#### Science Forum

1. 06 Feb '14 23:08
Oceanic heat uptake in 2013 measured at more than 12 Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs
worth of energy per second over 2013.
Rising from the 4 bombs per second long term average.

http://skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/06/2013-second-hottest-year-without-el-nino

So much for the supposed 'pause' in global warming.
2.  sonhouse
Fast and Curious
07 Feb '14 00:39 / 2 edits
Oceanic heat uptake in 2013 measured at more than 12 Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs
worth of energy per second over 2013.
Rising from the 4 bombs per second long term average.

http://skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-ce ...[text shortened]... /2013-second-hottest-year-without-el-nino

So much for the supposed 'pause' in global warming.
That sounds like a self limiting expression of heat. We know, for instance, the sun did not all of a sudden put out 3X the energy it has always given us, 1355 odd watts per square meter on top of the atmosphere, that hasn't all of a sudden gone to 5000 W/M^2. So the heat is from some kind of heat battery and will run itself out, seems to me anyway.

What does it work out to in Joules what a Hiroshima bomb produced? And for how many seconds? When you say 10,000 tons of TNT equivalent, what is that in terms of watt hours or Joules?

My guess is the TOTAL amount of energy given by the sun 24/7 is a LOT more than 12 A bombs per second.

Just as a rough estimate, suppose we call the Earth 10,000 Km^2. 1E7 Km^2. That would be roughly the surface area that can take energy from the sun. So lets round off the 1355 to 1000 w/M^2. I imagine this estimate would be a bit low but close enough for government work, ehðŸ™‚ So that would be 1E7 Km^2 *1E6 meters^2 * 1000 sounds like about 1E16 Joules/second. What's that, about 10,000 Terawatts heating up the oceans and atmosphere and sand and rocks and trees and such?

Einstein said 1 Kg of matter contains the energy of a 100 watt light bulb that would last 30,000,000 years.

So the inverse, 30 megawatts for 100 years or 300 MW for 10 years or 3000 MW for 1 year.

Now fission is what, 1/10th of a percent of that in terms of efficiency compared to total conversion, anti matter/matter reaction?

Something like that. So 1 Kg of fissionable material could do us 3 megawatts for a year. Not sure how much actual fissionable stuff there was in the hiroshima bombs but it must have been only a few kg.

Now that bomb used up all that energy in say, 1 second. So that would have been 33 million seconds times 3 megawatt/year would = about 100 Terawatt/seconds, it looks like, roughly speaking.

So 12 of those suckers would be something like 1200 terawatt/seconds.

I don't know. That seems to put the energy involved at something like one tenth the entire output of the sun to what hits the Earth.

But it CAN'T add up to 3 times the sun's total output.

Not sure WHAT that means.
3. 07 Feb '14 01:18
Originally posted by sonhouse
That sounds like a self limiting expression of heat. We know, for instance, the sun did not all of a sudden put out 3X the energy it has always given us, 1355 odd watts per square meter on top of the atmosphere, that hasn't all of a sudden gone to 5000 W/M^2. So the heat is from some kind of heat battery and will run itself out, seems to me anyway.

What ...[text shortened]... he Earth.

But it CAN'T add up to 3 times the sun's total output.

Not sure WHAT that means.
It means you're doing weird maths ðŸ˜‰

And I'll have a proper look when I'm not falling asleep.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.1140.pdf

Our units for Earth's energy imbalance (planetary heat storage) are W/m2 averaged over
Earth's entire surface (~ 5.1E14 m2). Note that 1 watt-year for the full surface of Earth is
approximately 1.61E22 J (joules).
4. 07 Feb '14 08:30 / 2 edits
This is about how to debunk myths (including those about the climate change debate ) in the minds of laypeople by using psychology;

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-truth-debunk-myth.html

-but, if only everyone was totally rational, absolutely none of the above psychological strategies would be necessary.
I suppose for now I can only dream of that.
5. 07 Feb '14 11:37 / 2 edits
here is another myth that needs to be removed from the common consciousness of laypeople; the long debunked myth that power lines cause leukemia:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-02-power-lines-dont-leukaemia-children.html

this myth was never based on real science and it just will not die despite countless scientific studies like this one that show that there is no evidence for it. So I guess this latest scientific study simply will not make the myth go away.
Perhaps it is time to employ the psychological strategies like the ones mentioned in http://phys.org/news/2014-02-truth-debunk-myth.html to convince the irrational and scientifically ignorant that this is just a myth? If you cannot reason with people rationally, reason with them using psychological trickery.
6.  menace71
Can't win a game of
09 Feb '14 01:14
Antimatter is cool ðŸ˜‰

Manny
7.  sonhouse
Fast and Curious
09 Feb '14 01:29
Originally posted by humy
here is another myth that needs to be removed from the common consciousness of laypeople; the long debunked myth that power lines cause leukemia:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-02-power-lines-dont-leukaemia-children.html

this myth was never based on real science and it just will not die despite countless scientific studies like this one that show that ...[text shortened]... yth? If you cannot reason with people rationally, reason with them using psychological trickery.
The funny part there is, if power lines caused leukemia, why wouldn't the power lines in the house do it? Since you are much closer to to the power, a lower voltage over a long time could do the same.