Comments on: Odd theories for or about Global Warming!

By: Zbigniew Jaworowski: Challenge for Boris. | The Blackboard

Zbigniew Jaworowski: Challenge for Boris. | The Blackboard — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:17:18 +0000

[...] decreeing Zbnignew Jankiwhorski is a nutter. (This technique has been known to work when rebutting Tom Chalko’s theory about global warming causing the earth to explode. However, doesn’t always [...]

By: michael

michael — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:59:17 +0000

I have a thought about globle warming . It go’s someting like this. Just suppose for a moment that the earth as we know it was created by God and was perfect in the sense that it had a built in cooling system to protect it from the suns heat .and the cooling system worked in harmony between convection and internal cooling . now suppose that trees and other plants on the surface of the earth that have roots are a heat sinking system for convection and that oil in its raw form was part of a internal cooling system that kept the suns microwaves from boiling the earths core in possibly the same way that adding antifreez to the water of an automobile engine helps with cooling. Now consider for a moment what would happen if both the convection and internal cooling systems were tampered with and trees and other plants that have roots were removed from the earth with no concern for the affects on the invironment and the oil was extracted from the earth possibly reducing the efficiency of the cooling system. Now combine layering the earth with heat absorbing materials such as asphalt and a atmosphere with increased abilty to hold heat on the earth from the emmision of toxic cemicals from factories and from the exaust of automobiles and combining the lack of green plants to filter and restore oxygen and youve got a system so out of balance it cant do the job any longer .these are just the thoughts and opinions from a fool and a high school dropout who can barely manage his own life much less save the world. trust in Jesus and be saved .

By: sinking bear

sinking bear — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:25:24 +0000

ya i have this theory y the ice caps are melting over 6 billion humans farting out methane o and what about the cows farting and all the assfault roads parking lots the 800 million car and truck engins that heat up and dont forget about those 500-million chines sterfry cook fires ya dont forget about the cockroaches theres more cockroaches on earth farting out methane than anny other time in the history of this planet theres alot of small things that get over looked but they all add up to one stinking mess in the future

By: avfuktare vind

avfuktare vind — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:54:05 +0000

I did an attempt at calculating earths angular momentum with regard to changes in winds, ocean sea level and ice volume. Sea levels does not appear to be significant on any short time period (as elevations of 0,5 metres would be necessary), but winds do seem important on time scales less than a decade. An intriguing fact is that long term bias (a century) is missing. I.e. earths rotation has not decreased while sea levels have presumably been raised some 200 mm.

By: Plains Feeder

Plains Feeder — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:09:33 +0000

Everything bad is caused by Global Warming….

According to the AP and published by CBS, earthquakes are five times worse than they were 20 years ago because of Global Warming….

By: Global Warming Will Cause Earth to Explode! CBS Reports | The Blackboard

Global Warming Will Cause Earth to Explode! CBS Reports | The Blackboard — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:55:58 +0000

[...] Lucia, could they mean AVERAGE GLOBAL… Odd theories for or … [...]

By: KuhnKat

KuhnKat — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:37:28 +0000

AGW heats the oceans expanding them. This moves more mass away from the axis of rotation slowing the spin (mass that moves outward picks up speed, gaining momentum, that must be balanced by the rest of the mass losing momentum). I seem to remember reading that it has been measured.

Can’t help with the wind, but, if it is opposite to the ocean expansion…

By: henry

henry — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:32:31 +0000

Re #3440 (lucia)

Trapping and eating local rabbits, eh?

Watch out, I’ve heard that some (such as EliRabbitt) have displayed symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease…

By: lucia

lucia — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:54:45 +0000

Duane– it’s the same guy. Tom Chalco.

But I don’t think the AP ever picked up the story. Still… it’s an amuzing theory.

By: Duane Johnson

Duane Johnson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:48:31 +0000

For crackpot theories of global warming, go over to Climate Audit and read about the nut who says earth quakes are caused by global warming!

By: SezaGeoff

SezaGeoff — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:48:30 +0000

Boris (3436) Good theory, but I don't think Mosher is Kosher! lifeboat

By: lucia

lucia — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:56:43 +0000

Boris–
Steve lives much to far from me. If we are cannibals by 2040, I won’t be able to drive to California for my roasts. So, I’ll have to content myself with trapping local rabbits. We seem to have an explosion ever since my favorite cat “The E-Rabbit-a-tor” passed away.

By: Boris

Boris — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:44:58 +0000

Clearly they are both stupid and the best theory is the one that says we will all be cannibals by 2040, at which time I will consume steven mosher unless he has a gammy leg.

By: lucia

lucia — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:47:52 +0000

Andrew–
I’ve read Lambert’s blog. I agree with you on the intemperate language and behavior. But… if I find something somewhere, I do give hat tips.

On the “crackpot” side, I think the denialist and warmer sides seem about equally balanced. On the earth rotating: I think there is one peer paper that says AGW will make the world rotate faster and one that says it will rotate slower. Both use the figure skater analogy (thus proving the flexibility of analogies.) The reason for the opposite predictions is one paper speculates water seas rise, water will move doing something to the moment of inertia, and cause the rotation to change. The other speculates the winds will either speed up (or slow down) and so the solid part of the earth will have to change rate of rotation to compensate.

I can’t remember which one speculated which thing though!

I’ll try to find these.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:35 +0000

Lambert is one of those people who used to comment on CA who, when I look back at his comments, makes my blood boil. He is most proud of having identified a sloppy but not significant (as far as the conclusions were concerned) mistake in a paper authored by McKitrick and Michaels. After he identified the error, many scientists ignored their work on the basis of the claim that the errors had effected the results adversely-which they had not:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit.....itrick.pdf

Anyway, he has more than once accused Steve M of “wearing a tinfoil hat”. He delights in suggesting those who question climate alarm are crackpots. Hateful idealogue is not strong enough, but is the most intemperate language I feel comfortable using. I wouldn’t spend to much time talking to extremists like him.

That said, I have to say that this is all exactly the kind of garbage that makes me question the sanity of advocates. I personally love the theory that AGW will stop the Earth from rotating (or something wacky like that).

By: Avfuktare för vind

Avfuktare för vind — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:28:01 +0000

My favorite wacko theory is that climate is dominated by strong positive feedback processes (this is described as a 3 degree celsius response to a doubbling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere), and yet that climate has been remarkably steady state for the last thousand years with variations in the range +/- 0.2 degrees (this is known as the “hockey stick” featured in reports from the UNs governmental antropogenic climate change assessment panel, IPCC). Anyone that has studied positive feedback systems knows that it is extremely implausible for such a system to display a steady state, left alone a steady state for a thousand years.

Moreover coupled to this theory is a penchant for unsound economic policy: instead of a sound system for discouraging use of fossile fuel (which I personnaly find agreeable on other reasons) based on e.g. a flat CO2 tax or an auctioned system for permittances, this particular wacko sect in Europe has opted for a system of freely distributed permittances, thus rewarding dirty old industries while putting an extra burdon on cleaner new ones. As to make matters worse and to display the power of corrupt politicians and lobbying, there is an additional system for offsets, by which Europeans pay Chinese companies to become more dirty at first, so that they can collect offset compensations later.

In my mind this must be the second most odd thing in climate science and policy. The oddest of them all, though, is that this has not been rejected out of hand by the democracies in Europe, but has become an unchallengable premise for policy. We live in peculiar times…

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:09:22 +0000

I have a theory that high gas prices are causing higher gas prices. It's been estimated that driving is down 4.3%. Fuel consumption is only down about .66%. Lucia, would you be able to tell if the decline in fuel consumption is even significant? The relevant data is here. (Excel spreadsheet, Data 1 sheet, column S, U.S. Finished Motor Gasoline Product Supplied (Thousand Barrels)) Another possible positive feedback identified.

By: terry

terry — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:16 +0000

I reject both as odd and go with the one I heard on Art Bell late one night years ago. The magnetic poles will switch polarity and cause the earth’s crust to shift and the planet to warm drastically, and we’ll all drown in a great flood.

Art Bell is always a good time.

By: lucia

lucia — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:10:32 +0000

Fred– The iceage page is pretty funny. I particularly like the fact the table has all sorts of links to cherry picked facts, and then mixed in we get:

“Lose Weight with Hypnosis
See my web page at
http://www.BobFelix.com ”

Julian– Right now, everyone in Iowa and parts of Wisconsin needs your flood climbing plants. But your theory of GW can’t compete with these two. It doesn’t involve Sputnik or the earth exploding.

Stan– I bet the exploding planet theory is based on no data at all!

By: stan

stan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:37:39 +0000

I vote for whichever theory is supported by standard climate science practice. Which one is based on studies where no one has ever checked the data or the statistical work? Which one is based on wild ass guesses? Which one is based on studies where the authors can’t find their data? That would be the one that gets my vote. It’s important to support quality scientific work.