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.
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.
“…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:
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.
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?
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.
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).
UPDATE: Jo Nova also has a essay on the subject here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/
I note that the stated TOA imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.4 at the top of the figure is unsupported by the other uncertainties stated on the same figure. For example. The outgoing longwave stated uncertainty is +/- 3.3. The reflected solar uncertainty is +/- 2, not 0.2. If those uncertainties are correct, the imbalance uncertainty has to be greater than +/- 3.3 since the other uncertainties accumulate, and increase the uncertainty. The incoming radiation is the only quantity on the figure known to high certainty, the others are not.
DirkH
June 23, 2013 11:23 am
jai mitchell says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:11 am
“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.”
Jai, you have a misconception there. Most of us don’t say, look the theory is obviously wrong because my engineer’s degree physics education tells me it is. In fact, the idea that added CO2 should lead to some warming, all other things being equal, is not disputed by many of us. The problem is that all other things do not stay equal.
So what would one do to find out how the system will behave? Well, do an experiment. If an experiment is impossible, simulate an experiment with a computer model. That’s what the climate scientists did. And we all know that over the last 17 years reality and climate models develop differently.
Now what does the guy say who started all this serious climate modeling business… Remember the tropospheric hotspot that all the climate models predict and that has not yet been observed? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890
“when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times. ”
…he says that models overstate the warming. Now, if people like you were able to actually listen to the inventor of climate modeling, maybe you could accept the non-warming reality.
Maybe that would not fit to your political leanings, because maybe you just love carbon taxes and PV subsidies.
“You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” (Ayn Rand)
DirkH,
Consider this a failure to engage. The atmosphere is not in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, and if there is such a thing, why did Professor Smith at U of M never mention it to us? He was Professor of the Year, designed the first in-cylinder combustion probe for Ford.
I think the word you are looking for is “adiabatic,” and the atmosphere is not that either…
Billy
June 23, 2013 11:42 am
Jai;
I keep a bird on my shoulder. He has a left wing and a right wing. Am I bi-wing or ambidextrous wing?
Clyde
June 23, 2013 11:50 am
dealt with this nonsense before, back in May 2012
The hyper link above leads to a page not found.
Clyde
June 23, 2013 11:52 am
Now it’s working. Must be my browser. My apologies.
Snotrocket
June 23, 2013 11:53 am
OK Jai, WTF is ‘anti-science’? (Other than what you preach). Yawnnnn….
Justthinkin
June 23, 2013 11:55 am
Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious. REPLY: he appears to be using a real name, see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell
-A
I found some of the things here interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
I noticed the number put up for AGW energy is marked “citation needed”.
I also noticed that the number doesn’t have a time span (as in “X Joules/day) but that it is more than the Sun puts out in a day.
From the wiki link above :”10−1 deci- (dJ) 1×10−1 J energy of an American half-dollar falling 1-metre[49][50]”
This can’t be right since the US dollar is getting “lighter” by the second.
EternalOptimist
June 23, 2013 12:39 pm
When I was a kid in school, I used to get a clip round the ear for not putting the units of measure on my answers.
‘FOUR ? FOUR WHAT ? ELEPHANTS OR ZEBRAS ?’ smack.
four miles sir.
In those days, we had imperial, metric and some anomalies.
Nowadays, it seems that we have imperial, metric , Atom bombs per second, CIPH (Conspiricy Ideationists per Hectare), GPM (Gleiks per set of minutes)
I am just glad to be a three percenter
“I also noticed that the number doesn’t have a time span (as in “X Joules/day) but that it is more than the Sun puts out in a day.”
===========================================================
That should be more than what the Sun puts out hits the Earth in a day.
Be fair. Cook says right on his “About” page that he’s not a climate scientist. He does, however, hold a degree in physics, so poking fun at him as a “cartoonist” is unreasonable.
Disagree with him on the facts; fine; but let’s skip the ad hominem. Leave that for the other side. REPLY: Sorry, but I disagree. When he allows the label “climate scientist” to stand in newspaper articles, he loses any such consideration. Note that Donna Laframboise points out in the linked article that there seems to be a pattern of escalation of his labels – Anthony
Auto
June 23, 2013 12:58 pm
Michael Palmer says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:02 am @ur momisugly Jai Mitchell
Nice rant. That must have been the highest density of name-calling masquerading as discussion ever to “grace” this blog.
=====
Thanks – saved me from bloviating about it.
Auto
Dodgy Geezer
June 23, 2013 12:59 pm
I would like to know:
1 – what is the energy equivalent of switching on half the light-bulbs in the world?
2 – what is the energy equivalent of all the thunderstorms in the world?
Both of these are things that happen on a regular basis. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that they are actually greater than ‘4 Hiroshimas’. In which case we’d better stop turning lights on, and find a way to stop thunderstorms…
davidmhoffer
June 23, 2013 1:11 pm
To “jai mitchell”
I asked on another thread if you could explain the terminology you were throwing around. You never responded, so I shall repeat the question here. Can you explain in your own words what “polar amplification” is, and the physics by which it is expected to exist? Or are you just throwing around terms without actually knowing what they mean?
If you are so certain that you understand the science and the rest of us don’t, then let’s see what you got. Let’s discuss the science and see who knows what.
Dodgy Geezer says:
June 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm
===============================================================
Hmmm….if CO2 is the driver and Man-made CO2 is what we need to curb….(thinking)….there are athetic events going on all over the world……(thinking)……..most of them require humans to excert some sort of physical effort….(thinking again)…….those efforts produce CO2…(increased breathing)…maybe the answer to AGW is to ban sporting events?
milodonharlani
June 23, 2013 1:27 pm
Gunga Din says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:22 pm
The goal of CACCA is not to ban breathing by humans (at least not by everyone), but to tax it.
As EternalOptimist at 12:39 pm says “Nowadays, it seems that we have imperial, metric , Atom bombs per second, CIPH (Conspiricy Ideationists per Hectare), GPM (Gleiks per set of minutes)”
Maybe we need even more units of measurement. Such as the ones the BBC use to try and make something more understandable, but fail spectacularly to do so. Like something is the size of ten double decker buses or the size of a dozen olympic swimming pools. They mean nothing because the original measurement means nothing. They are such a joke that El Reg (The Register) has a whole section devoted to these measurement units.
So, what’s the velocity of a sheep in a vacuum? Plus, the size of Wales in cubic furlongs. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/
Doug Huffman
June 23, 2013 1:42 pm
“Thunderstorms” made me recall a note in my well thumbed 61th Edition CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, page F-215, “1000 to 2000 thunderstorms active at any time. … Water content 10^8 – 10^9 kg. Total energy 10^15 joule, electric energy 10^12 – 10^13 J.” And that is note as quoted from Atmospheric Electricity by H. Israel.
The water content of a million tons in a thundercloud puts lots of stuff in perspective.
Maybe we could create a ‘Beaufort’ Scale of climate fails/ramblings? perhaps using the usual suspects as names for the different levels? I dunno, maybe starting with a ‘Jones aka Level 1’ – meaning a mild faux pas such as ‘can’t use excel’? Am tempted to suggest Cook as the highest, but there are many contenders – Mann and Gore immediately spring to mind!
Just a thought, maybe we could call it the Climatic Reporting Anti-science Presentation value or (C.R.A.P) for short?
Max™
June 23, 2013 2:35 pm
Well that’s nothing, the 1960 Valdivia Earthquake released a similar amount of energy as a 210 Gigaton nuke going off, that’s like 14,000,000 Hiroshima bombs! Oh heavens to murgatroid!
What about starquakes? Some of those are estimated to range into Yottatons of TNT equivalent! What’s a Yottaton? Well, it’s like a Lottatons, but more so, and it makes Teratons look puny.
The KT impact event would have registered around a 12.5 on the Richter scale, apparently, which is around 100 Teratons of TNT equivalent, magnetar quakes would apparently register 20 to 30+ on the Richter scale?
That’s not a “bye bye city” or “bye bye continent” event, that’s a “goodbye planet, we barely knew ye” type event.
Now how can we finagle that into a way to make people afraid of CO2?
I note that the stated TOA imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.4 at the top of the figure is unsupported by the other uncertainties stated on the same figure. For example. The outgoing longwave stated uncertainty is +/- 3.3. The reflected solar uncertainty is +/- 2, not 0.2. If those uncertainties are correct, the imbalance uncertainty has to be greater than +/- 3.3 since the other uncertainties accumulate, and increase the uncertainty. The incoming radiation is the only quantity on the figure known to high certainty, the others are not.
jai mitchell says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:11 am
“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.”
Jai, you have a misconception there. Most of us don’t say, look the theory is obviously wrong because my engineer’s degree physics education tells me it is. In fact, the idea that added CO2 should lead to some warming, all other things being equal, is not disputed by many of us. The problem is that all other things do not stay equal.
So what would one do to find out how the system will behave? Well, do an experiment. If an experiment is impossible, simulate an experiment with a computer model. That’s what the climate scientists did. And we all know that over the last 17 years reality and climate models develop differently.
Now what does the guy say who started all this serious climate modeling business… Remember the tropospheric hotspot that all the climate models predict and that has not yet been observed?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890
“when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times. ”
…he says that models overstate the warming. Now, if people like you were able to actually listen to the inventor of climate modeling, maybe you could accept the non-warming reality.
Maybe that would not fit to your political leanings, because maybe you just love carbon taxes and PV subsidies.
“You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” (Ayn Rand)
DirkH,
Consider this a failure to engage. The atmosphere is not in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, and if there is such a thing, why did Professor Smith at U of M never mention it to us? He was Professor of the Year, designed the first in-cylinder combustion probe for Ford.
I think the word you are looking for is “adiabatic,” and the atmosphere is not that either…
Jai;
I keep a bird on my shoulder. He has a left wing and a right wing. Am I bi-wing or ambidextrous wing?
dealt with this nonsense before, back in May 2012
The hyper link above leads to a page not found.
Now it’s working. Must be my browser. My apologies.
OK Jai, WTF is ‘anti-science’? (Other than what you preach). Yawnnnn….
Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious.
REPLY: he appears to be using a real name, see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell
-A
I found some of the things here interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
I noticed the number put up for AGW energy is marked “citation needed”.
I also noticed that the number doesn’t have a time span (as in “X Joules/day) but that it is more than the Sun puts out in a day.
From the wiki link above :”10−1 deci- (dJ) 1×10−1 J energy of an American half-dollar falling 1-metre[49][50]”
This can’t be right since the US dollar is getting “lighter” by the second.
When I was a kid in school, I used to get a clip round the ear for not putting the units of measure on my answers.
‘FOUR ? FOUR WHAT ? ELEPHANTS OR ZEBRAS ?’ smack.
four miles sir.
In those days, we had imperial, metric and some anomalies.
Nowadays, it seems that we have imperial, metric , Atom bombs per second, CIPH (Conspiricy Ideationists per Hectare), GPM (Gleiks per set of minutes)
I am just glad to be a three percenter
“I also noticed that the number doesn’t have a time span (as in “X Joules/day) but that it is more than the Sun puts out in a day.”
===========================================================
That should be more than what the Sun puts out hits the Earth in a day.
Be fair. Cook says right on his “About” page that he’s not a climate scientist. He does, however, hold a degree in physics, so poking fun at him as a “cartoonist” is unreasonable.
Disagree with him on the facts; fine; but let’s skip the ad hominem. Leave that for the other side.
REPLY: Sorry, but I disagree. When he allows the label “climate scientist” to stand in newspaper articles, he loses any such consideration. Note that Donna Laframboise points out in the linked article that there seems to be a pattern of escalation of his labels – Anthony
Michael Palmer says:
June 23, 2013 at 11:02 am
@ur momisugly Jai Mitchell
Nice rant. That must have been the highest density of name-calling masquerading as discussion ever to “grace” this blog.
=====
Thanks – saved me from bloviating about it.
Auto
I would like to know:
1 – what is the energy equivalent of switching on half the light-bulbs in the world?
2 – what is the energy equivalent of all the thunderstorms in the world?
Both of these are things that happen on a regular basis. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that they are actually greater than ‘4 Hiroshimas’. In which case we’d better stop turning lights on, and find a way to stop thunderstorms…
To “jai mitchell”
I asked on another thread if you could explain the terminology you were throwing around. You never responded, so I shall repeat the question here. Can you explain in your own words what “polar amplification” is, and the physics by which it is expected to exist? Or are you just throwing around terms without actually knowing what they mean?
If you are so certain that you understand the science and the rest of us don’t, then let’s see what you got. Let’s discuss the science and see who knows what.
Dodgy Geezer says:
June 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm
===============================================================
Hmmm….if CO2 is the driver and Man-made CO2 is what we need to curb….(thinking)….there are athetic events going on all over the world……(thinking)……..most of them require humans to excert some sort of physical effort….(thinking again)…….those efforts produce CO2…(increased breathing)…maybe the answer to AGW is to ban sporting events?
Gunga Din says:
June 23, 2013 at 1:22 pm
The goal of CACCA is not to ban breathing by humans (at least not by everyone), but to tax it.
Justin Gillis in the New York Times International Weekly (distributed with the Observer in the UK) quotes the 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day, without any reference as to the source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?ref=justingillis&_r=0
[Snip. Russell Seitz is <persona non grata here. — mod.]
As EternalOptimist at 12:39 pm says “Nowadays, it seems that we have imperial, metric , Atom bombs per second, CIPH (Conspiricy Ideationists per Hectare), GPM (Gleiks per set of minutes)”
Maybe we need even more units of measurement. Such as the ones the BBC use to try and make something more understandable, but fail spectacularly to do so. Like something is the size of ten double decker buses or the size of a dozen olympic swimming pools. They mean nothing because the original measurement means nothing. They are such a joke that El Reg (The Register) has a whole section devoted to these measurement units.
So, what’s the velocity of a sheep in a vacuum? Plus, the size of Wales in cubic furlongs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/
“Thunderstorms” made me recall a note in my well thumbed 61th Edition CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, page F-215, “1000 to 2000 thunderstorms active at any time. … Water content 10^8 – 10^9 kg. Total energy 10^15 joule, electric energy 10^12 – 10^13 J.” And that is note as quoted from Atmospheric Electricity by H. Israel.
The water content of a million tons in a thundercloud puts lots of stuff in perspective.
Jo Nova has a post on this too
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/
Maybe we could create a ‘Beaufort’ Scale of climate fails/ramblings? perhaps using the usual suspects as names for the different levels? I dunno, maybe starting with a ‘Jones aka Level 1’ – meaning a mild faux pas such as ‘can’t use excel’? Am tempted to suggest Cook as the highest, but there are many contenders – Mann and Gore immediately spring to mind!
Just a thought, maybe we could call it the Climatic Reporting Anti-science Presentation value or (C.R.A.P) for short?
Well that’s nothing, the 1960 Valdivia Earthquake released a similar amount of energy as a 210 Gigaton nuke going off, that’s like 14,000,000 Hiroshima bombs! Oh heavens to murgatroid!
What about starquakes? Some of those are estimated to range into Yottatons of TNT equivalent! What’s a Yottaton? Well, it’s like a Lottatons, but more so, and it makes Teratons look puny.
The KT impact event would have registered around a 12.5 on the Richter scale, apparently, which is around 100 Teratons of TNT equivalent, magnetar quakes would apparently register 20 to 30+ on the Richter scale?
That’s not a “bye bye city” or “bye bye continent” event, that’s a “goodbye planet, we barely knew ye” type event.
Now how can we finagle that into a way to make people afraid of CO2?