Earth's temperature rise equals four Hiroshima atomic bombs: Climate scientist | Deccan Chronicle
Sunday, Apr 20, 2014 | Last Update : 01:01 PM IST
Fajar: 5.08 am 
Zohar: 12.13 pm 
Asar: 4.16 pm 
Maghrib: 5.59 pm  
Isha: 7.07 pm


You are here

Earth's temperature rise equals four Hiroshima atomic bombs: Climate scientist

PTI | 23rd Jun 2013
The rapid thinning of Greenland's glaciers is troubling evidence of global climate change - AP/File photo
The rapid thinning of Greenland's glaciers is troubling evidence of global climate change - AP/File photo

Melbourne: Earth has been building up temperatures at a rate equal to heat generated by four Hiroshima nuclear bombs every second, a climate scientist has warned.

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

"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," said Cook.

Cook said about 90 per cent of global warming was going into the oceans, which act like a natural thermometer along with changes in land, ice, and animal species, AAP reported. He warned that distributions of trees are shifting towards cooler areas of Earth such as the poles or mountains, and animal species are responding to global warming by mating earlier in the year.

"This is not because animals are getting randier, it is because the seasons themselves are shifting," Cook said.

Cook said studies have tried to put a number on how much of global warming is caused by humans, 'and the rough answer is, all of it'. He said forlast 20 years, 97 per cent of scientists have been in agreement that human activity is is behind warmer temperatures. 


Smog pollutes Singapore, Malaysia after fire in Indonesia: In Pictures

Related articles


bg's picture
by bg (not verified) on
Why not compare the amount of energy with some natural energy sources such as volcanic eruptions, or extra days of sunshine? By picking a man-made benchmark you reinforce the idea that global warming is caused by man. There are solar cycles, fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field and other phenomena that may explain climate change. After all, without industrialized man there have been significant climate changes before and during recorded history. Your bias is subtle, but evident.
Jeremy's picture
by Jeremy (not verified) on
Using this kind of nutter rhetoric isn't going to help climate change. Tone down the antics and stick to the science. Freaking loons. *shakes head*
science man's picture
by science man (not verified) on
Another global warming idiot giving out bogus information.
lol science man?'s picture
by lol science man? (not verified) on
yea what total idiot to think humans are at all resposible. Come on......all that haze is natural and would be there regardless of human activity...just like all the greenhouse gases... and increased temps...and deforestation....and increased severe weather......and arctic ice melt....etc....all these things are just part of a cycle the earth is in and have nothing to do with human activity. Whats bogus is that there are still people like you.
Tim's picture
by Tim (not verified) on
Could not agree more. The height of foolishness.
Fred the Science dude's picture
by Fred the Scienc... (not verified) on
Whew! You sure told him! Way too back up the argument too, just plain brilliant!
Dave Thomas's picture
by Dave Thomas (not verified) on
There hasn't been any warming for 15 years yet output of greenhouse gases increased globally with the massive emissions of China and India swamping the microscopic reductions in Europe and North America. Who does John Cook have any credibility with given the empirical, scientific evidence completely contradicts his thesis?
Honest Person's picture
by Honest Person (not verified) on
You are a liar and an idiot.
dragos111's picture
by dragos111 (not verified) on
What a crock. The eco-wackos are coming out in force now. They are trying to make headlines ahead of Obama's push for higher taxes and fees "to save the planet".
justgroovy's picture
by justgroovy (not verified) on
Another know-nothing professor whose livelihood is probably tied to the global warming hysteria. He obviously has some vested economic interest in promoting bad science. The UN's IPCC states that the temperature increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius. That amount is well with in the range of normal historical variance. When will news outlets quit publishing quotes from bad sources like this Aussie?
Keith Henson's picture
by Keith Henson (not verified) on
A Ray of Hope? There has been a lot of attention on the CO2 rising over 400 ppm recently. Some are advocating political action to halt the rise. That's not likely to happen because uprooting the world's energy economy would do more damage (kill more people faster) than the climate changes expected due to the high CO2 levels. However, something might have changed in the last couple of months. Solar power satellites are the only energy source known that scales to humanity's needs and well beyond. To get them adopted on a huge scale, all that's needed is for the cost of energy from them to undercut fossil fuels, first coal for electric power and then synthetic oil. The first happens at 5 cents declining to 2 cents per kWh. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels would cost a dollar a gallon if the cost of power went down to 1 cent per kWh. It's not hard to get the cost for 5kg/kW power sats down in this range if the cost of lifting parts to GEO can be reduced to $100/kg. Solar power on earth ties up in the range of 500 kg/kW(avg). If you can build them in space, they are not subject to wind and gravity, allowing a hundred to one materials reduction. However, $100/kg is a hundred to one reduction over the current cost of around $10,000 per kg paid to put communication satellites in orbit. A two-orders-of-magnitude reduction seems to be possible, but not using chemical energy (other than the first step where a Skylon type vehicle burns hydrogen with air for about 1/4 of the velocity to orbit). Beyond that it takes a 3 GW laser located in GEO to accelerate the last 6 km/s to orbit using a simple sheet of tubes to heat hydrogen to 2700 K. That gives an exhaust velocity of 7500 m/s. A second stage also uses laser-heated hydrogen to transport 20 tons three times per hour to GEO. The second stages are scrapped at GEO for material, making the entire dry weight payload. The problem is powering the first laser in GEO. Last year I worked out how to do it in a paper that was recently approved after peer review. It took an elaborate multi-step bootstrap process that built a 25,000 tons power satellite in GEO to power the first propulsion laser. The cost came in just short of $140 B. Early April this year it became obsolete because Steve Nixon (otherwise known for advocating Mega-Chimney) made a suggestion that cut the cost model by $80 B. At $60 B (and 500% ROI in ten years), it may be within the capacity of western finance. If not the Chinese asked the Indians to join them in building power satellites last Nov. (Google China India power satellite to find it.) Steve's idea was inspired; power the propulsion laser for a few months from a huge (10 km) transmitter on the ground. Reciprocity (look it up) says that the path loss will be the same if you swap the transmitter and receiver antennas. The target in space would be a 1 km rectenna, with a mass under 1000 tons. Further, the laser, tracking optics and heat sink can all be built and tested in LEO, much cheaper to access, then the propulsion laser can be sent to GEO using electric thrusters powered from the same rectenna that powers the laser. Takes 21 hours of thrust to get it there; powered ten percent of the time, it could make the trip in 10 days. Then use it for 3 months or less to bring up a first power satellite to replace the power from the ground. The 3 GW laser is scaled to bring up 500,000 tons per year, enough for 100 GW of power satellites. While that's not enough to get humanity off coal, it is a good start and (if the financial models are correct) it makes a 500% ROI by the end of ten years, selling power satellites for 5 cents per kWh declining over ten years to 2 cents per kWh. Re-investing 10% of transport capacity to bring up more lasers doubles production every year and that _will_ get humanity off fossil fuels. (The energy payback time is under two months.) A vast amount of detail has accumulated over the last year and a half. If you are the sort who would volunteer to comb through and nitpick spreadsheets and the assumptions that went into them, the project could use you,


Write a comment
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.