Let’s do the math, and prove that Hansen is the most incompetent scientist who ever lived.
“…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.”
Global warming increasing by 400,000 atomic bombs every day | The Vancouver Observer
The Earth has 150,000,000 km² of land. If 400,000 A-bombs were detonated ever day, that would be one bomb per 375 km² every day of the year. The area of Hiroshima is 350 km².
Hansen’s claim means the equivalent of almost one nuclear bomb every day over every piece of land on Earth. Over the last ten years, the heat of more than 3,000 nuclear bombs has steadily accumulated inside your city.
Even Trenberth can’t find the missing heat, but Hansen has located it. Inside the padded walls of his office.
Did he mean land or surface area? Or did he mean for the entire atmosphere?
It doesn’t matter. His claim was completely nutters. Trenberth can’t find the missing heat because it doesn’t exist.
I don’t think your rebuttal quite works because I think Hansen’s point was that he is talking about watts per square metre extra energy. If that is evenly spread out over the surface of the entire plant (and atmosphere) that is not the same as having that same energy suddenly released in a nanosecond in an area that is, say, 2×2 metres.
A better way to look at it perhaps (lifted from WUWT as calculated by bvdeenen):
Hiroshima was ca. 63 TJ = 6E13J. The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2. The suns TSI is ca 1kW = 1E3 J/s, so the earth gets ca 1E17 J/s on the sunlit side, so the sun explodes about 1E17/6E13 = 1E3 Hiroshima atomic bombs on this planet. EVERY SECOND.
Or in other words, the total energy received from the sun when evenly spread out is equivalent to one thousand Hiroshima bombs every second. So an extra 400,000 atomic bombs per DAY would be so *relatively tiny* that out best instruments would have considerable trouble even detecting the difference to any reasonable level of accuracy.
It’s all about context…
No ……
Hansen is talking about *accumulated heat* i.e. 3,000 nuclear bombs of additional accumulated heat per decade per 300 km^2. Everything would be melted.
Hansen is not talking about transient energy flux, he is talking about the increase in energy. His claim is ludicrous beyond comprehension and indicates a mathematically dysfunctional brain.
That was not the point I was making… obviously if the Earth was gaining that energy we would be able to find it over time but it’s not accumulating in the atmosphere (to that degree), and it’s not in the upper ocean. If it’s moved to the deep ocean then it’s been sequestered for basically forever so who cares? Or we can apply Occam’s Razor and conclude Hansen is wrong.
The (Manchester) Guardian wrote a piece in the 1970s about Los Alamos, where they said that Los Alamos was the location of the first atomic test.
A woman I know wrote back – “I have lived in Los Alamos for decades and don’t recall any nuclear bombs going off here. I probably would have noticed”
Brand spanking new study by Levitus showing 0-2000 meter depth warming from 1955-2010 was .09 degC, far less than modelled estimates. The missing heat is now CONFIRMED to be missing. Hansen is in denial.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml
Is the missing heat coming from Hansen’s mouth or his rear end? In his case, does it matter?