Via Tom Nelson, no wonder they hate nuclear power so much, they don’t see any difference!
Global warming increasing by 400,000 atomic bombs every day | The Vancouver Observer
The amazing persistence of CO2 in the air has allowed billions of our small emissions, like those from the Enola Gay, to amass into an ever growing threat to civilization. How fast is that threat growing? In a must-see TED talk, NASA climate scientist James Hansen say the current increase in global warming is:
“…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”
That’s 278 atomic bombs worth of energy every minute – more than four per second — non-stop. To be clear, that is just the extra energy being gained each day on top of the energy heating our planet by 0.8 degree C. It is the rate at which we are increasing global warming.
======================================================
Update: I think we need a new unit to quantify ridiculousness. I propose the Hansen Ridiculae Scale, somewhat like the Richter scale, logarithmic in nature.
Turning up the thermostat at a senate hearing in 1988 would rate a 5.0 Death Trains might rate a 6.0, this would rate an 8.0.
I’m afraid to imagine what a 9-10 on the Hansen Scale might look like.
ALSO: I’m busy at work right now, so I don’t have time to research it fully and calculate it, but if somebody wants to quantify the solar insolation received by Earth each day in “Hiroshima units”, I’ll add it to the main thread. That number will dwarf Hansen’s claim.
UPDATE2: Willis helps out:
Here’s your numbers, Anthony.
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
w.
================================================================
As do others:
Napkin calculation, no calculator needed: Hiroshima was ca. 63 TJ = 6E13J. The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2. The suns TSI is ca 1kW = 1E3 J/s, so the earth gets ca 1E17 J/s on the sunlit side, so the sun explodes about 1E17/6E13 = 1E3 Hiroshima atomic bombs on this planet. EVERY SECOND.
Mr. Hansen: the sun explodes about a thousand Hiroshima bombs on this planet. EVERY SECOND. DO something about it!
How energy much is that in death train kilometers?
joelshore says:
“Maybe if Hansen wanted to be more dramatic, he should have used the 4 W/m^2 that is the known effect from doubling CO2, which we will almost certainly do (relative to pre-industrial levels) by the time the century is out…and we will do much more than that if people like you have your way and we go completely to town burning all the coal and tar sands and what not we can get our hands on.”
“Known effect”?? Not quite. More like presumed effect.
I know that joelshore does not want to be seen as a flagrant hypocrite, so I’m sure he does without the benefits of “burning all the coal and tar sands”. No doubt joelshore will report back here and tell us what it’s like to go without most of his electricity, and explain how nice it is to do without any petroleum burning engines. Because, like, we wouldn’t want to think that joelshore is a hypocrite, scoldlding the rest of us for doing something that he does, too.
For my part, I am burning every last carbon molecule I can get my hands on, because CO2 is harmless, and more CO2 is greening the planet. It’s a win-win!
Then you agree that it’s OK to measure greenhouse warming in ‘Hiroshimas’? I guess in your view it’s also OK to measure statements by climate scientists as ‘Kaczynskis.’
I Britain we have a chocolate bar called a Mars Bar. To teach bioenergetics I used to point out that each Mars Bar eaten (202 Calories 0.85) was approximately equal to a half a stick of dynamite.(2.1 MJ of energy.)
The energy density (J/kg) of dynamite is approximately 7.5 MJ/kg, TNT is 4.0-4.7 MJ/kg and a Mars bar is 24 MJ/kg.
The heating power of corn is equal to 15.88 MJ/kg
As a standard 1 gram of TNT is 4184 J; thus 1 ton of TNT = 4.184 x 10^9 J. 1 kT of TNT is 4.184×10^12 J.
So we have 400,000 x365x 15x 4.184×10^12 J = 9.163×10^21 J.
The 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake was 4×10^22 J, 4.4 times bigger.
The total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each year is 5.5×10^24 J, or 600 times the nuclear weapons going off.
I get the same answer as Willis, but in different units.
400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year
equals
1 standard Farticane*
Definitions:
* 1 Farticane = 1 Fart in a Hurricane, at standard temperature and pressure
joeldshore says:
May 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Well, let’s see. You want to compare a change in downwelling radiation at the surface to just solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere … you’ll have to justify that one to me, I don’t see it. Hansen is talking about a claimed increase in total downwelling radiation at the surface that he says is being absorbed by the ocean … so what is the justification for comparing it to anything but total downwelling radiation at the surface? What’s next, comparing it to the energy required to send a spaceship to Mars?
Say what? AFAIK, his 0.6 W/m2 number is calculated from the post 1950 change in ocean heat content. IOW, he is saying that there has been an ongoing imbalance of that amount.
No, that’s not the “known effect from the doubling of CO2”. It is the figure used by the IPCC, and it has been estimated to be both above and below that. But I still don’t understand your logic. You are comparing a change in forcing due to CO2 to incoming radiation from the sun, a number that has nothing to do with CO2.
Surely, a change in downwelling surface radiation from CO2 must be compared to total downwelling radiation at the surface, not to the solar radiation at the TOA.
In that case, I guess you’ll just have to learn to distinguish between a tenth of a percent and two percent. A tenth of a percent change in global temperature is a swing of three tenths of a degree … are you claiming that we should be concerned about that? Two percent, on the other hand, is six degrees … definitely consequential. I’m not saying it is inconsequential because it is smaller than 10% or something. I’m saying it is inconsequential because it is a tenth of a percent.
If there is an increase in consumer prices, we don’t compare them to solar radiation. If there is an increase in the Dow Jones Average, we don’t compare that to solar radiation. In all cases, we compare it to the total of what is being measured. In this case, Hansen claims an increase in downwelling radiation at the surface, and wants to compare it to atom bombs … and I want to compare it to downwelling radiation at the surface.
So contrary to your claim, my context is the context that we use everywhere else—comparing a change in some measurable quantity to the quantity being measured.It’s called a “percentage”, Joel, you should look into it, and it is not calculating by dividing by the energy per atomic bomb.
Oh, right, I forgot, it’s necessary for you to bring out the “head-count fallacy” … Joel, first, we don’t really know what “most scientists in the field believe”, because the polling that has been done doesn’t involve “most scientists in the field”, only a few and often self-selected, and because the questions are usually on the order of “Is the world warming (Yes/No)”. Pull out your poll if you disagree.
Nor do the claims by “The National Academy of XYZ” impress me in the slightest. I have not seen a single one of them where they actually polled the members. Instead, they are merely the politically correct posturing of a few leaders of the organizations in question.
But at the end of the day, none of that matters, because science is not settled by voting, that’s the “head-count fallacy” … no matter how much you’d like for it to be.
w.
joeldshore says:
May 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm
I don’t see what is wrong with that quote. His point is that a small imbalance in W/m^2 adds up to a large amount of energy over the Earth’s surface.
———————————-
Nope, it may sound like a lot, but it’s still six tenths of a Watt per square meter of “imbalance”. What’s the point of totalling it up as if this globally dispersed amount of energy could come together and affect something by releasing the accumulative energy all at once?
Something has to boil away the oceans:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/boiling-oceans-and-burning-reputations-with-james-hansen/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/14/science/20100914_atom.html?ref=science
Katherine says:
May 15, 2012 at 6:51 pm
“The fact that this was a TED talk lowers my estimation of TED. If they feature a crank like Hansen, what does that make those featured in other TED talks?”
There are quite a few cranks amongst the TEDtalkers, and snakeoil salesmen, and also geniusses.
Barry Schwarz, for instance, was happier when there was only one ill-fitting brand of jeans.
Does this mean that all TEDTalks are crap? No. But the burden of choice might make you unhappy, according to Schwarz.
This is the kind of crap that teachers love to pick up on. Stop scaring the children with AGW. Stop the alarmism. Fight the temptation to turn kids into fatalists. We need to be raising optimists. It used to be logging the rain forest that was going to kill us. Now it’s simply our very existence. Atom bombs. Sheesh.
Barry Schwarz needs to get out more… I think a year in North Korea or maybe South Sudan might change his world view a wee bit.
Attention mods. I’m trying to be nice while commenting about James Hansen. That is a very hard thing to do so please don’t snip me unless I step way, way over the line.
@ur momisugly Jim Clarke
The Heartland people were right. Warmistas are very like Ted Kacynski. Full Stop. That is a true statement. Period. Full Stop. In fact if you look at photos James Hansen looks very like Ted Kacynskj.
The Hansen Scale of Alarm
The Hansen Scale of Alarm is logarithmic and open ended. It is ten times the Log of the ratio between the number claimed and the actual number. A true answer is 0 which means no alarm is warranted.
For example if someone says the doubling of CO2 will lead to a temperature increase of 6 degrees, and the actual value is 0.5 degrees, that gives ((6/0.5) Log10) = 1.0792 Multiplying the result by 10 and rounding gives 10.8 on the Hansen Scale of Alarm (HSA).
The reason to make the scale logarithmic is the need to accomodate statements like ‘1 billion people will die by…’ when the actual number is 8 or 15. For 15 the Hansen Scale of Alarm rating would be
10((1E9/15)Log10) = HSA 782.4 The number of significant digits could be limited to 3, for example 782. Similarly, 1050 but not 1051.
A slight exaggeration would be saying the pH of the ocean will drop from 8.13 to 8.05 for a quadrupling of CO2 when it might actually drop to 8.10. The difference is 0.08 v.s. 0.03 for a ratio of 2.666 giving analarming exaggeration of HSA 4.3.
For a forecast temperature rise of 2.o degrees and a real drop, the negative can be accomodated by using the *FAIL* sign because the forecast is beyond *ALARM* into the universe of *WRONG*. Remember, being out by miles is not the same as being wrong. We have to be fair.
Tom_R says:
May 15, 2012 at 7:31 pm
” ” joeldshore says:
May 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm
So, your “context” is really no more objective than Hansen’s context.”
Then you agree that it’s OK to measure greenhouse warming in ‘Hiroshimas’? I guess in your view it’s also OK to measure statements by climate scientists as ‘Kaczynskis.’ ”
Tom_R,
‘Kaczynskis.’ – Brilliant! Perfect unit of measure for the climate science statements from TED!
But how much is that in anti-neutrons?
Here’s another way to put it, which Hansen apparently missed: The extra forcing is 2.7 10^19 joules every day. The energy of a typical rifle shot is 2.7 10^4 joules. This makes the anthropogenic impact of CO2 emission equivalent of killing one quadrillion polar bears every single day.
All of the estimates are wrong.
The correct answer is as follows.
The daily impact of global forcing of 0.6 W/m^2 is not even equal to one Hiroshima bombing.
Not even close.
That is the only correct answer, my friends.
Richard T. Fowler: “Not even close.
That is the only correct answer, my friends.”
Maybe you should provide some deeper explaination, maybe the simple math, that brings you to this conclusion. If you are correct, so be it, I’ll listen, and I’m sure others are also wondering why you would say that. Or maybe just show where the other calculations went horribly wrong. We all err sometimes, especially in fast conversations.
Hansen will be remembered as a “Peace in our time” scientist. In other words, 20 years from now he will be one of the “Chicken Littles” of the global warming alarmist era.
That is the price one will pay and must pay for ignoring science for PR and newspaper coverage. Shame on him and he deserves his small spot in the ignorance and ignoring the history and research of the Milankovitch Cycles Theory.
Chuck
@wayne says:
May 15, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Richard T. Fowler: “Not even close.
That is the only correct answer, my friends.”
[wayne puzzled by Fowler’s statement]
=============================================
It took a moment, but I got what Richard meant. The REAL effect of that one bomb on Hiroshima was horrendous in lives and property lost or ruined.
A little extra warmth per Willis’ and others’ calculations? Just makes a day at the beach a little more pleasant, eh? No comparison.
(Okay. How much is it in ant farts? Now that would be a really big number.)
If I’m reading this correctly, it’s time to max out my credit cards, right?
I’m still a little hesitant though. These AGW alarmists have lied to me before…
Hansen ‘s trickery knows no bounds. He uses a very terrifying thing, an atomic explosion, to terrify us into obedience. Just like how my mummy used to make me obey her by telling me that the bogeyman will come and get me.
The truth is that the 0.5 W/m2, if correct, is being, more or less equally distributed on the surface of our planet (not in destructive burst concentrated in some places), during daytime, and lost to space during night time. Hansen failed to tell us that we are losing the energy to space equivalent to 400,000 x 1000/0.5= 800 million atomic bombs per day.
Meanwhile we are burning HC fuels at a rate of 2.41096E+17 per day, besides nuclear power.
Gosh! And there are people who believe we can control these forces simply by imposing taxes.
/sarc
Interstellar Bill says:
May 15, 2012 at 1:44 pm
If we even had enough uranium on Earth to build just the first 400,000 bombs,
all we’d have to do instead is build enough reactors to power the entire world
and synthesize all its motor fuel out of atmospheric CO2….
___________________________
Please do not say that synthesizing motor fuel out of atmospheric CO2, and thereby possibly decreasing the amount in the atmosphere is a really really dangerous idea and these nutters are idiotic enough to try it.
THINK OF THE PLANTS!
Mr.Fowler is correct. He’s not talking joules or W/m2, He talking about the effect of a Hiroshima bomb on humans. There’s no doubt nukes are weapons of terror.