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
Rational person
July 1, 2013 3:47 pm
“Yes, there has beempn warming since the little ice age” so we agree, warming is happening. Whether it is a local normal climate fluctuation as you believe or as a result of CO2 emissions as I understand from the observed evidence. At least we have some common ground 🙂
Regarding Cook, “Rational person” says:
“Afrer all a “best science” web site would deal strictly with addressing the research, not trying to undermine the man, right?”
Right. So let’s see you defend Cook’s deleting of comments that deconstruct his belief system, and changing the meaning of comments by changing the language — without ever acknowledging what Cook has done.
I am not ‘undermining’ Cook; he is doing an excellent job of undermining himself, no?
Rational person
July 1, 2013 3:53 pm
@dbstealy, nice cherry picking of data. Here is the same satellite data from 1987 instead of 1997. Why is it your side say that variability is normal but then base your arguments on very limited timeframe observations to suit your needs? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1987/plot/rss/from:1987.9/trend
Backslider
July 1, 2013 3:59 pm
@Rationañ Person – “so we agree, warming is happening.”
No, we do not agree at all. Please take the time to actually read what I wrote. Warming HAS happened many times in Earth’s history…. as has COOLING. It is the latter which should be of far greater concern as another Ice Age would wipe out billions….. no, wait, that’s what the Greens want anyway, so they would be cheering.
Thinking more on this…. yes, “global warming” has also wiped out billions…. of DOLLARS. It has also wiped out its fair share of people due to fuel poverty and hunger caused by Green policies. Go the Greens!!!
Rational person,
Yes, there has been global warming since the LIA. It is completely natural warming, because it has not accelerated, despite the recent 40% rise in CO2.
If human-emitted CO2 was the cause of global warming, then the warming would have accelerated with the rise in CO2 emissions, no? But as we see, global warming has stopped despite the steady rise in CO2.
Every rational person understands that CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. If you dispute that fact, then post your testable, verifiable scientific evidence here. No opinions, please; they are not worth the pixels they use up.
Backslider
July 1, 2013 4:06 pm
@Rational person – “nice cherry picking of data.”
No, that is not cherry picking at all…. unless your own link is also. The time frame is chosen because EVERYBODY accepts that there has been cooling since 1997. All the warmist scientists are up in arms trying to find ways to explain it. Please take the time to connect with the real World.
@backslider, interesting comments about the “green politics”. Completely irrelevant for a serious scientific discussion of course, but I see the moderator doesn’t seem to deem that out of bounds for the discussion.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 4:24 pm
Btw in ALL the graphs, the trend line is still above 0 even when it is decreasing. That means the increase is still there even if the line slopes down. Talk to me again in ten years when it actually does (according to you) go below zero.
Backslider
July 1, 2013 4:27 pm
@Rational Person – “Then what about this graph “. This is not about graphs, or climate models for that matter. This is about raw temperature data and what scientists have to say about it all. Are you denying that most warmist scientists acknowledge cooling since 1997? Like I said, please take the time to step into the real World.
BTW, its interesting to note how your latest graph fails to begin the green line at the beginning of 1998…. isn’t it? That’s right, that’s because ALL of 1998 is not included, we can’t be including that big peak in the graph, now can we?. How positively clever of you! You could get a job at the BOM!
Backslider
July 1, 2013 4:31 pm
@Rational Person – “So why is “warmest” [sic] not a pejorative term here?”
Because it is just a descriptive term – there is nothing pejorative about it.
Backslider
July 1, 2013 4:34 pm
@Rational Person – “Btw in ALL the graphs, the trend line is still above 0 even when it is decreasing. ”
Good to see that you have managed to notice that yes, it is definitely decreasing. So, what were you saying about “SOMETHING”?
Rational person,
It is you who is doing the cherry-picking. Rather than picking your preferred start date, let’s use a long term chart: here is a chart from 1975. Note that global temperatures have peaked, and have now started to decline.
For an even longer term chart, see here. That is an interesting chart, because it clearly shows thart there has been no acceleration in the global warming trend. This chart shows the same thing: no acceleration in warming, despite the recent rise in CO2.
Here is a short term chart of temperature and CO2. Notice that CO2 does not have the claimed warming effect.
Finally, here is a chart showing conclusively that the rise in CO2 has not resulted in any acceleration in global warming. All scientific evidence points to the same fact: that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.
You have been sold a pig in a poke. The “carbon” scare is a complete false alarm. But as long as there is money behind the scare, people will continue to demonize “carbon”. You need to be smarter than that. Otherwise, scientific skeptics will run rings around your arguments.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 4:43 pm
Lol, I started in 1998.9 just like you started your original graph at 1997.9. So what’s you point?
Backslider
July 1, 2013 4:45 pm
@Rational Person – “I started in 1998.9 just like you started your original graph at 1997.9”
Ummm… I do not have a graph, however, just for fun, how about you go back there and start at the beginning of 1997…. then hurry on back and tell us all what you see!
Rational person
July 1, 2013 4:48 pm
Btw, if you start YOUR graph at the beginning of 1997, like you accuse me of avoiding for 1998, you get this graph which while still showing a decrease is much less steep than your cherry picked date. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 4:57 pm
And of course if you start at 1996 you get a positive trend again. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend
Which is exactly my point, you claim global warming has “stopped” but that only works if you cherry pick the date you start comparing with, instead of looking at all the data.
Short term levelling off and decreases are not only expected, but they have been observed in the past data. Actual climate scientists are not surprised or worried about these local effects. But I bet you dollars to donuts that when the temperatures start going up again certain groups won’t say “oops, we were wrong, the scientists who actually study this stuff actually did know what they were talking about”. Instead they will make up more pseudoscience mumbo jumbo with absolutely no scientific validity.
@Rational Person – So what is your point? Are you saying that we are all going to cook? Please tell us all what you think we should all do about it.
As I have said, you should really take the time to step into the real World and listen to what scientists are saying. Everybody (except you) agrees that there has been cooling since 1997. While CO2 emissions have gone up dramatically, the temperatures have NOT followed. Warmist scientists are at a loss to explain it. That’s the simple facts.
You are really being very childish about all of this… I’m sure that I could put together a graph that will show that the earth has been cooling during ALL the time that you think it has been warming.
Nobody denies that the earth has warmed since the LIA…. some appear to deny that it will cool again. Many scientists believe that cooling has already begun.
Many believe that the earth has warmed due to CO2, however there is NO empirical evidence that shows this. The fact that CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since 1997 while temperature have declined really should tell you something. Please take the time, since you so much love graphs, to look at the one here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
Then come back and tell us all what you see.
‘Rational’ person,
You are becoming increasingly irrational. Even The Economist, the NY Times, and many other formerly rabid global warming believers now admit that global warming has stopped.
Only John Cook’s religious acolytes still believe in catastrophic AGW. But word is getting out to the general public that the demonization of “carbon” is a grant-based scam.
You are the ultimate cherry-picker, selecting only those charts that you mistakenly believe support your religious belief system. You never respond to the repeated point that despite the 40% rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, the completely natural rise in global temperatures has not accelerated. How many centuries of proof do you need?
Everyone else here can see that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. But your religious belief system will not allow you to understand that if CO2 caused global warming, then global warming would have accelerated right along with the rise in CO2. But it hasn’t. Who should we believe? You?? Or Planet Earth?
So run along back to your thinly-trafficked Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science echo chamber, where Down is Up, War is Peace, Wrong is Right, and CO2 causes Global Warming. They love religious nincompoops over there. But here, you need verifiable scientific facts to make a case — and you have failed. CO2 does not cause rising global temperatures. We can see that. Sorry about you.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 6:01 pm
Hey, I also agree that the temperature trend line shows a decrease since 1997. But you should also agree that the same chart shows an increasing trend since 1996 and 1998.9 (and 2006 for that matter)
So I turn that back on you, what is YOUR point in focussing on 1997. If a decrease since then indicates proof to you that the climate is cooling, then doesn’t the same logic dictate that measuring from my points which bracket yours indicates the climate is warming?
My only point here is to show the flaws the “chillists” make in declaring global warming is over based on a tiny statistically meaningless data set.
“Yes, there has beempn warming since the little ice age” so we agree, warming is happening. Whether it is a local normal climate fluctuation as you believe or as a result of CO2 emissions as I understand from the observed evidence. At least we have some common ground 🙂
Regarding Cook, “Rational person” says:
“Afrer all a “best science” web site would deal strictly with addressing the research, not trying to undermine the man, right?”
Right. So let’s see you defend Cook’s deleting of comments that deconstruct his belief system, and changing the meaning of comments by changing the language — without ever acknowledging what Cook has done.
I am not ‘undermining’ Cook; he is doing an excellent job of undermining himself, no?
@dbstealy, nice cherry picking of data. Here is the same satellite data from 1987 instead of 1997. Why is it your side say that variability is normal but then base your arguments on very limited timeframe observations to suit your needs? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1987/plot/rss/from:1987.9/trend
@Rationañ Person – “so we agree, warming is happening.”
No, we do not agree at all. Please take the time to actually read what I wrote. Warming HAS happened many times in Earth’s history…. as has COOLING. It is the latter which should be of far greater concern as another Ice Age would wipe out billions….. no, wait, that’s what the Greens want anyway, so they would be cheering.
Thinking more on this…. yes, “global warming” has also wiped out billions…. of DOLLARS. It has also wiped out its fair share of people due to fuel poverty and hunger caused by Green policies. Go the Greens!!!
Rational person,
Yes, there has been global warming since the LIA. It is completely natural warming, because it has not accelerated, despite the recent 40% rise in CO2.
If human-emitted CO2 was the cause of global warming, then the warming would have accelerated with the rise in CO2 emissions, no? But as we see, global warming has stopped despite the steady rise in CO2.
Every rational person understands that CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. If you dispute that fact, then post your testable, verifiable scientific evidence here. No opinions, please; they are not worth the pixels they use up.
@Rational person – “nice cherry picking of data.”
No, that is not cherry picking at all…. unless your own link is also. The time frame is chosen because EVERYBODY accepts that there has been cooling since 1997. All the warmist scientists are up in arms trying to find ways to explain it. Please take the time to connect with the real World.
@dbstealy ah right a variant of the graph in this article.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html
Note that all the data is still within the 90 percent confidence interval for the models. In other words, even over that short time period, the models are more accurate than even the models themselves predict.
Everyone accepts there has been cooling since 1997? Then what about this graph starting at 1998.9? Guess that means everyone is saying temperature has been increasing since 1998, using your logic.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998.9/trend
So why is “warmest” not a pejorative term here?
@backslider, interesting comments about the “green politics”. Completely irrelevant for a serious scientific discussion of course, but I see the moderator doesn’t seem to deem that out of bounds for the discussion.
Btw in ALL the graphs, the trend line is still above 0 even when it is decreasing. That means the increase is still there even if the line slopes down. Talk to me again in ten years when it actually does (according to you) go below zero.
@Rational Person – “Then what about this graph “. This is not about graphs, or climate models for that matter. This is about raw temperature data and what scientists have to say about it all. Are you denying that most warmist scientists acknowledge cooling since 1997? Like I said, please take the time to step into the real World.
BTW, its interesting to note how your latest graph fails to begin the green line at the beginning of 1998…. isn’t it? That’s right, that’s because ALL of 1998 is not included, we can’t be including that big peak in the graph, now can we?. How positively clever of you! You could get a job at the BOM!
@Rational Person – “So why is “warmest” [sic] not a pejorative term here?”
Because it is just a descriptive term – there is nothing pejorative about it.
@Rational Person – “Btw in ALL the graphs, the trend line is still above 0 even when it is decreasing. ”
Good to see that you have managed to notice that yes, it is definitely decreasing. So, what were you saying about “SOMETHING”?
Rational person,
It is you who is doing the cherry-picking. Rather than picking your preferred start date, let’s use a long term chart: here is a chart from 1975. Note that global temperatures have peaked, and have now started to decline.
For an even longer term chart, see here. That is an interesting chart, because it clearly shows thart there has been no acceleration in the global warming trend. This chart shows the same thing: no acceleration in warming, despite the recent rise in CO2.
Here is a short term chart of temperature and CO2. Notice that CO2 does not have the claimed warming effect.
Finally, here is a chart showing conclusively that the rise in CO2 has not resulted in any acceleration in global warming. All scientific evidence points to the same fact: that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.
You have been sold a pig in a poke. The “carbon” scare is a complete false alarm. But as long as there is money behind the scare, people will continue to demonize “carbon”. You need to be smarter than that. Otherwise, scientific skeptics will run rings around your arguments.
Lol, I started in 1998.9 just like you started your original graph at 1997.9. So what’s you point?
@Rational Person – “I started in 1998.9 just like you started your original graph at 1997.9”
Ummm… I do not have a graph, however, just for fun, how about you go back there and start at the beginning of 1997…. then hurry on back and tell us all what you see!
Btw, if you start YOUR graph at the beginning of 1997, like you accuse me of avoiding for 1998, you get this graph which while still showing a decrease is much less steep than your cherry picked date.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
And of course if you start at 1996 you get a positive trend again.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend
Which is exactly my point, you claim global warming has “stopped” but that only works if you cherry pick the date you start comparing with, instead of looking at all the data.
Short term levelling off and decreases are not only expected, but they have been observed in the past data. Actual climate scientists are not surprised or worried about these local effects. But I bet you dollars to donuts that when the temperatures start going up again certain groups won’t say “oops, we were wrong, the scientists who actually study this stuff actually did know what they were talking about”. Instead they will make up more pseudoscience mumbo jumbo with absolutely no scientific validity.
@dbstealy
Regarding your “starting to decline” graph, what is your scientific justification for picking the years you did for the last trend line? (2002 to 2012). If you change that to be 2000 instead of 2002 you get a much different story.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2012/trend
Lol why aren’t you guys using the graph from 1980 to 1987 to “prove” that global warming ended in the 80s.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1987/trend
Yes, those dates were cherry picked, but no more-so than cherry picking the most recent 7 years of data.
Oops, I take that back. The trend line for the last seven years actually shows an increase 🙂
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2006/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2006/to:2013/trend
@Rational Person – So what is your point? Are you saying that we are all going to cook? Please tell us all what you think we should all do about it.
As I have said, you should really take the time to step into the real World and listen to what scientists are saying. Everybody (except you) agrees that there has been cooling since 1997. While CO2 emissions have gone up dramatically, the temperatures have NOT followed. Warmist scientists are at a loss to explain it. That’s the simple facts.
You are really being very childish about all of this… I’m sure that I could put together a graph that will show that the earth has been cooling during ALL the time that you think it has been warming.
Nobody denies that the earth has warmed since the LIA…. some appear to deny that it will cool again. Many scientists believe that cooling has already begun.
Many believe that the earth has warmed due to CO2, however there is NO empirical evidence that shows this. The fact that CO2 emissions have skyrocketed since 1997 while temperature have declined really should tell you something. Please take the time, since you so much love graphs, to look at the one here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
Then come back and tell us all what you see.
‘Rational’ person,
You are becoming increasingly irrational. Even The Economist, the NY Times, and many other formerly rabid global warming believers now admit that global warming has stopped.
Only John Cook’s religious acolytes still believe in catastrophic AGW. But word is getting out to the general public that the demonization of “carbon” is a grant-based scam.
You are the ultimate cherry-picker, selecting only those charts that you mistakenly believe support your religious belief system. You never respond to the repeated point that despite the 40% rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, the completely natural rise in global temperatures has not accelerated. How many centuries of proof do you need?
Everyone else here can see that CO2 does not have the claimed effect. But your religious belief system will not allow you to understand that if CO2 caused global warming, then global warming would have accelerated right along with the rise in CO2. But it hasn’t. Who should we believe? You?? Or Planet Earth?
So run along back to your thinly-trafficked Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science echo chamber, where Down is Up, War is Peace, Wrong is Right, and CO2 causes Global Warming. They love religious nincompoops over there. But here, you need verifiable scientific facts to make a case — and you have failed. CO2 does not cause rising global temperatures. We can see that. Sorry about you.
Hey, I also agree that the temperature trend line shows a decrease since 1997. But you should also agree that the same chart shows an increasing trend since 1996 and 1998.9 (and 2006 for that matter)
So I turn that back on you, what is YOUR point in focussing on 1997. If a decrease since then indicates proof to you that the climate is cooling, then doesn’t the same logic dictate that measuring from my points which bracket yours indicates the climate is warming?
My only point here is to show the flaws the “chillists” make in declaring global warming is over based on a tiny statistically meaningless data set.