Safe Mode: On
Global Warming Calculation: How much can we increase the Ocean's Temperature.

An interesting calculation has been made regarding Global Warming. The question arises how much influence do people have on the Global Temperature.

SpecificallyIf every persons alive put 1 Hiroshima Sized Bomb into the Pacific Ocean, how much would it increase the temperature of this ocean?

What is your guess?
1 degree? 10 degrees? 100 degrees? More?

Here are the calculations:

Number of people alive on Earth
7 Billion

Pacific Ocean Size:
7.0902*10^20 KG

Energy from 1 Hiroshima sized bomb
63 * 10^12 Joules

Joules needs to raise 1 KG of water 1 degree of temperature C
4186 joules

Resulting Temperature increase
.0148c
only about 1/7 of a degree
(and that's just the Pacific Ocean, the world wide increase would be much smaller)

An interesting calculation showing how difficult it is for man to increase the world's temperature.

done by a PHD Professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.


Added: Apr-16-2012 Occurred On: Apr-16-2012
By: robertbrownell
In:
Science and Technology
Tags: Global Warming, Weather, Temperature, kyoto accords, green house
Location: Beijing, Beijing, China (load item map)
Views: 1419 | Comments: 119 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 2 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Just another nail in the coffin for those climate change retards.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (4) | Report

  • These green fucktards have no idea. Thankyou science, for proving that tree fuckers don't have a damn clue.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

  • Nice work. Stay tuned for videos showing the impossibility of evolution & the WW2 Holocaust.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Now do one about the tooth fairy.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • On the other hand, I think the temperature would drop significantly, because of the following cosmic winter. Just a guess.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • I think we can find smart people to advocate for either side till the cows come home. Who is pushing the whole global (insert name that might stick)warming agenda and why? Is it reseachers who just want more money so they can study it? Is it opportunist who want to make a fortune (Algore).

    What is the end game?

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • PS he's not talking about literally setting off nukes, he's just making energy comparisons FFS. It's like trying to have a reasoned discussion with a whelk round here sometimes.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • So we're being told a pack of lies then?

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • the concept is if each person alive were to release the energy equal to 1 hiroshima sized bomb into the pacific ocean. not actually detonate them. this just shows you the amount of energy required to affect the oceans temperature. the relative change in oceanic temperature due to man made global climate change is actually an extremely small fraction, probably not measurable. my question to those who push the theory of man made global climate change is: if the world should begin to cool and enter More..

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @danmoc13 I can't say for sure that the problem is entirely man made, but the billions of tons of CO2 we put into the atmosphere certainly isn't helping matters. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry and earth science can prove the connection between temperature and CO2. But to answer your question, if the earth was cooling and it was feared we were entering a new ice age, I would most definitely advocate increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, but not necessarily through the burning o More..

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Those Chinese professors are rearry rearry smarrrrr.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • This is not an indictment of climate change theory, it's mathematical proof that rising atmospheric CO2 levels can have a greater impact than 7 billion atomic bombs. We don't need 7 billion atomic bombs to do it. It's happening already. You can debate what's causing it, but you can't deny its happening.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @picklethepug Of course it's happening. Hell, we're coming out of an interglacial. The question is how much is from man and is it catastrophic. It's also interesting that for the last 14 years global temps have been flat and even more interesting for the last 15 months a significant decline.

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @flashj2 It's basic knowledge that atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary temperature control fulcrum on planet earth. We release billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year that was previously sequestered in the earth's crust. Common sense makes the connection. But it's interesting that you provide links to NOAA, because they are one of the leading supporters of the human induced climate change theory. They obviously have access to additional data that conflicts with your blanket d More..

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @picklethepug LOL, CO2 is not the driver or control of temperature on this planet. What the hell you been smoking. CO2 lags temperature. If that was the case, why has temps leveled off and even decreased while CO2 has been increasing? Here is another link.

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png

      And here for CO2

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @flashj2 WTF? That link shows a steady upward climb from 1850 on! The tiny dip there at the end does not disprove a damn thing!

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @picklethepug WTF, yep it shows about a 0.75C rise and the last 14 or so years flat.. Here is another link.. Oh, I liked that blanket denial quip, what exactly am I denying?

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • lol. a picture of non peer-reviewed calculation disproves global warming? it's no wonder why man made climate change deniers are teaming up with creationists.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @kiddkidd not to mentioned it is from an anonymous source in china. lol

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @kiddkidd Are you disputing the maths?

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @flashj2 are you saying one peer-reveiew paper from an anonymous source in china disproves global warming. lol. why isn't it peer-reviewed? oh yeah, it's because expert climatolgists are faking millions points of data, thousands of scientific papers, in dozens of different scientific fields and cross-matching them so they all tell a story that is 180 degrees opposed to reality and then making sure no one blabs about it. lol at you crazy conspiracy theorists.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @kiddkidd I'm saying that this really has nothing to do with climate change or CAGW. Your million points of data and model only evidence that doesn't fit with real world observations is the problem with your religion. Just seems the Earth is not playing along.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @flashj2 lol. not playing along. that is why 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000. the other record year was 1998. lol. quick run and get angelc to defend yourself cuz you are getting your ass kicked here,

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • A better question would be, How do we raise the oceans temp purposely?

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • The PHD professor is named Kihwan Kim (Beijing) kimkihwan@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn

    His calculation does not disprove global warming, but it does show the enormous amount of energy it takes even to get the smallest level of warming.

    For a peer review, any math student can double check that these calculations are accurate. It's very simple math.

    Posted Oct-21-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'BOGGUN' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • I see this "proof" makes absolutely no comparisons with the amount of energy hitting the pacific ocean from the sun every minute? Typical denial logic, make one tangential observation and present it as the entire result. Hint - man doesn't warm the ocean, the sun does.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @irit8d - man also does not warm the atmoshere.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @danmoc13

      Correct. He doesn't. Nobody is claiming man is warming actually creating any of the heat. Man is setting into place atmospheric conditions which reduce the amount of heat radiated back into space. It's a thicker blanket. While it's fair to argue to degree to which this will affect temperatures outright denial of any affects is absurd.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @irit8d That's right baby, the sun and only the sun has influence on earth's temperature.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • So if we follow the prevailing wisdom we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are right-wing Republicans in China....lol

    Well, 1 anyway.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I watched a documentary a couple weeks ago and a well known English scientist was saying that man made global warming through the release of CO2 is real. The difficulty however is in measuring its actual impact. For instance, he said that the earth has been warming gradually for centuries. It can't all be explained by anthropological means. He further said that while increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures, it's not infinite. In other words, at some point the warmin More..

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I don't buy this. For starters, you would have an ever-decreasing amount of liquid water due to instantaneous evaporation, and the assumption of the theory is a steady state of liquid water.

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (-1) | Report

    • @joe prole - it's a representation of the energy required to increase the oceans temp.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @danmoc13

      Okay, another fallacy of that theory, closer to your point, is that the ocean is not as homogenous as a glass of water. There are very distinct and sharp layers of different temp, density, and salinity gradients. So again the theory treats the whole as the same, and it isn't.

      Bottom line: it's a bad 'representation'

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @joe prole You're an idiot. You don't need those details to get what he's saying. It's not about heating the water with the energy as described, it's just an example of presenting scale.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @4_EpicFail

      You say it's about scale, he says it's only a representation. Well, the whole exercise is about man's influence on the environment, using the oceans as an example.

      What I've been attempting to illustrate is that man may have a greater effect than we can see, and he may not. We just don't understand the science well enough yet.

      Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • 'An interesting calculation showing how difficult it is for man to increase the world's temperature.'

    Did someone drop you on your head during infancy?

    Posted Apr-16-2012 By 

    (-2) | Report