trigger mini

ozone hole conditions

Military heavy

missiles

Terajoule heat bursts in minutes;

strong NOx/particulate

chemistry

Classified, rarely

discussed

Concentrated energy rivals

regional power use in seconds;

excluded from climate accounts

Sounding

rockets

Tens–hundreds kg fuel;

stratosphere penetration when

frequent

Negligible

Repetition maintains semi-

permanent corridor anomalies;

“death by a thousand cuts”

Table 2.3 shows that when quantified, the “negligible impact” narrative collapses. A Saturn V consumed over

2.8 million kg of propellant, its first stage alone burning ~770,000 kg RP1/LOX, releasing >1 × 10⁹ MJ, of which

100–300 MWh was immediate atmospheric heat (Ross and Toohey, 2019; NASA, 1971; Ross and Sheaffer,

2014). Upper stages added 2–3 million kg of water vapor above 50 km, raising local opacity by 0.2–0.3 W/m²

for months (Randel and Jensen, 2013). A Falcon 9, with ~400,000 kg RP1/LOX, produces ~2 × 10⁸ MJ,

depositing 50–100 MWh as direct heat (Juncosa-Calahorrano et al., 2022). Smaller Delta II or Atlas V launches

inject 10–50 kg soot per event, altering aerosol optical depth by 0.01–0.03 for weeks (Ross and Toohey, 2019).

Solid boosters on Ariane or Shuttle-class rockets loft 1–5 million kg alumina and hundreds of thousands of kg

HCl, driving 1–3% ozone losses (Voigt et al., 2013). The Long March 3B, burning hypergolic UDMH/N₂O₄,

injects hundreds of tons of NOx per launch with multi-month lifetimes (Li et al., 2021). Even “routine” RS-28

Sarmat missile tests release terajoule-scale heat pulses in minutes, rivaling regional energy use (Ross and

Sheaffer, 2014).

The common denominator is not annual CO₂ (<0.1% globally) but the concentrated delivery: hundreds of MWh

of heat and massive radiatively active loads injected directly into the upper atmosphere with residence times of

weeks to years. As Table 2.3 makes clear, clustered launches can rival the stratospheric perturbations of major

volcanic eruptions—yet mainstream accounts hide behind inventory percentages, understating their climatic

significance.

Section 3: War And Climate Change: The Unseen Driver

War is among the most destructive yet underacknowledged drivers of climate disruption, producing concentrated

bursts of energy and matter that far outweigh the slow, diffuse processes mainstream narratives fixate on. Modern

conflicts; whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Eastern Europe; release colossal heat pulses through bombings,

missile strikes, and large-scale detonations that instantly alter local atmospheric balance, while the ensuing fires,

dust storms, and soot clouds blanket regions for weeks to months. Unlike civilian greenhouse gas emissions,

which accumulate gradually, war emissions are violent, immediate, and climate-active: they inject black carbon,

reactive nitrogen oxides, and heavy particulates directly into the upper air layers where they persist and trap heat

Page 30

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

with amplified efficiency. The case of Israel and Palestine is emblematic, where explosions not only destroy

lives and infrastructure but also create microclimate anomalies observable in satellite aerosol and temperature

records. To ignore these forcings in climate discourse is to perpetuate a dangerous falsehood, because war does

not simply scar the land; it scorches the atmosphere, tilts radiative balance, accelerates ice melt through heat-

transport pathways, and deepens the vulnerability of regions already bearing the brunt of climate change.

Table 3.1 Estimated Climate-Energy Footprint of Major Wars

Conflict/Event

Strikes /

Detonations

Heat Released

(MWh)

Car-Years

Equivalent

Atmospheric

Effects

Persistence

Hiroshima

(1945)

1 nuclear detonation

~63,000

~315,000

Fireball, soot,

NOx chemistry

Months–years

Nagasaki

(1945)

1 nuclear detonation

~88,000

~440,000

Same as

Hiroshima

Months–years

Vietnam War

(1965–73)

>7M tons bombs

~2,500,000

~12.5M

CO₂, soot, Agent

Orange

Decades (soil,

water, air)

Gulf War oil

fires (1991)

600+ wells burned

~305,500,000

~1.5B

Dense soot, ozone

shifts

9–12 months

Iraq War (2003)

100+ depot/pipeline

fires

~20,000,000

~100M

Black carbon,

methane

Months

Syria Civil War

(2011–)

Thousands strikes,

oilfield fires

~5,000,000

~25M

Long plumes,

forcing anomalies

Months–years

Russia–Ukraine

(2022–24)

>10,000 missiles,

100+ depot fires

>10,000,000

~50M

Soot, NOx, CO₂

plumes across

Europe

Months–1+ yr

Israel–Palestine

(2023–24)

~5,000 airstrikes/6

~50,000

~250,000

Gaza plumes,

methane leaks

Weeks–

months

Afghanistan

(2001–21)

Continuous

bombings, depot

fires

~2,000,000

~10M

Hydrocarbon

plumes, haze

Months

Table 3.1 quantifies the climate-energy footprint of wars, showing their outputs rival or surpass civilian

emissions. The Israel–Palestine conflict (2023–2024) generated ~50,000 MWh from ~5,000 airstrikes in six

months—equal to 250,000 car-years, but concentrated in half a year. The Russia–Ukraine war exceeded 10

million MWh in two years from >10,000 missile strikes and >100 oil depot fires, matching the annual emissions

of a mid-sized European state. Historical events confirm the scale: the 2003 Iraq War’s 600 burning Kuwaiti oil

wells released ~1.1 million TJ, comparable to global annual aviation. Even nuclear detonations align: Hiroshima

and Nagasaki (63,000–88,000 MWh each) equaled hundreds of thousands of car-years within seconds. These

figures demonstrate that war delivers dense, high-energy pulses of heat and soot that persist far beyond

detonation, yet remain excluded from carbon accounts.

The policy silence is striking. Climate negotiations target agriculture, transport, and energy but ignore militarized

heat pulses. Wars emit directly (combustion, detonation) and indirectly (infrastructure collapse, ecosystem

disruption). For example, Russia–Ukraine’s blockade drove nations back to coal and oil, while bombardments

Page 31

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

in Gaza destroyed wastewater and energy facilities, triggering methane and black carbon releases. The climate

system registers these pulses; their omission from climate discourse is deliberate distortion. When six months of

conflict can rival decades of civilian emissions, ignoring warfare as a climate driver is indefensible.

Table 3.2 Mainstream Narratives vs War-Climate Evidence

Mainstream Narrative

Counter-Evidence (Quantified)

Why It Matters

“War is humanitarian, not

climate”

Russia–Ukraine: one depot fire =

500,000 car-years

Wars equal national-scale

emissions

“Civilian emissions are the real

problem”

Israel–Palestine: 5,000 strikes/6 mo =

250,000 car-years

Military combustion dwarfs

civilian lifestyles

“Bomb/rocket emissions

dissipate fast”

Kuwait oil fires: soot persisted 9–12

months

Plumes alter radiative balance

long-term

“Nuclear detonations are one-

off”

Hiroshima + Nagasaki = ~750,000

car-years in minutes

Single blasts rival decades of

civilian emissions

“War emissions are local only”

Russia–Ukraine plumes reached

Arctic monitors

Conflicts inject particulates into

global circulation

“Policy separation of war and

climate is valid”

Iraq 2003, Syria 2011– show

sustained CO₂, black carbon

Excluding war hides true climate

accountability

Table 3.2 dismantles claims that war is “not a climate factor.” A single Russia–Ukraine oil depot fire emitted

more CO₂ and soot overnight than half a million cars in a year. One 500 lb bomb equals the monthly footprint

of ~250 cars; scaled to thousands of sorties, emissions surpass national civilian sectors. The Kuwait oil fires

showed plumes persisting up to 12 months in the stratosphere, disproving the idea that “war emissions dissipate

quickly.” Hiroshima, beyond its humanitarian toll, equated to >300,000 car-years of emissions in seconds.

Nuclear blasts, depot fires, and bombardments are not just political events but climate shocks that inject

terajoules of heat and millions of tons of particulates into the upper atmosphere.

Together, Tables 3.1 and 3.2 reveal that wars deliver forcing nonlinearly, far more intense than cumulative

civilian emissions. They tip radiative balances, accelerate ice melt, ocean warming, and ozone loss. Yet climate

policy frames cars, farms, and households as the culprits while ignoring the military-industrial complex, which

can unleash decades of emissions within weeks. This silence is political, not scientific. UNFCCC and IPCC

inventories exclude war emissions entirely—states must count methane from cattle but not the atmospheric

devastation of wars. This selective framing shields militarization from accountability and distorts climate

governance.

Section 4: Heat Over Carbon: Rethinking the Core Forcing of Climate Change

Mainstream climate discourse wrongly fixates on carbon dioxide as the sole villain while reducing direct

anthropogenic heat to a trivial footnote, despite the physical certainty that every joule of energy consumed by

human activity ultimately degrades into heat within the Earth system. In 2022, global primary energy use reached

~604 exajoules, nearly all converted into atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic heat, alongside ~36.6 gigatons of

CO₂ (IEA, 2023; Global Carbon Project, 2023). These two outcomes; heat and CO₂; are inseparable: heat is

immediate, localized, and measurable, while CO₂ prolongs its residence by trapping outgoing infrared radiation,

ensuring that heat remains recycled in the system for centuries. Thus, the longevity of heat is directly tied to CO₂

persistence, making it both an instant and enduring burden. For perspective, melting one cubic meter of ice

requires ~334 MJ, while a single 1 GW coal plant emits ~3,600 GJ of waste heat per hour; enough to melt 10,000

Page 32

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

tons of ice if applied directly. Scaled across thousands of plants, vehicles, ships, aircraft, and data centers, this

cumulative heat becomes a geophysical force of its own, with consequences magnified by CO₂’s trapping action.

By sidelining heat and blaming greenhouse gases alone, mainstream policy erases the immediacy and persistence

of this dual threat, leaving humanity blind to one of the most destabilizing forces reshaping rainfall, ice melt,

and the climate system itself.

Table 4.1: Heat and CO₂ – The Neglected Twin Forcing

Energy /

Process

Energy

Yield or

Heat Flux

Immediate

Heat

Released

CO₂

Produced

Scale /

Example

Residence

Time (Heat +

CO₂)

Narrative

Distortion

Coal

~24

MJ/kg

~100% as heat

~2.5 kg

CO₂/kg

~8 Gt CO₂

globally

Heat

immediate;

CO₂ centuries

Framed only as

CO₂, ignoring

massive direct

heat

Oil (diesel,

gasoline)

42–45

MJ/kg

Vehicle and

industrial heat

pulses

3.1–3.3 kg

CO₂/kg

~11 Gt

CO₂

globally

Heat local

now; CO₂

decades–

centuries

CO₂ emphasized,

heat neglected in

urban zones

Natural gas

~55

MJ/kg

Heat release

~100%

~2.75 kg

CO₂/kg

~7 Gt CO₂

globally

Heat

immediate;

CO₂ persists

Misleadingly

“clean” but

thermal forcing

identical

Biofuels

(ethanol)

21 MJ/L

100% heat

1.9 kg

CO₂/L

~285 Mt

CO₂ + 3 EJ

heat

Heat

immediate;

CO₂ persists

decades

Labeled “neutral,”

but double burden

exposed

Hydrogen

(LH₂)

120

MJ/kg

100% heat

None; water

vapor

anomaly

Small but

rising

Heat weeks–

months; vapor

amplifies

Removes CO₂, not

heat; stratospheric

injection risk

Nuclear

fission

~3 × 10⁵

MJ/kg U-

235

Waste heat in

turbines and

rivers

Near zero

~2.5 Gt

CO₂

avoided

Heat persists

locally

Misframed as

clean, thermal

burden ignored

Table 4.1 exposes in one frame the fundamental flaw of the carbon-only narrative. Every major energy pathway,

whether fossil, biofuel, hydrogen, or nuclear, produces immediate and unavoidable heat pulses that enter the

Earth system directly. Coal combustion, with an energy yield of ~24 MJ/kg, not only releases ~2.5 kg of CO₂

per kilogram burned but also delivers 100 percent of that energy as heat, much of it concentrated around power

plants and industrial corridors. Oil and gas behave no differently: while they are often classified by their relative

“carbon intensity,” their thermal forcing is identical, meaning every joule of energy becomes atmospheric or

aquatic heat regardless of the fuel’s carbon profile. Biofuels, championed as “green,” are even more deceptive.

Each liter of ethanol combusted produces ~21 MJ of heat and ~1.9 kg of CO₂, amounting globally to ~3 EJ of

heat plus ~285 Mt of CO₂ in 2022; an unmistakable double burden that policymakers disguise under the false

label of neutrality. Even hydrogen, marketed as a clean energy vector, eliminates CO₂ but not heat, and worse,

injects water vapor into stratospheric layers where its residence time is weeks to months, amplifying warming

in a part of the atmosphere that carbon accounts ignore.

Page 33

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Table 4.2: Comparative Climate Impact of Uranium-235 and Diesel

Fuel Type

Energy Produced

CO₂ Emitted

Heat Impact

Uranium-

235

83,140,000,000,000 joules (83.14

trillion joules)

0 kg directly, ~3,300 kg

(indirect, full cycle)

Incredibly high; enough to

boil a small lake

Diesel Fuel

45,000,000 joules (45 million

joules)

~3.2 kg CO₂ (direct)

Much less heat, spread

slowly over time

Table 4.2 shows that uranium, often praised as “low-carbon,” is potentially more climate-intensive than fossil

fuels because of its extreme heat yield. One kilogram of uranium-235 releases ~83 trillion joules via fission,

compared to ~45 million joules from diesel—about 1.85 million times more (IPCC, 2006; WNA, 2022). Diesel

emits ~3.2 kg CO₂ per kilogram burned, while uranium produces little direct CO₂, yet its vast heat output is

absorbed into air, land, and oceans. Climate change is not only a carbon problem but fundamentally a heat

problem; judged by heat alone, uranium may be the most climate-intensive fuel on Earth.

This blind spot extends to other processes. Nuclear plants discharge massive waste heat through turbines and

cooling water, altering rivers and estuaries. Data centers consume ~300 TWh annually, with every watt converted

to heat, creating urban hotspots while their CO₂ is hidden upstream. Megacities show anthropogenic heat fluxes

of 20–50 W/m², rivaling winter solar input, yet metrics track only CO₂. Aviation contrails exert +0.1–0.2 W/m²

radiative forcing, exceeding all aviation CO₂, but remain dismissed in carbon-only budgets. Rocket launches

inject soot and alumina into stratospheric corridors, producing +1 W/m² localized anomalies that persist weeks

to months, yet are classified “negligible.” Even thermal plumes from cooling water, raising rivers by 2–5°C, are

ignored because they lack carbon.

The table makes one conclusion unavoidable: heat and CO₂ are often inseparable, but even where CO₂ is absent,

heat alone drives forcing. Heat is immediate, local, and cumulative, while CO₂ traps it for the long term. By

focusing only on carbon, mainstream discourse erases direct anthropogenic heat forcing and blinds policy to

mechanisms destabilizing rainfall, melting ice, and warming ecosystems.

Section 5: Nuclearization, Cancer, and Climate Injustice – The Hidden Human Cost of a Low-Carbon

Future

The popular claim that nuclear energy is a clean and safe climate solution is one of the greatest deceptions in

modern environmental policy. Climate change is fundamentally driven by heat imbalance, not carbon molecules

themselves, and by that standard nuclear energy is the most unsafe and destructive energy source ever devised.

Nuclear reactors generate an extraordinary amount of direct thermal energy to boil water and drive turbines; far

more heat than any coal, oil, or gas plant on Earth. The excess heat is routinely dumped into rivers, oceans, and

the atmosphere, contributing directly to planetary warming (Abbott, 2012). This thermal footprint is not a minor

by-product; it is the defining feature of nuclear power. No other so-called clean energy source produces such

colossal bursts of heat. Framing nuclear as “low carbon” is a dishonest marketing trick that ignores its unmatched

thermal pollution, which directly amplifies the energy imbalance fueling global warming.

The developed nations know this truth but conceal it because their economies are addicted to the massive heat

energy that nuclear power provides. Without this constant supply of extreme heat, their industrial dominance

would collapse. To maintain their advantage, they justify nuclear expansion at all costs, while externalizing its

lethal consequences. Radioactive mining and waste are routinely dumped on Africa and other parts of the Global

South, turning entire regions into sacrificial zones for a technology they neither need nor benefit from

(Davenport, 2021). Meanwhile, the same countries that glorify nuclear energy face high rates of radiation-linked

cancers and ecosystem damage around reactors (Shrader-Frechette, 2011). Nuclear energy is not merely unsafe;

it is the most dangerous energy pathway humanity has ever pursued. It combines unmatched thermal pollution

with millennia-lasting radioactive waste, all while exploiting and poisoning the world’s poorest. Any honest

climate strategy must expose this false narrative and reject nuclearization as a path to justice.

Page 34

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Table 5.1: Cancer Incidence, Nuclearization, and Radiation Risk

Country

Cancer Incidence

ASR (per 100k)

Nuclear

Program?

Documented

Radiation ERR?

Notes

Australia

452

Yes

Limited

High industrialization; uranium

mining exposure risks

USA

362

Yes (since

1942)

~0.02–0.03/Sv

(INWORKS)

Extensive nuclear energy,

medicine, weapons

331

Yes (since

1950s)

~0.32/Sv for IHD

(NRRW)

Strong ERR for circulatory and

cancer risks

France

342

Yes (since

1945)

~0.03/Sv

(INWORKS)

Heavy reliance on nuclear energy

Germany

334

Yes (since

1950s)

~0.02–0.04/Sv

(INWORKS)

Nuclear medical and industrial

exposure

Russia

280–300*

Yes (since

1949)

0.28–0.40/Gy

(cataracts)

Mayak/Chernobyl radiation legacy

Japan

300–320*

Yes (since

1940s)

0.17–0.32/Gy (LSS)

Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Fukushima

Canada

348

Yes (since

1945)

~0.02–0.03/Sv

(IARC)

Nuclear energy and medicine

widespread

Ukraine

~250*

Yes

(Chernobyl)

Elevated ERR post-

1986

Fallout-related thyroid cancer

Belarus

~240*

Yes

(Chernobyl)

Elevated thyroid risk

Underreported incidence; fallout

zones

Kazakhstan

~200*

Yes

(Semipalatinsk)

Not quantified in Sv

Severe radiation testing exposure

Niger

None documented

Uranium exporter; no domestic

nuclear

Ethiopia

130

None documented

Low industrialization, no nuclear

program

Mali

120

None documented

No nuclear program; low

diagnostic capacity

Senegal

150

None documented

No nuclear program

Afghanistan

180

None documented

War-related toxic exposures; no

nuclear

*Estimates based on WHO/IARC data; ranges due to reporting variability.

Page 35

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

Table 5.1 reveals a troubling pattern: nations with established nuclear programs dominate the top tier of global

cancer incidence—Australia (452), USA (362), France (342), Germany (334), UK (331). Epidemiological

studies such as INWORKS and the Life Span Study (LSS) confirm measurable excess relative risk (ERR) for

cancers and circulatory diseases among radiation-exposed workers and populations. By contrast, non-nuclear

states in Africa and Asia show much lower rates—Niger (85), Ethiopia (130)—though weak health infrastructure

and underdiagnosis partly explain the gap.

The disparity extends beyond domestic programs. Global North nuclear economies have long exported

radioactive waste to Africa and other developing regions under lax or corrupt oversight. Thus, even countries

without nuclear reactors, like Niger or Senegal, still face uranium mining hazards and toxic waste dumping. This

represents a double injustice: Africa bears radioactive burdens from which it gains little benefit, while still being

branded “underdeveloped” in climate politics.

Nuclear energy’s reputation as “low carbon” hides these costs. While operational CO₂ is low, radiation legacies

and waste disposal create persistent health harms. The high cancer burdens in nuclear-leading countries expose

the false dichotomy between carbon reduction and human safety. Worse, waste exports to Africa perpetuate

environmental sacrifice zones. Any just climate strategy must confront nuclearization not only as an energy

choice but as a human rights issue. Sustainability cannot be achieved by polishing carbon metrics while ignoring

radiation-linked cancers and toxic waste colonialism.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The findings of this study highlight the importance of recognising direct anthropogenic heat as the most

significant yet underexamined driver of climate change. While greenhouse gases remain central to radiative

forcing, they operate by trapping heat already produced by human activity. This distinction underscores that

anthropogenic warming is not only a matter of cumulative carbon concentrations but also of the magnitude, rate,

and form in which energy is introduced into the Earth system. Concentrated thermal inputs from nuclear

detonations, rocket launches, warfare, and industrial energy use illustrate how direct heat pulses can act as

triggers of climate instability, while greenhouse gases prolong and amplify their effects. By emphasising these

interactions, the results contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of climate forcing mechanisms

(Schaeffer et al., 2025; Hansen, 2025).

Historical evidence from the nuclear testing era demonstrates the importance of concentrated heat inputs.

Between 1945 and 1963, over 500 atmospheric and surface detonations released an estimated 3.19 × 10¹⁷ joules

of energy into the atmosphere, ocean, and cryosphere. The Tsar Bomb test of 1961 alone released over 200,000

terajoules, with fireball temperatures estimated at 50 to 100 million Kelvin. Cryosphere datasets show that

accelerated Arctic warming trends and glacier retreat emerged within one to two decades of this period, with the

1970s marking a transition to more pronounced ice loss. These temporal correlations are consistent with

established physical mechanisms including soot deposition on snow and ice reducing albedo, oceanic heat burial

leading to delayed basal melt, and perturbations to atmospheric circulation. While attribution remains complex,

the alignment of nuclear heat pulses with subsequent cryospheric anomalies suggests that concentrated energy

delivery can accelerate tipping point dynamics beyond what cumulative carbon budgets alone predict (Schaeffer

et al., 2025).

Similar mechanisms are evident in the case of space activities. Rocket launches and reentries inject 100 to 300

megawatt hours of direct heat per event, accompanied by soot, alumina, water vapor, and reactive gases

deposited directly into the stratosphere. Unlike surface emissions, which are removed relatively quickly by

tropospheric processes, these materials persist for weeks to months in dry upper air conditions. Observations

from satellite instruments such as SAGE, MLS, and CALIPSO have recorded associated anomalies in aerosol

optical depth, humidity, and ozone concentrations. Radiative forcing of up to 1 to 2 W/m2 has been documented

along launch corridors, and coupled reanalysis datasets indicate that these anomalies can project downward to

the surface and ocean mixed layers, contributing to basal melt in polar shelf regions within two to three years.

While the global aggregate of rocket emissions is smaller than aviation or shipping, their altitude specific

Page 36

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

concentration and persistence give them disproportionate climate significance. These findings support a growing

body of literature that argues for the inclusion of rocket related forcings in climate assessments, which are

currently absent from most inventories (Revell et al., 2025; Kirchengast et al., 2025).

The analysis of warfare underscores the role of concentrated anthropogenic heat in contexts outside peacetime

energy use. Modern conflicts generate substantial emissions through bombings, missile strikes, and large scale

fires. For example, the 1991 Gulf War oil fires released approximately 305 million megawatt hours of heat and

produced soot plumes that persisted for nearly a year. The Russia–Ukraine conflict between 2022 and 2024 is

estimated to have generated over 10 million megawatt hours of concentrated heat from missile strikes and depot

fires, comparable to the annual emissions of a mid-sized industrialised country (Neimark et al., 2025). The

Israel–Palestine war has also contributed concentrated pulses of heat through bombardments, urban destruction,

and fuel depot explosions, producing millions of megawatt hours of thermal energy within months and dispersing

soot plumes across the Eastern Mediterranean. Historical events such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki illustrate the

magnitude of single event contributions, with each detonation releasing energy equivalent to hundreds of

thousands of car years of emissions. The persistence of soot and particulates from these events, documented in

satellite and ground based records, indicates that war related emissions have regional and global radiative

impacts. Despite this, they remain excluded from formal greenhouse gas inventories under the UNFCCC, raising

questions about the completeness of current accounting systems (Neimark et al., 2025; The Nation, 2025).

The cumulative results also reinforce the argument that climate change is fundamentally both a carbon and

majorly a heat problem. In 2022, global primary energy consumption reached approximately 604 exajoules,

nearly all of which degraded into heat, alongside 36.6 gigatons of CO₂ emissions. Each joule of energy consumed

contributes directly to Earth’s thermal balance, whether through waste heat from power plants, urban heat fluxes,

or industrial processes. While the radiative trapping effect of CO₂ prolongs the residence of this heat, the

immediate thermal forcing is itself significant. Urban studies show anthropogenic heat fluxes of 20 to 50 W/m

in megacities, rivalling seasonal solar inputs and altering local rainfall and temperature regimes. Likewise,

industrial processes such as data centre operations and cooling water discharge contribute to localised warming

that remains invisible in carbon only frameworks. These findings underscore the importance of integrating direct

heat accounting into climate science and policy (Kirchengast et al., 2025; Schaeffer et al., 2025).

The role of nuclear energy illustrates how a carbon centric perspective can obscure broader impacts. Nuclear

reactors are often promoted as a low carbon solution, but their operation involves large releases of waste heat

into rivers, oceans, and the atmosphere. One kilogram of uranium-235 produces roughly 83 trillion joules of

energy via fission, compared to 45 million joules from diesel fuel. While CO₂ emissions from nuclear power are

minimal, the associated heat fluxes are substantial. Moreover, epidemiological evidence points to health risks in

nuclear intensive countries, with studies such as INWORKS and the Life Span Study documenting elevated

cancer incidence and circulatory diseases among exposed populations. Beyond operational impacts, uranium

mining and radioactive waste disposal have disproportionately affected countries in Africa and the Global South,

raising issues of environmental justice. These findings suggest that nuclear energy’s classification as “clean”

requires reconsideration when both heat and equity are accounted for.

Taken together, the results call for a more comprehensive approach to climate accounting. Concentrated

anthropogenic heat pulses, whether from military, industrial, or space related sources, have demonstrated

capacity to accelerate tipping processes in the cryosphere and atmosphere. Greenhouse gases play a critical

amplifying role, but excluding direct heat inputs underestimates the immediacy and distribution of anthropogenic

forcing. Incorporating direct heat into global climate models and inventories would not only improve predictive

accuracy but also broaden accountability, particularly for sectors currently exempted from reporting obligations.

Furthermore, a justice-based framework is needed to address the disproportionate impacts borne by regions such

as Africa and small island states, which contribute least to both carbon and heat emissions yet face some of the

most severe consequences.

While this study highlights an underexplored dimension of climate forcing, limitations must be acknowledged.

Data on war related emissions remain sparse, with reliance on secondary estimates in several cases. Attribution

Page 37

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

of cryospheric anomalies to nuclear detonations involves uncertainties due to overlapping natural variability and

other forcings. Similarly, the long term climatic impacts of space activity require further empirical verification

through coordinated monitoring. These uncertainties, however, reinforce rather than diminish the need for

expanded research into the role of direct anthropogenic heat. A more holistic approach, integrating both carbon

and heat pathways, is essential for advancing climate science and informing equitable policy responses.

In conclusion, the results presented here support a reframing of climate change as a dual problem of greenhouse

gas accumulation and direct anthropogenic heat release. Concentrated pulses from nuclear testing, warfare, and

rocket launches, combined with the cumulative effects of industrial energy use, have exerted measurably

overwhelming impacts on Earth systems and evidently far beyond greenhouse gases. Recognising and

integrating these drivers into scientific models and governance frameworks would enhance understanding of

climate dynamics and strengthen accountability. Such an approach would move beyond partial diagnosis,

offering a more robust foundation for both mitigation and justice-oriented climate action.

CONCLUSION

Mainstream climate narratives almost universally emphasize greenhouse gases, treating CO₂ as the master

variable. While CO₂ is undeniably critical as a long-lived radiative forcing agent, this framing obscure a

fundamental thermodynamic reality: every joule of energy humanity consumes ultimately becomes heat within

the Earth system. Whether electricity powers a data center, a coal plant fires a turbine, or a rocket launches into

orbit, the immediate byproduct is thermal energy dissipated into the atmosphere, oceans, and land. CO₂’s role is

to trap and recycle that heat; it does not produce it. This distinction matters for two reasons:

1. Immediacy and Rate of Delivery: Heat from combustion is instantaneous and local. A gigajoule of waste

heat injected into an urban core or upper atmosphere has immediate microphysical impacts; from melting

ice to raising condensation levels for rainfall. CO₂ extends the lifetime of this heat but does not substitute

for its direct presence. When policymakers count only carbon budgets, they ignore these instant pulses.

2. Longevity Through Trapping: Heat’s persistence is directly proportional to the greenhouse gas

concentration. Heat does not vanish; it is re-radiated and re-trapped. A gigaton of CO₂ today will keep

recycling heat centuries from now. Thus, the problem is dual: the primary heat injection and the

secondary trapping mechanism. To address one while ignoring the other is to misdiagnose the patient.

Globally, 604 EJ of primary energy consumption in 2022 yielded about 36.6 Gt CO₂ and ab out 604 EJ heat,

inseparable twins of combustion-based civilization. Even technologies touted as “clean,” like hydrogen and

biofuels, discharge 100% of energy as heat and often still produce emissions elsewhere. Waste heat fluxes in

megacities can reach 20–50 W/m², comparable to wintertime solar inputs. Upper-atmospheric releases (aviation,

rockets) amplify warming disproportionately due to their persistence and altitude. Yet none of these are counted

in “national CO₂ inventories.” By continuing carbon-only accounting, climate governance ignores direct

anthropogenic heat; an error with cascading implications: rainfall disruption (condensation levels rise above

2000 feet; inversions suppress cloud formation), accelerated polar melt (localized heating of cryospheres), and

oceanic stratification (thermal plumes from industry and warfare). Thus, the heat vs CO₂ debate is not academic;

it is a policy and survival question.

Several critical scenarios illustrate these blind spots and hypocrisies:

1. The Lethal Injection Analogy-Rate and Intensity Matter:

Climate policy treats all emissions as if they have the same effect regardless of how or where they are

released. This is misleading. For instance, the same dose of a lethal injection that kills in a few minutes

is harmless if trickled into the bloodstream over a 70 years life time. The Earth reacts similarly. Emissions

from vehicles and industries, though harmful, are gradual; ecosystems have some capacity to adapt over

time. But high-intensity, short-duration energy releases; like nuclear tests, bombings, and rocket launches

all dump colossal amounts of heat and radiation into confined regions or atmospheric layers within

Page 38

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

seconds. These pulses overwhelm natural resilience, causing irreversible damage to local climates,

atmospheric stability, and even rainfall cycles. Rate and placement are as important as quantity, a fact the

carbon-only narrative conveniently ignores.

2. The Heat-CO₂ Twin Problem-A False Separation:

Climate discourse isolates CO₂ as the villain while ignoring the physical heat that every energy process

generates. Every joule of energy we burn; whether oil, gas, biofuels, or even “clean” hydrogen ends up

as heat. The tragedy is that this direct heat has an immediate destabilizing effect on ice sheets, urban

climates, and atmospheric dynamics. Worse still, CO₂ then traps and recycles that same heat for decades

or centuries. Heat and CO₂ are not separate problems; they are co-conspirators. Pretending otherwise

allows high-energy industries, including the so-called “green sector,” to hide behind carbon offsets while

dumping waste heat into rivers, cities, and the sky. The physics does not care if the energy came from oil

or ethanol; the atmosphere absorbs it all. Practically, heat is the major culprit.

3. Toyota vs. Rocket Launch: The Disproportionate Impact Problem:

A single Toyota sedan emits CO₂ and heat gradually across its lifetime; this is the focus of mainstream

mitigation. But one heavy rocket launch or missile test can dump as much heat and black carbon into the

upper atmosphere in minutes as millions of cars emit in months. Because these pulses occur at high

altitudes where cooling is inefficient and residence times are long, they have outsized warming effects

that are largely absent from carbon budgets. This double standard, cracking down on cars while ignoring

military and space industry impacts, exposes the geopolitical hypocrisy of climate governance.

4. Urban Heat and Industrial Corridors:

The Invisible Hand of Waste Heat Cities are framed solely as CO₂ emitters, but their anthropogenic heat

flux often reaches 20–50 W/m², comparable to natural solar inputs in winter. Air conditioning, vehicles,

industrial plants, and data centers continuously dump heat into already overheated urban air. Power plants

discharge warm water into rivers, disrupting ecosystems. These heat pulses are not counted in carbon

metrics, yet they alter rainfall, intensify heatwaves, and degrade air quality. When concentrated along

flight paths or industrial belts, they amplify atmospheric instability regionally and globally.

5. Biofuel Greenwashing: A Double Burden, not a Solution

Biofuels are marketed as “climate neutral,” yet their combustion emits the same immediate waste heat

as fossil fuels and often as much or more CO₂ once full lifecycle emissions are considered. Ethanol

burning yields ~21 MJ of heat per liter, plus ~1.9 kg CO₂, indistinguishable from oil in physical impact.

Scaling global biofuel consumption adds gigajoules of heat and hundreds of millions of tons of CO₂

annually, all while diverting farmland from food to fuel. This is not climate justice; it’s corporate

branding masking dual harm.

6. Bombs and Wars: Climate Destruction Nobody Counts

War is the most climate-destructive human activity and the least acknowledged. Explosions unleash

massive bursts of heat, soot, and toxic gases, often targeting industrial zones with chemical stocks,

spreading pollutants and heat far beyond battlefields. Military jets and weapons testing emit at altitudes

where warming effects are amplified. Yet none of this appears in national carbon inventories. The same

nations lecturing the world on climate action are simultaneously running wars and weapons programs

with uncounted climate and health costs; while exporting toxic waste to Africa and other vulnerable

regions.

7. Nuclear Waste Colonialism: Exporting Risk and Cancer

Wealthy nuclearized nations claim to “manage” their radiation risk, yet quietly dump nuclear waste in

Africa and other developing regions. This is not just environmental racism; it’s a climate-health bomb.

Radiation alters ecosystems for centuries, contaminates soils and water, and elevates cancer rates in

Page 39

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

populations with minimal healthcare infrastructure. The data already show nuclear nations have higher

documented cancer risks, even with better healthcare. The implications for waste recipients are dire,

unmonitored exposure, suppressed reporting, and entire generations at risk while the perpetrators claim

climate leadership.

These scenarios underscore that climate change is not merely about CO₂; it is about who emits energy, where,

how fast, and who bears the consequences. The world’s poorest, least industrialized nations contribute the least

but carry the greatest burden through heat, pollution, war fallout, toxic waste imports etc. Meanwhile, the rich

nations preach carbon neutrality while exempting their militaries, industries, and space programs from scrutiny.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The pathway out of this climate and justice crisis requires bold and enforceable global reforms. Since

anthropogenic heat is the true trigger that makes greenhouse gases harmful, the most urgent priority is to regulate

and price every source of concentrated heat, particularly weapons of mass destruction and high-energy warfare

industries. The following framework should guide a just global climate policy:

 Mandatory Heat Accountability: Every nation must pay for the total anthropogenic heat generated at all

stages of weapon-related activity from creation, possession, storage, and use. This includes heat from the

manufacturing process, the ongoing energy needed to maintain and store the weapon, the latent heat

locked within the device, and the catastrophic heat potential released upon detonation.

 Price Mechanism: A universal carbon–heat levy should be instituted, with every kilowatt of

anthropogenic heat priced at no less than one British pound sterling (£1/kWh). This creates a financial

disincentive for developing or stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. This includes all available

weapons and those yet in existence.

 Usage Clearance and Penalties: Clearance to develop and or use any weapon of mass destruction would

require upfront payment of all heat and emission equivalents. Unauthorized use would incur penalties

ten times the original cost, making violations economically and politically untenable. This accounts for

how many weapons you possess and how many are you cleared to use and where. Usage must be between

nations with ownership of same weapons.

 Non-Aggression Pledge on Weaponized Heat: Usage of weapons of mass destruction must only occur

between nations that both possess the same category of weapons. Nations that own these weapons must

sign and ratify a binding pledge never to use them against any country that does not possess similar

capabilities, even in equal proportion. Violation of this pledge should be punishable by complete and

verifiable de-weaponisation of the offending nation for a set number of years, calculated based on a

transparent metric that links the duration of disarmament to the number of casualties and the scale of

destruction inflicted. A standardized unit of measure would convert the damage caused into equivalent

years of mandatory disarmament, rendering violators temporarily weapons-neutral or entirely weapons-

free. This not only deters aggression but also drives a global move toward reducing climate-dangerous

activities, ensuring a safer and more sustainable world for all.

 Equitable Redistribution of Proceeds: All funds generated from this levy must be independently and

transparently channelled to less developed nations for genuine sustainable development and natural

emergencies globally. This includes humanitarian actions, financing green innovations, building state-

of-the-art health and education systems, climate-resilient agriculture, realistic sustainable infrastructure,

and ethical value-added resource industries.

 Outer space activities should be governed by a binding international framework that limits space flights

to 1 per month (to allow a return to near normal in the atmosphere) conserve outer space and other planets

from human interferences, and mandates emission reporting, strict environmental standards, and debris

Page 40

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

mitigation, with independent oversight and enforceable sanctions such as fines, license suspensions, or

denial of orbital rights for violators to ensure accountability and protect vulnerable nations.

 Binding Treaty with Global Oversight: This framework should be signed and ratified by all nations under

an international legal instrument. A strict oversight body, independent of powerful nation-states, must

ensure compliance and equitable distribution.

This strategy achieves three revolutionary goals.

1. First, it drastically reduces the creation, stockpiling, and use of weapons of mass destruction by making

them prohibitively expensive to maintain.

2. Second, it establishes a binding non-aggression pledge requiring that weapons of mass destruction must

never be used against any nation that does not possess the same class of weapons, with violations

punishable by mandatory and verifiable de-weaponisation for a period proportional to the casualties and

destruction caused.

3. Third, it redirects the massive wealth tied to military–industrial complexes into life-affirming

investments for the most climate-vulnerable regions of the world and humanitarian actions in

emergencies.

This approach reflects the moral reality: if there is no anthropogenic heat, anthropogenic greenhouse gases

become irrelevant, and climate destabilization ceases to exist. Climate justice must move beyond empty carbon

pledges to tackle the real, physical drivers of destruction and the inequitable systems sustaining them. Anything

less is complicity.

Reciprocal Climate Bargain Obligations for Recipient Nations

To ensure accountability and maximize global climate justice, developing nations and the Global South must

sign to make measurable, verifiable, and locally beneficial commitments in exchange for the climate reparations

and heat-accountability funds received. These obligations must reflect equity rather than punitive conditionality,

recognizing that developing nations and the Global South has contributed the least to global warming but bears

the greatest burden. The commitments include:

 Afforestation and Reforestation:

o Expansion and legal protection of critical forest ecosystems such as the Congo Basin, Amazon, and

tropical forests in Southeast Asia ensuring localised sustainable use of forests.

o Restoration of degraded lands through community-led and indigenous-managed programs, ensuring local

ownership of climate solutions.

o Integrated agroforestry projects, where tree planting complements food production and rural livelihoods,

ensuring climate mitigation does not conflict with poverty reduction.

 Quantified and Reward-Based Tree Planting Programs:

o Payments and incentives tied to the number, survival rate, and ecological function of trees planted. This

avoids "paper tree planting" where trees die after planting without proper monitoring.

o Higher payouts for:

 High carbon-sequestration species with proven capacity to absorb significant CO₂ over time.

 Timber, fruit, and medicinal trees that enhance local economies, food security, and healthcare.

Page 41

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

 Erosion-resistant, deep-rooted trees that restore degraded soils, stabilize watersheds, and reverse

desertification.

o Mandatory independent verification of tree planting and survival rates using satellite imagery and local

audits to ensure transparency.

 Reduced Deforestation and Environmental Degradation:

o Strict enforcement of anti-logging regulations coupled with alternative economic opportunities for

communities dependent on timber exploitation.

o Banning of export-driven deforestation unless sustainable replanting quotas are met.

o Payment for ecosystem services (PES) models, where communities protecting forests receive direct

financial benefits commensurate with forest value.

 Equitable Energy Use:

o Adoption of cleaner energy systems that meet development needs without replicating the polluting

pathways of industrialized nations.

o Prioritization of decentralized renewable systems (mini-grids, solar, wind) to serve rural populations

equitably.

o Elimination of environmentally destructive energy practices, such as unregulated mining and flaring of

associated gas.

 Sedentary Grazing and Cooking Energy Transition

o Prohibition of Open Grazing: Legally phase out nomadic open grazing, which contributes to

deforestation, soil erosion, and desertification.

o Replace with planned, ranch-based (sedentary) livestock systems integrated with land restoration

strategies.

o Incentives for Sedentary Ranching: Free or subsidized routine vaccination and veterinary services,

reducing livestock disease burdens and improving productivity.

o Access to improved cattle breeds and modern feed systems, ensuring higher yields from fewer animals

and less land pressure.

o Microcredit and insurance schemes for ranchers, enabling small-scale herders to invest in infrastructure

such as paddocks, fodder production, and water systems.

o Secure land tenure for settled pastoralists, preventing land-grabbing and promoting long-term

investments in sustainable grazing practices.

 Rural Energy Transition and Forest Protection:

o Provide affordable and widely accessible clean cooking energy (LPG, biogas, or solar cookers) to rural

households, thereby reducing dependence on firewood and eliminating one of the largest drivers of

deforestation.

o Create community-managed energy cooperatives to ensure affordability and equitable distribution.

Page 42

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

o Massive distribution of efficient cookstoves in transitional areas until full LPG access is achieved.

 Alternative Livelihoods and Education Programs for Nomadic Herders:

o Skills training and diversification programs, helping pastoralists transition into durable livelihoods and

economic activities such as eco-tourism, agro-processing, or forest conservation jobs.

o Formal education programs for pastoralist children, integrating climate education and sustainable

resource use into curricula.

o Mobile veterinary and extension services to bridge the gap during the transition from nomadic to settled

ranching systems.

 Conscious Cultural and Indigenous Heritage Preservation:

o Commitment to preserving non-harmful cultural practices and protecting local and indigenous trees,

plants, and animal species over excessive reliance on laboratory hybrids or GMOs. This reduces

dependence on harmful external products while ensuring local ownership, sustainability, and continuity

of cultural and ecological heritage.

A Tree per Family-A Global Equalizer: As a universal, people-powered climate justice initiative, every family

worldwide must be mandated and supported to plant and nurture at least one tree. This should be codified under

international law as a global campaign. The program should account for ecological context, prioritizing

indigenous species and trees with high carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration value.

The moral and physical reality is clear: those who harm the most must be held to account, and those who protect

and restore must be empowered. The Global South must leverage its forests, land, and people as bargaining

power, and the global North must finally pay its climate debt.

REFERENCES

1. Abbott, D. (2012). Is nuclear power globally scalable? Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(2), 573–597.

https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2162009

2. Africa Union Commission. (2022). African climate vulnerability and injustice: Exploring equitable

responses. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: AUC Publications.

3. Barker, C. R., Marais, E. A., and McDowell, J. C. (2024). Global 3D rocket launch and re-entry air pollutant

and CO₂ emissions at the onset of the mega constellation era. Scientific Data, 11(1), 1079.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03910-z

4. Climate Dynamics Consortium. (2023). Anthropogenic heat release impacts on European summer heat

extremes. Climate Dynamics, 61, 3831–3843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06775-x

5. Copernicus Climate Change Service. (2025). Global climate highlights 2024. European Centre for Medium-

Range Weather Forecasts. Retrieved from https://climate.copernicus.eu

6. Davenport, C. (2021). How radioactive waste is still dumped on poor nations. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com

7. Energy Institute, Kearney, and KPMG. (2024). Statistical review of world energy 2023. London: Energy

Institute.

8. GHG Accounting Initiative. (2025). Climatic impact of war: Emissions and heat release from conflict.

Geneva: GHG Accounting Initiative.

9. Hansen, J. (2025). Global warming has accelerated since 2010 by more than 50 percent. Environment and

Behavior Review, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494

10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Sixth assessment synthesis report. Geneva:

IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch

11. IPCC. (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 2 – Energy.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html

Page 43

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

12. IPCC. (2023). Sixth assessment synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

13. Juncosa-Calahorrano, J., Ross, M., and Molina, M. (2022). Black carbon emissions from rocket launches:

Climate implications of rapidly growing space travel. Earth’s Future, 10(3), e2022EF002681.

https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002681

14. Kirchengast, G., Haas, S. J., and Fuchsberger, J. (2025). Compound event metrics detect and explain tenfold

increase of extreme heat over Europe. ArXiv Preprint.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18964

15. Li, Q., Hu, J., and Li, S. (2021). Environmental impact of hypergolic propellant emissions from Chinese

launch vehicles. Atmospheric Environment, 246, 118087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.118087

16. NASA. (1971). Saturn V flight manual (SA-510). NASA/MSFC.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap12fj/pdf/a12-sa510-flightmanual.pdf

17. Neimark, B., Bigger, P., Otu-Larbi, F., and Larbi, R. (2025). War on the climate: A multitemporal study of

greenhouse emissions from war. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5274707

18. Randel, W. J., and Jensen, E. J. (2013). Physical processes in the tropical tropopause layer and their roles in

a changing climate. Nature Geoscience, 6(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1733

19. Revell, L. E., et al. (2025). Near future rocket launches could slow ozone recovery. npj Climate and

Atmospheric Science.

20. Ross, M. N., and Sheaffer, P. (2014). Radiative forcing from rocket engine emissions. Journal of

Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(5), 2994–3004.

https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021322

21. Ross, M. N., and Toohey, D. W. (2019). The growing impact of rocket launches on the atmosphere. Earth’s

Future, 7(5), 527–536.

https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001273

22. Schaeffer, R., et al. (2025). Ten new insights in climate science 2024. Science Advances, 11(23).

23. Scientific Data Laboratory. (2024). Radiative forcing anomalies along rocket launch corridors. Scientific

Data, 11(5), 2105–2117.

24. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2011). What will work: Fighting climate change with renewable energy, not nuclear

power. Oxford University Press.

25. Stenchikov, G. L. (2025). Volcanic contribution to regional climate dynamics and Arctic warming. Journal

of Climate Dynamics, 12(3), 215–230.

26. UNFCCC. (2022). Annual synthesis report on anthropogenic emissions and removals. United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change.

27. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2022). Annual synthesis report on

anthropogenic emissions and removals. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat.

28. Urban Climate Reports. (2023). Anthropogenic heat flux trends in global cities. Urban Climate Reports, 7,

45–62.

29. Voigt, C., Schlager, H., Luo, B. P., and Peter, T. (2013). Nitric acid trihydrate formation and particle growth

in rocket plumes. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(1), 379–395.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-379-

2013

30. World Bank. (2023). Pollution and waste justice in Africa: Radioactive and toxic trade flows. Washington,

DC: World Bank Publications.

Page 44

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

List of Abbreviations

AOD Aerosol Optical Depth

ASR Age-Standardized Rate (for cancer incidence)

CALIPSO Cloud–Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations

CERES EBAF Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System, Energy Balanced and Filled

CO₂ Carbon Dioxide

DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)

EBAF Energy Balanced and Filled (CERES dataset)

EJ Exajoule (10¹⁸ joules)

ERA5 ECMWF Reanalysis Version 5 (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts)

ERR Excess Relative Risk (radiation exposure metric)

GHG Greenhouse Gas

Gt Gigaton or Gigatonne (10⁹ tonnes)

HCl Hydrogen Chloride

IEA International Energy Agency

INWORKS International Nuclear Workers Study

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IHD Ischemic Heart Disease

kt – Kiloton (10³ tonnes of TNT equivalent)

LH₂ Liquid Hydrogen

LOX Liquid Oxygen

LSS Life Span Study

MJ Megajoule (10⁶ joules)

MLS Microwave Limb Sounder (satellite instrument)

MWh Megawatt Hour (unit of energy)

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

ORAS Ocean Reanalysis System

Page 45

www.rsisinternaonal.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)

ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue XIII October 2025

Special Issue on Innovations in Environmental Science and Sustainable Engineering

PES Payment for Ecosystem Services

ppbv Parts Per Billion by Volume

ppmv Parts Per Million by Volume

RP1 Refined Petroleum 1 (rocket-grade kerosene fuel)

SAGE III Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III (satellite instrument)

Sv Sievert (unit of radiation dose)

TJ Terajoule (10¹² joules)

UDMH Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine (rocket fuel)

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USA United States of America

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (former Soviet Union)

VoC Volatile Organic Compounds (implied in some war emissions context)

WHO/IARC World Health Organization / International Agency for Research on Cancer

W m⁻² Watts per square metre (unit of radiative forcing)