Oceans warming at the rate as if 5 Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second | Hacker News Reader

Oceans warming at the rate as if 5 Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second

edition.cnn.com

33 pointsrahuldottech29 comments

I know the intended purpose of this sentence is that it shocks, but I'm not sure I'm in a position to evaluate "5 Hiroshima bombs" any more clearly than if it were presented as a metric (joules in this case) I seldom use. Would it be wrong to call it click-baity? "2019 - Yet Another Year of Record-Setting Ocean Warming" would be equally alarming to me, but I'd also understand what it means.

Neither the hiroshima bombs nor the joules would be match telling for me. Calories might give me a small idea for non salted water at best. I'm not used to this scale and magnitude.

In this era it is important that messages with political intent not be presented as one argument, but be presented in every way possible. In regards to climate change specifically; we need the articles with reasonable headlines, we need the articles with headlines dripping in hyperbole, we need the headlines saying it’s catastrophic, we need the headlines saying it’s sensible and the right calm choice to make these changes now. Everyone’s participation is needed to deal with this threat, and so every possible approach and argument can be deployed in the effort without diminishing any other.

> Everyone’s participation is needed to deal with this threat, and so every possible approach and argument can be deployed in the effort without diminishing any other.

Well, unless some of the people notice the messages intended for the other people.

"It's important to tell everyone exactly the lies that will make them do what I want" is a really uncompelling pitch.

Can you clarify why you mention the word "Lie" ?

I wonder how many people regularly consume news outside of their filter bubble.

It’s not what I want, but what we all need. The nice aspect of climate change is that it obliterates our tired notions of self-interest

It also exposes the self-interest of those who oppose reasonable action to a) discover whats going on and b) do something about it.

Somehow it seems unlikely that what we all need is a total collapse of journalistic integrity. The smart answer to hyperbole and alarmism is distrust, if you advocate a dishonest approach then people are right to doubt your cause.

The planet has naturally fluctuated in temperatures throughout its entire existence the rocks show us this. there's been several Extinction events due to temperature fluctuations even if humans are increasing the temperature it was going to happen without us anyways.

yes, but we have accelerated the pace to a degree that risks being too rapid for us to adjust to without devastating suffering.

Every HN submission from a real news source (newspaper, CNN, whatever) will always have at least one commenter complaining about the link title being click-baity, as if they've never before seen or heard of what is known as a "headline."

It's getting tiresome.

To be fair, the HN guidelines [1] allow/require that clickbaity titles be de-baited, regardless of the source.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Earth receives 1.73E+17 watts from the sun, an equivalent of 25000 Hiroshima bombs dropped every second.

That's so helpful! How many bombs are then reflected away? We can then evaluate global warming relatively against the difference.

Zettajoules. I think this is the first time I've seen the Zetta prefix used seriously.

What's the energy / pollution released by a supertanker or container ship during one shipping? Might be close to one Hiroshima bomb

Given an engine running at 50,000kW (roughly cruising power for a post-Panamax vessel) for a week (a very rough “average” shipping), you’d be looking at ~3x10^13 J. The Hiroshima bomb was 6.3x10^13 J. So, an average shipping is about half a Bomb in direct heat - add in the emissions from burning the diesel/bunker oil, and their warming effect, and you’re probably at a full Bomb per shipping.

I did a very quick and dirty back of the envelope guesstimate independently and came up with a vessel producing about 1/6th of a bomb a day. So around about the same as yours.

With 1.83 billion metric tons shipped annually (2017), and assuming all ships are loaded full with 120'000 metric tons (post-Panamax limit), there are around 15'000 such shipments yearly. Which begs the question, why isn't the impact higher?

Is someone trying to exhaust a ZFS storage pool?

"Humour is allowed". A rule followed at your own risk, it seems

Eyeballing the graph, oceans have been warming at the same linear rate for 30 years, since 1990.

But are they being detonated? /s

Does Nagasaki not matter? It rarely seems to matter these days as it's almost never mentioned.

That's your comment after reading this? Pretty weird.

Who was second man on the Moon? Who was second on Mount Everest?

Aldrin gets mentioned in the same breath as Armstrong often enough I bet quite a few people could pull that one out. You'd lose a bunch with "who's the guy who stayed in orbit?" and almost everyone with "name any Apollo 12 astronaut" or even the more-generous "name any Apollo astronaut who at least reached Lunar orbit and wasn't on 11 or 13". Most of the people who get that second one would probably just luckily guess Alan Shepard without actually knowing for sure he was on an Apollo mission, just the first famous space-program-guy who came to mind who wasn't Armstrong or Aldrin (and in fact the Apollo part of the career is not why they know his name).

In the UK, areas are often presented in terms of football pitches, volumes in terms of Olympic swimming pools.

That does not mean that rugby or waterpolo do not matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com