Getting 'Cooked' by Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Global Warming

Human shadow etched in stone from Hiroshima Atomic blast.These stone steps led up to the entrance to the Sumitomo Bank Hiroshima Branch, 260meters from the hypocenter. The intense atomic heat rays turned the surface of the stonewhite, except for a part in the middle where someone was sitting. The person sitting on the steps waiting for the bank to open received the full force of the heat rays directly from the front and undoubtedly died on the spot. The building was used for a time after the war. When it was rebuilt in 1971, these steps were removed and brought to the museum. Source: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

Why comparing global warming to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb is ridiculous

Some days, you just have to laugh. That’s what we’ll have to do today after reading the latest ridiculous scare story from cartoonist turned pseudo-psychologist now elevated to ‘climate scientist’ John Cook from the antithetically named ‘Skeptical Science’ website.

He’d like people to think the effect of global warming is as powerful as the effect of an atomic bomb, but as we’ll see, it is another one of those scare by scale stories where you grab some iconic image from the public consciousness and use it to make your issue seem bigger than it really is. For example, in 2010 normally calving glacier ice was compared to Manhattan Island to give it scale: Oh no! Greenland glacier calves island 4 times the size of Manhattan

Now, the same trick is being used by John Cook to try to scare people, because what could be more scary than getting vaporized by an Atomic Bomb? It just goes to show the depths of desperation used to try to sell the public on a problem that isn’t getting much traction.

From the article Climate change like atom bomb: scientists.

Humans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other time in history, says John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

“All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean … our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second – consider that going continuously for several decades.”

Whoa,  four Hiroshima bombs every second. How scary is that? Well not only is it not an original idea by Cook, compared to the amount of energy received by the Earth from the biggest fusion bomb in our solar system, our sun, it hardly registers a blip.

You see, we’ve dealt with this nonsense before, back in May 2012 when NASA’s Dr.  Hansen made the same comparison, which Cook didn’t attribute to him.  Hansen said then in an article in the Vancouver Observer:

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.

Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:

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.

Transparentised version of Image:Gluehlampe 01...

What a 0.6 watt light bulb might look like when turned on.

So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb in a standard Edison base such as at right, with 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.

Could you even see its output?

And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?

As Dr. Judith Curry points out, the paper An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations by Stephens et al. says this about down-welling long wave infrared radiation (what CO2 affects) and that 0.6 watts of imbalance on the surface that Hansen claims:


Note the figure on the Earth that I highlighted in yellow: Surface imbalance 0.6±17

That’s an uncertainty of 17 watts, or if you prefer Hansen-Cook parlance, 4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs an uncertainty of ±113 Hiroshima bombs every second.

The ±17 watts uncertainty of the 0.6 watt surface imbalance is two orders of magnitude larger than the claim! But, activists like Cook say global warming will “Cook’ us for sure.

Hmmm. Something bigger is needed to keep it scary. How about comparing Hiroshima bombs to the biggest fusion bomb in the solar system, the sun? From our article:

The Hiroshima bomb released ~ 67 TeraJoules (TJ) = 6E13J. source

The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2.

The suns TSI is ~ 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.

(h/t to bvdeenen)

Gosh, a thousand Hiroshima bombs exploding on this planet every second? How frightening! With that sort of threat, one wonders why Obama isn’t going to announce taxing the sun into submission next Tuesday.

These calculation just go to illustrate that in the grand scheme of things, not only is the global energy associated with global warming small, it isn’t even within the bounds of measurement certainty.

Da bomb, it isn’t. Time to ‘Cook’ up a new scare story.

Here’s the funny thing though, as Donna Laframboise points out, in addition to the laughable statement that Cook plagiarized from Hansen above, somehow the amazing “postdoctoral fellow” without a PhD has somehow been elevated to the status of “climate scientist” by the French in a recent article. Climate Change Likened to Atom Bomb by Scientists.

Leframboise writes:


Although that article talks about “climate scientists” it names and quotes exactly one person – Cook himself. Moreover, the claims here are nothing short of fantastical. It says that climate scientists

have given figures of rising and changing climate. These figures are almost like a warning that states that escalating temperatures are equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs in a week.

They’ve completely attributed the condition to human actions.

It’s clear that this reporter’s first language is not English, so I’m sure she has misunderstood. No official document of which I’m aware has declared humans 100% responsible for current temperature trends (see, for example, the discussion here).


Gotta love it, cartoonist turned “climate scientist”. It’s Da bomb.

Thank goodness for The Pause.

UPDATE: Jo Nova also has a essay on the subject here:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I think the continued references to Hiroshima are also a part of the Mindset to be deliberately cultivated in K-12 as being a Globally Competent Citizen. This is the graphic from the Smithsonian Conference .
Beyond cultivating a fetish about AGW and the need to “do something,” there is a real interest in revisiting the existence of nuclear weapons at all. By focusing on the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as you can see from this graphic.
So making that into metaphor to prompt the horror of what AGW will supposedly do is simply relaying on the erroneous beliefs and making emotions a habit of mind that are being deliberately conveyed in the classroom. Add in modelling via games or visually compelling software and you will have future students believing and acting on this nonsense. It will go to the marrow of their Identity and view of themselves and the world. Which is of course the whole point.
This is not just a US push either. I read the Australian version of this yesterday. Written in 2008 and reprinted in 2011 to make sure the students in Oz are all developing the desired beliefs that are deemed Global Competences.


I wonder if Cook actually has any friends? – I mean, if you or I knew people that came out with such crapola on a regular basis – you would hardly want to be seen with or even associated with them? Still, maybe he has regular meet ups with co-alarmists to see who can scare each other the most? Sad, really, very sad……..

Gene Selkov

Anthony, I can tell you first language is English, which makes you insensitive to grammatical gender. Sorry for the nitpick; “Framboise” is feminine, so it does not mate well with the masculine definite article, “le”. Donna’s surname is Laframboise.
Otherwise, it is a remarkable calculation — the kind schoolchildren should be taught to make.
REPLY: Simple typo, much like “you first language”, now fixed thanks – A


And back in the ’70s, nuclear bombs would plunge the world into an ice age. (Yes, I know this claim was based on the dust the bombs would disperse.)

This is the link to the Australian document.
All these deliberately cultivated false beliefs are coming in under what is termed “global education.”
–Interdependence and globalization
–Identity and cultural diversity
–Social justice and human rights
–Peace building and conflict resolution
–Sustainable futures
The constant mentions of Hiroshima then are no accident but part of “students will be provided with opportunities to develop values, knowledge, skills and capacity for action to become good global citizens.”


Whenever somebody starts comparing the damage of global warming to atomic bombs, I say…
As human beings, we can adapt to a few degrees of temperature. But we cannot adapt to nuclear radiation.

Mark Whitney

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a problem with the second set of equations about the sun. I seem to recall that one raised to any power is still one. I think the ones are supposed to be tens.


Your lightbulb analogy does not deliver the message well or clearly. It’s not clear you are talking about 5e14 light bulbs. That number of bulbs at any power does not minimize the impression well.


Well, as we all saw here onWUWT after the Fukushima incident was being discussed, the whole radiation story is full of scare tactics itself. The lies we are fed continuously by the political elite and the MSM are designed to keep us fearful and beholden to our leaders. AGW is no different and the only objective can be globalisation of political and administrative governance.
Young people who have been educated since the 90’s have no real problem with the concept and I suspect we are seen as out of touch old fuddy duddies. It seems that no matter how often we “win” on the science the sociology reigns supreme. This link is an eye opener as it makes you realise just what we are up against.
I know that nothing good can be built on a lie and that ultimately the AGW story will die but in the meantime look at how much damage and cost these social “scientists” will have wrought. At university we engineering students had nothing but contempt for these pseudo scientists, and I still don’t, but they are very clever at manipulating the perceived reality of a lot of people. Douglas Adams called them the B-Ark people and there are a lot of them and it looks like a lot work for the media and the civil service and education.

Bomb data is what gave US the Linear, No-Threshold hypothesis, stymieing radiation hormesis advocates still.

William Sears

Mark Whitney,
It’s not what you think it is. It is computer scientific notation as explained below.
A common mistake.

jai mitchell

To answer you questions, no, I do not work for an NGO nor am I paid to post here. I post here because the paranoia and anti-science/science ignorance here is a focal point for likeminded conspiracy theorists and extreme right-wing conservatives to champion their false beliefs based on lies and ignorance.
In sharing the absolutely easy rebuttals to the insane ruminations coming out of this blog, by people who are given editorial rights here, I hope to show to the public viewing this site just how closed off (censoring my comments) and ignorant (how easy is this for someone with just an engineer’s background in physics to show the idiocy of these theories!) your theories and arguments are.
Like the above post by you. While the uncertainty of the TOA is well known, the TOA is not the method that is used to determine the amount of heat energy reflected back to the earth’s surface by increases in CO2.
So your argument of TOA is simply showing that something that isn’t done shouldn’t be done. It is this kind of false equivalency that is used to convince people with no scientific background that your arguments are correct. This kind of argument is called a Straw Man argument and is the most common argument technique used by the right wing to disseminate lies.
The scientific fact is that the .6 watts per meter squared of additional heat energy calculated as being the minimum of current warming going on IS equal to that number of Hiroshima bombs going off every day in the earth’s atmosphere. This is how one effectively shows what that amount of energy represents.
similarly it is shown that the amount of total solar radiation hitting the earth’s surface each second is more than the total energy used by humanity every calendar year, by several orders of magnitude. . .
REPLY: Dude,
1. This is the wrong thread to respond to the questions I put to you on another thread, decorum dictates you respond on the thread the question was asked on. But since you are an attention seeking type that wants these thread to be all about him, I understand why you posted here.
2. I’m not arguing about the TOA, Top Of Atmosphere, I’m citing the SURFACE. Do try to keep up. See Bob Tisdale’s comment below.
3. I never claimed the Hiroshima unit Hansen calculated was wrong, only ridiculous. Since you often can’t detect ridiculous claims due to your dogma overwhelming your logic, I don’t expect you to understand.
4. Your comments are censored? You have 138 of them now at WUWT. Three were snipped because you started to get out of line and were not paying attention to others in the other thread. If that upsets you, tough noogies. Want some cheese to go with that whine?
5. “I hope to show to the public viewing this site just how closed off (censoring my comments) and ignorant …” Do be careful of copyright and libel. You don’t have my permission to use my content elsewhere.

At the top of the atmosphere, the measured radiation imbalance in 0.6 +/- 0.4 watts/m^2, and at the surface the assumed imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/m^2. Yup. That’s climate science in a nutshell.


The false teacher and his gullible student equally share a bed of doom.

Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line

And that 0.6w/m2 assumes that the earth is a disc, not a sphere? In other words, it’s likely to be even LESS….Oh, the humanity.

About scientific notation, someone mentioned Big O notation recently here, for really big numbers, like bigger than the deficit is and, hopefully, bigger than it will be.


@Mark Whitney The notation “1E14” doesn’t mean one raised to the 14th power, it means 1 times 10 to the 14th power (alternate notaton: 1 x 10^14). And 6E13 means 6 x 10^13, etc.

If Cook wants to be taken seriously as a comedian he should stick to nonsense that’s funny.

John Tillman

noaaprogrammer says:
June 23, 2013 at 7:13 am
The Nuclear Winter scam was based largely upon soot from presumed fires. Some of the usual suspects from the CACCA hoax were involved, like the late Stephen Schneider, who was a lot more circumspect about his group’s assumptions when speaking in private to a scientifically educated reporter. Paul Ehrlich said that if questioned much more, such further discussion would require payment.


Kev-in-UK says : ‘I wonder if Cook has any friends?’.
Yes, ‘DANA’, who recently used the Hiroshima quote (without attribution), in a blog in ‘The Guardian’ garbage bin recently.

Stephen Richards

99.96% of the atmosphere is CO² free. There isn’t any CO² in 99.96% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is nearly 4 x 9s pure of CO². There I’ve said it in as many different ways as possible.

chris y

The diagram also shows a TOA imbalance of 0.6, +/- 0.4 W/m^2. But this appears to be the difference between incoming solar radiation of 340.2 +/- 0.1, and the sum of reflected solar (100 +/-2) and outgoing longwave radiation (239.7 +/- 3.3). The total outgoing is 339.7 +/-5.3 W/m^2.
That puts the TOA imbalance at 0.5 +/-5.4 W/m^2. That is an uncertainty one order of magnitude larger than the purported imbalance.
Whether you look at imbalance at the surface or TOA, the uncertainties completely swamp out the claimed signal. Climate science treats this as a feature, allowing all sorts of imaginary anthropogenic hobgoblins to be ‘seen’ in the noise.

Mike Wryley

Does anyone here have possible access to the climate report cooked up for government consumption mentioned on Bloomberg today “Climate by the Numbers” ?

A. Watts posted in part: “What a 0.6 watt light bulb might look like when turned on.”, along with an image of of a non-glowing light bulb that appears to me to have design wattage of 40 to 100 watts.
Incandescent light bulbs of design wattage around or even under .6 watt actually glow. And they do not look quite like the one shown.
For example, there is the # 47 and the related 1847, design wattage .945 watt, and apparently widely used in pinball machines. There is the PR2, design wattage 1.19 watts, and used in most 2-cell incandescent flashlights, especially dollar store ones. And, before LEDs got into common use as indicator lamps in electronic equipment, incandescent lamps were used as indicator lamps. Many of those had design wattage .3 watt or less. Don’t forget about “grain of wheat” and “grain of rice” lamps. And, I remember some past model of a watch that is illuminated by incandescent lamps by pushing a button – presumably powered by watch batteries. I have a few incandescent lamps with design wattage of .03 watt (1.5 volts, 20 mA), and they visibly glow.
REPLY: But those all have different filaments, designed for low voltage. I was comparing to the standard Edison base 60w bulb, at higher voltage, as you can clearly see. – Anthony

“Down-welling Longwave…”
The debate about Climate Change is all about CO2 absorbing UP-welling longwave. The concept that it then re-emits it Down is simply erroneous. When a molecule of CO2 absorbs a 15-micron photon, the molecule immediately vibrates, with the two Oxygen atoms suddenly moving off-center from the Carbon atom,, increasing the molecule’s dipole moment. In the time it would require for a molecule of CO2 to absorb and re-emit a 15 micron photon, the molecule will collide with several thousand air molecules, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. Thus, it will thermalize this IR, heating the atmosphere a little, to the extent that one part in 2,500 can heat the rest. This is the real GHE! Of course water vapor does this too, a lot lot more than CO2.
Climate “Scientists” who do not understand physics have used the pyrgeometers in an inappropriate way, promoting this myth that the atmosphere can heat the Earth’s surface. The Earth’s surface is almost always warmer than the atmosphere! Heat only flows one direction at a time, from warmer to cooler. When heat flows, the warmer thing cools off a little, and the cooler thing warms up a little. The big white-hot ball in the sky, with surface temperature at 5778 K, that is what heats the Earth’s surface. Father Sol does not cool down because of the never-ending fusion of hydrogen to helium, with mass defect 4,290,000 kg/second. As someone once said, “E=MC squared!” The Earth receives only one part in 2 billion of this energy, as we are much smaller than the Sun and pretty far away, luckily for all living things.
The Hiroshima bomb was a lot hotter than 5778 K, as it was very small, putting out a tiny fraction of the Sun’s flux.
I am not a Slayer, they have it wrong too…


So just what do all those nukes on almost everybodie’s kitchen counters contribute in the AM miking all those coffees?

These sort of sensationalist claims that warmists make are designed to hit the front pages of the tabloid newspapers and keep AGW alive and kicking. Sadly the people who read these tabloids take this rubbish seriously.
Slightly off thread, but still topical, what has happened to Jai Mitchell and Margaret Hardman? Have their computers broken, their keyboards become worn out or have they morphed into the same individual with another alias?

Kev-in-UK asks:-
“I wonder if Cook actually has any friends? – ……..Still, maybe he has regular meet ups with co-alarmists to see who can scare each other the most? Sad, really, very sad……..”
There is a small coterie of Climate refugees who have found a safe-house at the Guardian, where they can still share and try to outdo each other with their ever more outlandish alarmist nonsenses.
The Guardian assures them of comfort and a sense of still belonging , with a ready made , if shrinking, audience that will lap up anything that was once fashionable.
Don’t bother following the links. They just exemplify the recent applicants, to join Moonbat & friends.

Moderators you are well on the ball, I see you flag up J@i Mltchell and M@rg@ret H@rdm@n, together with @dolph HltIer and J0sef G0ebels. That might mean their computers are still working!
I am only joking by the way and no offence was taken!

Billy Liar

Cam_S says:
June 23, 2013 at 7:36 am
But we cannot adapt to nuclear radiation.
We are adapted already. We receive a continual dose of varying magnitude.


Robin says:
June 23, 2013 at 7:15 am
All these deliberately cultivated false beliefs are coming in under what is termed “global education.”
–Interdependence and globalization
–Identity and cultural diversity
–Social justice and human rights
–Peace building and conflict resolution
–Sustainable futures
The constant mentions of Hiroshima then are no accident but part of “students will be provided with opportunities to develop values, knowledge, skills and capacity for action to become good global citizens.”
As exhibit 1 let me enter into evidence a certain recent prolific commenter named Jai. I propose a new unit of measure: the jai. A jai is equal to the political energy of one pseudoeducated sheeple at full propaganda saturation. Now do the math and derive a current jais/m^2 figure. Estimate a plausible growth rate and plot the curve. Now there’s a graph to fear!


There’s actually papers that calculate the attribution; the state of science is debating whether humans are responsible for just over 100%, or just under. As in, without our influence, would the Earth be warming or cooling a tiny bit? But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.


“But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.”
@numerobis……and just which one’s are they? My ‘puter must be broke,as I see zero links to any “recent papers”. Or are you referencing the ones people use on the bottom of their bird cages?
Don…..thanks for the morning chuckle. May I also nominate a tetrajai,which is the measurement of all that missing heat,caused by a “cooked” up windmill creating more CO2 during manufacture than Pinatubo?


numerobis says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:29 am
“But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.”
That’s how they get their funding.


numerobis says:
June 23, 2013 at 9:29 am
But all the recent papers I’ve seen indicate the human influence is far larger than the other changes.
” this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal;”

Gary Pearse

“Gotta love it, cartoonist turned “climate scientist”. It’s Da bomb.”
This I can take, it gives a measure of the activist science. That scientists are turning into cartoonists and stand-up comics is the real disgrace. Has anyone noted any disparagement of Cook’s stuff among ‘leading’ climate scientists? No, I didn’t think so. You can be a complete mindless ass as long as you support the cause. Indeed, Cook is not only elevated to climate scientist, he will be becoming the most prolific producer of climate science literature if we don’t soon see the usual suspects coming out of their bunkers. The search for missing heat (it’s a travesty), the think tank for understanding UK’s disappointing (forecasts) er.. weather, the disgraced Max Planck Institute with its climate researchers arriving in parkas in spring to study global warming….No, Cook doesn’t stand out as a lesser colleague.

Cook is a funny guy. He is no intellectual, because his favorite thing to “confirm that we are still warming” is the dreaded monthly time series….last month was the hottest month ever and the month before that was the third hottest…and so on. Basically, the moron thinks that one month of data is enough to confirm global warming is still happening and that the tried and true statistical techiniques for determining whether a trend is happening are inferior to his cherry picking methods. Like most cherry pickers, he points to the low-hanging fruit that he has found and neglects to point out the cherries he missed because he did not even consider them.
He isn’t a scientist. He is an ice cream taste tester who is tasting ice cream cones and picking the ones he likes and than claiming to the world that since he liked the ice cream when it was the hottest that this means the world is boiling over at the rate of “4 atomic bombs every second.” Think about the depth of his intellect with that. He has as much depth as a slug does.
And now people confuse him with a scientist? Oh that is just lovely. I have literally seen better educated slugs than this guy. If this is the pinnacle of human evolution than we are surely doomed to move back into those caves and shake with fear whenever a scary noise is made. I bet he even farts and runs for the hills thinking its an atomic bomb going off behind him.

Doug Proctor

Riddle me this: if the uncertainty is 17 W/m2, then how is Trenberth able to say that there is a “missing”, i.e. his math can’t account for, 0.58 W/m2, which must therefore be “hiding” in the deep ocean (’cause, argumentum ad ignoratium, he can’t think of another acceptable answer)?
The uncertainty of climate “science” is the basis for all skepticism, yet seems to pass the warmist threshold of acceptance without a problem. There must be some cognitive dissonance going on about this, but you’d never know it.
The non-technical, liberal arts, enviro-greens haven’t a clue when it comes to critical thinking. You don’t have to be an expert to audit what an expert says, you just have to bring normal thinking to abnormal sistuations. The world is not so bizarre that exceptional claims don’t deserve exceptional justifications.

Mike Wryley on June 23, 2013 at 8:37 am
“Does anyone here have possible access to the climate report cooked up for government consumption mentioned on Bloomberg today “Climate by the Numbers” ? ”
Isn’t that just the latest Draft of the IPCC’s AR5 report, according to the guys from the London School of Economics .
or is it just the ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ ?
Wouldn’t the Expert Reviewers know, of which there must be a few hereabouts ?

Mike McMillan

I think my flashlight runs about 1 watt. Scary.
My parents were in the occupation force, but I don’t think they ever went down to Hiroshima. I visited the Peace Museum in 2007 and saw all the little mementos. The mostly wooden buildings in town didn’t fare very well, but then neither did the rest of Japan to the fire bombing.

jai mitchell believes he provides ‘easy rebuttals’ to the science posted at WUWT. But he doesn’t provide anything except his wrong-headed opinion. Like the rest of his baseless assertions, his ‘easy rebuttals’ are only his personal beliefs.
Anthony clearly explains here why comparing global warming to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb is ridiculous; mitchel responds with his opinion. That is typical of the alarmist crowd. What we need are verifiable, testable facts — not simple-mined, baseless assertions.
The basic fact in the entire global warming debate is that there has been no global warming for many years now, even as CO2 continues to steadily rise. How does mitchell explain this glaring discrepancy? Answer: he doesn’t, because he cannot explain it. It is obvious that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is too small to be measured. The trace gas CO2 is inconsequential, and can be completely disregarded. But disregarding “carbon” destroys the basic alarmist argument. They cannot give up their demonization of CO2 without admitting they have been wrong all along.
Note that most of mitchell’s wild-eyed rant is based on politics, not on science. But science is not ‘right wing’, or ‘conservative’. Science is the search for truth, and the fact that the alarmist crowd has no scientific truth supporting their belief causes them great consternation. The reuslt is that they flail around, and end up blaming politics for the fact that the real world does not support their belief system.
The alarmist belief in catastrophic AGW is now based entirely on their new age religion. The Scientific Method is ignored, because following the Scientific Method requires accepting the fact that there is no measurable evidence to support the belief that CO2 causes any measurable global warming. Thus, the central tenet of the alarmist cult is deconstructed. So they respond like jai mitchell does: by blaming politics for their scientific failure.
Honest scientists look at the failure of the CO2=AGW conjecture, and acknowledge that their original conjecture has been falsified. Honest scientists then go back to the drawing board, and try to figure out why their conjecture failed.
But the die-hard climate alarmists dig in their heels, and try to blame politics for their scientific failure. That may work at alarmist blogs, which censor dissenting opinion. But it doesn’t work here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, where polemics like jai mitchell’s are shot down in flames.

chris y

Solar PV farms installed in desert locations apparently have a horrifying Hiroshima footprint as well.
A PV panel with double AR coating absorbs 97% of incident solar radiation. Desert sand absorbs on average 65%. About 15% of the panel’s absorbed power is converted to electricity, leaving about 83% to heat the panel. Solar panels increase the 24-hour-averaged surface forcing imbalance by 1000 W/m^2*6/24 hours*(0.83-0.65) = 45 W/m^2. Over a year (about pi*10^7 seconds), this adds up to 1.4 GJ/m^2/year, or using Willis’ conversion factor of 4.18 GJ/ton TNT, about 0.33 tons TNT/year/m^2.
The Blythe solar PV project (currently scheduled for construction after being passed about like a hot potato) will be 485MW. Using 140 W/m^2 panels, the total panel area is 485,000,000/140 = 3,460,000 m^2. The total equivalent TNT load is 1.14 million tons, or 76 Hiroshima bombs per year. That is a lot of above-ground testing!
Nellis Air Force base has an Obama-blessed 14MW solar PV plant. Using 140 W/m^2 panels, the total area is 100,000 m^2, an equivalent TNT load of 33,000 tons per year, or about 2 Hiroshima bombs per year.
Fortunately, these are in relatively low population areas, so the human impacts should be minimal.
It is remarkable that a flimsy solar panel can withstand a close-proximity detonation of almost 1 ton of TNT every year…
I shudder to calculate the Hiroshimas per year in densely populated regions contributed by rooftop solar. Perhaps it would be wise to ban the use of solar arrays on buildings that have been designated as fallout shelters…


While we’re at it, how about we calculate a car’s mileage in miles per stick of dynamite.
dynamite 4 MJ/kg
gasoline 35 MJ/L
So, for ease of arithmetic, every liter of gasoline is equivalent to ten kg of dynamite. So … every kilometer you drive is like exploding two pounds of dynamite. A thousand kilometers uses about a ton of dynamite. I drive about 20 tons a year worth of dynamite.

Andrew Harding

Jai just wondering about your absence and up you pop!
Anyway we are not right wing hang ’em and flog ’em types who don’t give a tinkers cuss about the planet and people, far from it. I object most strongly to old people here in the UK dying from hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes due to the vast subsidies going to renewable energy sources. I take it you think these deaths are necessary to support The Cause? I also don’t want my country turned into a third world nation because our economy has gone belly up, due to inflation going sky high because of energy costs.
Here is a question I posted on another thread to you which has not been answered.
“Jai, if the world was 8C warmer in the past with CO2 levels virtually identical to what they are now, why is the world not 8C warmer now? There is only one answer; because there are other more important factors that influence climate. Tilt of the Earth’s axis as mentioned before being one, solar output, clouds, water vapour, volcanic eruptions being others.
Do you accept this?”
Sorry Anthony, I know you don’t like intermingling of the threads, but I think we are all fed up of Jai doing a disappearing act every time the questions become difficult and I think this is a tough one to answer if you believe in AGW.


Being a cartoonist isn’t a bad thing (Think Josh 🙂 ) but if Cook was as bad a cartoonist as he is a climate scientist it is no wonder he keeps changing avocations. It’s too bad there’s not a lot of money to be made just being an idiot. Oh – wait…
Speaking of people with poor communication skills – Jai, convinced against abundant evidence otherwise that he alone is capable of rational thought, walks into a saloon and tells everyone gathered they’re paranoid ignorant anti-science morons who need to just shut up. After the ass-whoopin’ he gets up and shrieks “I’m not getting through to you morons!”

Cook is correct, and the CFL bulbs in my basement are like the detonation of a pound of TNT every day!

@ Jai Mitchell
Nice rant. That must have been the highest density of name-calling masquerading as discussion ever to “grace” this blog.
If you spend any amount of time here reading, not just posting, then you will notice that this is a remarkably open and tolerant venue, and that people from all walks of life, educational backgrounds and political persuasions post here (although it is probably correct that most posters are politically conservative); the audience here does not fit any of your stereotypes.
Regarding the quality of the information here: While there is some hit and miss in both in the posts and the comments, you can find some genuine gems produced by people with exceptional scientific understanding, both with and without formal credentials. Just keep an open mind and think twice about wantonly insulting the other posters, and you might actually benefit yourself and others with your posts.


Michael Moon says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:41 am
“Thus, it will thermalize this IR, heating the atmosphere a little, to the extent that one part in 2,500 can heat the rest. This is the real GHE! Of course water vapor does this too, a lot lot more than CO2.”
Now you’re in Dessler territory (his favorite term is “heat-trapping gases”).
Thermalization and dethermalization must happen to equal amounts under LTE conditions.

Solar Panel Warming

@chris y
“A PV panel with double AR coating absorbs 97% of incident solar radiation. Desert sand absorbs on average 65%. About 15% of the panel’s absorbed power is converted to electricity, leaving about 83% to heat the panel.”
Actually the 15% delivered as electricity is turned back into heat when “used”. So the panels are actually absorbing an additional 18% (83% – 65%) of solar energy for air heating that would normally be reflected. So the panels are in fact making the temperature rise worse if this is taken into account. Now I am sure that this could be converted to CO2 & fossil fuel equivalents, which I’m certain that no one has considered but obviously would make then not as attractive from a global warming viewpoint.