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/
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
220 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
izen
June 24, 2013 8:58 am
@- Gail Combs
“I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start.”
Are you sure about that. He has a qualification in theology and is/was in the fossil fuel business.
I find it difficult to believe he holds that the means of production must be in the hands of the proletariat, including the financial system.
Gail Combs
June 24, 2013 9:35 am
Justthinkin says: @ur momisugly June 23, 2013 at 11:55 am
Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious.
Anthony REPLY: he appears to be using a real name see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not have access to Facebook (Dislike it) so I googled Jai J. Mitchell and came up with a Jai J Mitchell Analytics in California. IF this is the same person all becomes clear.
Jai J Mitchell Analytics in …. CA is a private company categorized under Energy Conservation Consultant. Our records show it was established in and incorporated in California…
The company’s line of business includes Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation.
Seems to me that Jai J Mitchell Analytics would have a vested interest in seeing the CAGW scare continue since his business will go belly up if CAGW is determined to be a hoax and all the new petroleum based CHEAP energy floods the market.
Who the heck would hire a high priced California energy consultant if energy was not expensive and Manmade CO2 was not ‘Destroying’ the planet?
Gail Combs
June 24, 2013 9:57 am
William McClenney says: @ur momisugly June 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Seems we have evolved from:
“Trust but verify”
to possibly two camps:
“Trust and vilify”
and
“Verify before trust.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here I thought there were just two camps:
“Trust but verify”
and “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Gail Combs
June 24, 2013 10:03 am
Max™ says @ur momisugly June 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm
….(I suppose kitten bomb wouldn’t be scary to anyone except dwarf fortress players, huh?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have never seen what a bunch of cats can do to one’s home… or you.
Gail Combs
June 24, 2013 10:22 am
izen says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:58 am
@- Gail Combs
“I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start.”
Are you sure about that…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes It was part of a comment a couple of months ago although I may have got him mixed with another well known contributor from England.
manicbeancounter
June 24, 2013 11:28 am
John Cook has been using the Hiroshima analogy for a while now. In his infamous 2010 ABC article “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”, one of his questions was
Do you factor in the warming oceans, which since 1970 have been building up heat at a rate of two-and-a-half Hiroshima bombs every second?
In that inflammatory article, his definition of “skeptic” contradicted those in the world’s greatest dictionary.
Most of the “regulars” here don’t need to be reminded but for those who are new or have skipped over my comments, I’m a layman here.
But I got to thinking, with all this talk about CO2 and “Global Warming” and CO2’s long term effect on “Climate Change”, has anybody looked at the long term effect of slowing the wind via wind turbines and changing the Sun’s radiation into electricity via photocells on “Climate Change”?
Why wouldn’t those things change the climate?
Gunga Din says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm
==================================================================
Just wondering if anybody saw this. I last putting it up. The “post” and comment traffic have moved on but I’d really like to have an answer if anyone knows.
davidmhoffer
June 24, 2013 3:21 pm
Gunga Din says:
June 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm
>>>>
There is no answer. From a pure energy perspective, the net change is pretty much zero. As a percentage of daily energy in an out of the planet, even on a temporary basis, almost zero as well. From a local climate perspective, there’d be some measurable and dramatic changes. But the same could be said of clearing land for farming, or building a city, or a dam, etc etc.
GoneWithTheWind
June 24, 2013 3:53 pm
I guess you could say that banning DDT which resulted in millions and millions of deaths from Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases that was like the deaths from 20 Hiroshima bombs a year.
davidmhoffer says:
June 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Gunga Din says:
June 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm
==================================================================
Thanks.
But it does seem that those so concerned about the “impact’ of CO2 should be concerned about the “impact” of these things also. Why haven’t they looked into them? (Rhetorical question.)
chris y
June 24, 2013 4:22 pm
Backslider says-
“@ur momisugly Jai Mitchell – “you probably don’t realize that the amount of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface north of the arctic circle right now per day is more than the amount of solar energy hitting the tropics per day right now “.
___________
Tommy rot. It’s back to school for you buddy.”
***************
Backslider is right.
Jai Mitchell once again demonstrates a stunning ignorance of the real world.
Checking NREL solar insolation data for a flat collector in June-
Barrow, Alaska (71.3 N) averages 4.9 kWh/m^2/day.
Kahului, HI (20.9 N) averages 6.7 kWh/m^2/day.
The difference between 80N and 10N is even larger than this.
If by now you mean July, then the numbers are 4.5 and 6.7, respectively. In other words, June solar insolation is the best cherry-picked month, and 71N sees only 73% of 21N.
The data is here. http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/sum2/state.html
For conversational purposes, you can describe the imbalance as “this much” and hold your thumb and forefinger an inch apart, “plus or minus this much” and hold your hands two feet apart.
Aynsley Kellow
June 24, 2013 5:45 pm
izen @ur momisugly 8.58am:
‘He has a qualification in theology and is/was in the fossil fuel business.’
1. That would put him on a par with Al Gore.
2. Why do you guys keep thinking that linking to the ‘fossil fuel business’ amounts to an argument? (i) It commits the genetic fallacy; (ii) parts of ‘the fossil fuel business’ love policies to force rapid decarbonisation. They’re in the natural gas business. There’s a famous one you might have heard of (lobbied hard for ratification of Kyoto) – called EnRon.
What does any of this have to do with whether Richard Courtney is a socialist????
Hamish Grant
June 24, 2013 7:06 pm
I am an alumnus of the University of Queensland with a PhD in Chemistry who always used to remember my alma mater with pride & affection. If they are now providing funding & fellowships to people like Cook, then I now feel like deleting any reference to UQ in my CV.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 2:44 pm
[Snip. Read the site Policy. We do not allow “denialist”, or related pejorative labels here. They are completely unscientific, emotional labels that do not belong on the internet’s “Best Science” site. — mod.]
Rational person
July 1, 2013 3:06 pm
Bottom line is that there is a demonstrated imbalance. Given the natural state is an equilibrium, SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 3:11 pm
Lol, my post gets kicked because I used the pejorative term “denialist” while your article itself makes all sorts of plays on the author’s name “cook” and tries to discredit him by calling him a “cartoonist”. Perhaps you should pull your article for breaking your own rules 🙂
[NOTE We aren’t calling him a cartoonist, he IS a cartoonist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev_Wide_Web If we were equating Mr. Cook to holocaust deniers, as your label does, you’d have a point. But sadly, no, you don’t have a point -mod]
Backslider
July 1, 2013 3:22 pm
@Rational Person – “Bottom line is that there is a demonstrated imbalance. Given the natural state is an equilibrium, SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.”
What demonstrated imbalance? What equilibrium. All this demonstrates is your complete lack of understanding of the science, to quote somebody who shall remain nameless.
The climate is chaotic – always has been and always will…. there will never be equilibrium until the sun stops shining, the cosmic rays cease and the planets are gone. You would do much better to study this.
Rational person says:
“Given the natural state is an equilibrium…”
If equilibrium was the natural state, everything would be in equilibrium.
But it is not. Everything fluctuates.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 3:28 pm
So you agree with me (and more importantly the observed evidence) that currently there is an imbalance and currently that imbalance indicates warming is happening, right?
Rational person,
John Cook is a cartoonoist. And as they say in American jurisprudence: Truth is an absolute defense.
Cook is also a propagandist who ignores the Scientific Method and the climate Null Hypothesis. He also deletes comments from his blog that he doesn’t agree with, and he changes the language in comments to change the meaning — without acknowledging that’s what he did.
Any rational person would find that behavior dishonest and reprehensible. But to each his own, eh?
Backslider
July 1, 2013 3:37 pm
@Rational Person – “So you agree with me (and more importantly the observed evidence) that currently there is an imbalance and currently that imbalance indicates warming is happening, right?”
I certainly do not agree with you, no. The “natural state” of the planet earth’s climate system is chaos, not equilibrium.
Yes, there has been warming since the little ice age, I don’t think that anybody disputes this. It has warmed since long before industrialization.
You state ” SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.” as though nobody knows why the planet has warmed, slipped into ice age etc etc. The current evidence is that we are heading toward a cooling – then what?
Are you one of these people who thinks we can control what the climate is going to do?
Rational person
July 1, 2013 3:43 pm
Oh, I don’t deny he is a cartoonist, but I find it interesting that this “best science” site chooses to use that description instead of his actual honours degrees in physics. But I agree, describing him as a cartoonist is much more responsible for a “best science” web site and has absolutely nothing to do with trying to discredit the man. Afrer all a “best science” web site would deal strictly with addressing the research, not trying to undermine the man, right?
Rational person,
Look at the satellite record. You can see that global warming is not happening, and has not been happening for many years.
Looking long-term, we see that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature. None. The belief that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature has been completely deconstructed.
So we either look at short term fluctuations, or long-term effects, and we see exactly the same thing: ∆CO2 does NOT cause ∆T. The ONLY relationship shows that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.
Rational science is not your strong point, is it?
@- Gail Combs
“I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start.”
Are you sure about that. He has a qualification in theology and is/was in the fossil fuel business.
I find it difficult to believe he holds that the means of production must be in the hands of the proletariat, including the financial system.
Justthinkin says: @ur momisugly June 23, 2013 at 11:55 am
Is jai mitchell cook posting under a pseudonym,or the other way around? Just curious.
Anthony REPLY: he appears to be using a real name see: http://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not have access to Facebook (Dislike it) so I googled Jai J. Mitchell and came up with a
Jai J Mitchell Analytics in California.
IF this is the same person all becomes clear.
The company’s line of business includes Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation.
Seems to me that Jai J Mitchell Analytics would have a vested interest in seeing the CAGW scare continue since his business will go belly up if CAGW is determined to be a hoax and all the new petroleum based CHEAP energy floods the market.
Who the heck would hire a high priced California energy consultant if energy was not expensive and Manmade CO2 was not ‘Destroying’ the planet?
William McClenney says: @ur momisugly June 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Seems we have evolved from:
“Trust but verify”
to possibly two camps:
“Trust and vilify”
and
“Verify before trust.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here I thought there were just two camps:
“Trust but verify”
and
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Max™ says @ur momisugly June 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm
….(I suppose kitten bomb wouldn’t be scary to anyone except dwarf fortress players, huh?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have never seen what a bunch of cats can do to one’s home… or you.
izen says:
June 24, 2013 at 8:58 am
@- Gail Combs
“I can also name several socialists. Richard Courtney for a start.”
Are you sure about that…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes It was part of a comment a couple of months ago although I may have got him mixed with another well known contributor from England.
John Cook has been using the Hiroshima analogy for a while now. In his infamous 2010 ABC article “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”, one of his questions was
In that inflammatory article, his definition of “skeptic” contradicted those in the world’s greatest dictionary.
Most of the “regulars” here don’t need to be reminded but for those who are new or have skipped over my comments, I’m a layman here.
But I got to thinking, with all this talk about CO2 and “Global Warming” and CO2’s long term effect on “Climate Change”, has anybody looked at the long term effect of slowing the wind via wind turbines and changing the Sun’s radiation into electricity via photocells on “Climate Change”?
Why wouldn’t those things change the climate?
Gunga Din says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm
==================================================================
Just wondering if anybody saw this. I last putting it up. The “post” and comment traffic have moved on but I’d really like to have an answer if anyone knows.
Gunga Din says:
June 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm
>>>>
There is no answer. From a pure energy perspective, the net change is pretty much zero. As a percentage of daily energy in an out of the planet, even on a temporary basis, almost zero as well. From a local climate perspective, there’d be some measurable and dramatic changes. But the same could be said of clearing land for farming, or building a city, or a dam, etc etc.
I guess you could say that banning DDT which resulted in millions and millions of deaths from Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases that was like the deaths from 20 Hiroshima bombs a year.
davidmhoffer says:
June 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Gunga Din says:
June 24, 2013 at 3:12 pm
==================================================================
Thanks.
But it does seem that those so concerned about the “impact’ of CO2 should be concerned about the “impact” of these things also. Why haven’t they looked into them? (Rhetorical question.)
Backslider says-
“@ur momisugly Jai Mitchell – “you probably don’t realize that the amount of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface north of the arctic circle right now per day is more than the amount of solar energy hitting the tropics per day right now “.
___________
Tommy rot. It’s back to school for you buddy.”
***************
Backslider is right.
Jai Mitchell once again demonstrates a stunning ignorance of the real world.
Checking NREL solar insolation data for a flat collector in June-
Barrow, Alaska (71.3 N) averages 4.9 kWh/m^2/day.
Kahului, HI (20.9 N) averages 6.7 kWh/m^2/day.
The difference between 80N and 10N is even larger than this.
If by now you mean July, then the numbers are 4.5 and 6.7, respectively. In other words, June solar insolation is the best cherry-picked month, and 71N sees only 73% of 21N.
The data is here.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/sum2/state.html
For conversational purposes, you can describe the imbalance as “this much” and hold your thumb and forefinger an inch apart, “plus or minus this much” and hold your hands two feet apart.
izen @ur momisugly 8.58am:
‘He has a qualification in theology and is/was in the fossil fuel business.’
1. That would put him on a par with Al Gore.
2. Why do you guys keep thinking that linking to the ‘fossil fuel business’ amounts to an argument? (i) It commits the genetic fallacy; (ii) parts of ‘the fossil fuel business’ love policies to force rapid decarbonisation. They’re in the natural gas business. There’s a famous one you might have heard of (lobbied hard for ratification of Kyoto) – called EnRon.
What does any of this have to do with whether Richard Courtney is a socialist????
I am an alumnus of the University of Queensland with a PhD in Chemistry who always used to remember my alma mater with pride & affection. If they are now providing funding & fellowships to people like Cook, then I now feel like deleting any reference to UQ in my CV.
[Snip. Read the site Policy. We do not allow “denialist”, or related pejorative labels here. They are completely unscientific, emotional labels that do not belong on the internet’s “Best Science” site. — mod.]
Bottom line is that there is a demonstrated imbalance. Given the natural state is an equilibrium, SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.
Lol, my post gets kicked because I used the pejorative term “denialist” while your article itself makes all sorts of plays on the author’s name “cook” and tries to discredit him by calling him a “cartoonist”. Perhaps you should pull your article for breaking your own rules 🙂
[NOTE We aren’t calling him a cartoonist, he IS a cartoonist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sev_Wide_Web If we were equating Mr. Cook to holocaust deniers, as your label does, you’d have a point. But sadly, no, you don’t have a point -mod]
@Rational Person – “Bottom line is that there is a demonstrated imbalance. Given the natural state is an equilibrium, SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.”
What demonstrated imbalance? What equilibrium. All this demonstrates is your complete lack of understanding of the science, to quote somebody who shall remain nameless.
The climate is chaotic – always has been and always will…. there will never be equilibrium until the sun stops shining, the cosmic rays cease and the planets are gone. You would do much better to study this.
Rational person says:
“Given the natural state is an equilibrium…”
If equilibrium was the natural state, everything would be in equilibrium.
But it is not. Everything fluctuates.
So you agree with me (and more importantly the observed evidence) that currently there is an imbalance and currently that imbalance indicates warming is happening, right?
Rational person,
John Cook is a cartoonoist. And as they say in American jurisprudence: Truth is an absolute defense.
Cook is also a propagandist who ignores the Scientific Method and the climate Null Hypothesis. He also deletes comments from his blog that he doesn’t agree with, and he changes the language in comments to change the meaning — without acknowledging that’s what he did.
Any rational person would find that behavior dishonest and reprehensible. But to each his own, eh?
@Rational Person – “So you agree with me (and more importantly the observed evidence) that currently there is an imbalance and currently that imbalance indicates warming is happening, right?”
I certainly do not agree with you, no. The “natural state” of the planet earth’s climate system is chaos, not equilibrium.
Yes, there has been warming since the little ice age, I don’t think that anybody disputes this. It has warmed since long before industrialization.
You state ” SOMETHING must be causing this imbalance.” as though nobody knows why the planet has warmed, slipped into ice age etc etc. The current evidence is that we are heading toward a cooling – then what?
Are you one of these people who thinks we can control what the climate is going to do?
Oh, I don’t deny he is a cartoonist, but I find it interesting that this “best science” site chooses to use that description instead of his actual honours degrees in physics. But I agree, describing him as a cartoonist is much more responsible for a “best science” web site and has absolutely nothing to do with trying to discredit the man. Afrer all a “best science” web site would deal strictly with addressing the research, not trying to undermine the man, right?
Rational person,
Look at the satellite record. You can see that global warming is not happening, and has not been happening for many years.
Looking long-term, we see that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature. None. The belief that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature has been completely deconstructed.
So we either look at short term fluctuations, or long-term effects, and we see exactly the same thing: ∆CO2 does NOT cause ∆T. The ONLY relationship shows that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.
Rational science is not your strong point, is it?