While Matt Ridley makes mincemeat of über alarmist Joe Romm’s latest ridiculous claims, I started doing a search for stories to do a “year in review” for such things. I just found this, though it is six years old. It came out before I started WUWT, so that’s why I missed it.
It’s weapons-grade stupid, and fanatically FUBAR. It’s also hysterically funny.
From the Eco-Enquirer (h/t to Skeptical Scientist on FB):
University of Michigan scientists have claimed that global warming causes an increased risk of asteroids striking the Earth, due to expansion of the atmosphere outward into space making the Earth a bigger “target”.
“Some large meteoroids have skimmed the outer reaches of Earth’s atmosphere, skipping off back into outer space”, said Professor Charles Boyle, chairman of U. of M.’s Near-Earth Asteroid Team (NEAT). “As the atmosphere warms, it expands outward, potentially capturing large asteroids that would have otherwise been a near-miss. It seems that the dangers from global warming just keep mounting up…like the national debt.”
The source story: http://www.ecoenquirer.com/global-warming-asteroid.htm
Obviously, it is a spoof story, because they’ve changed NEAT from what it actually is. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/neat.html There’s no Charles Boyle on the NEAT program (a spoof name of the Boyles and Charles gas laws). And, the Eco-Enquirer has this disclaimer.
Besides being a ridiculous story on face value (though with just enough science to be a plausible claim), there’s only one teeny tiny little problem with the claim.
From WUWT on August 26th, 2010:
Results of a study published today link a recent, temporary shrinking of a high atmospheric layer with a sharp drop in the sun’s ultraviolet radiation levels.
The research, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU), indicates that the sun’s magnetic cycle, which produces differing numbers of sunspots over an approximately 11-year cycle, may vary more than previously thought.
That, and there’s no tropospheric hot spot (which would also expand the atmosphere) as expected from warming, from:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
It is not well known that even the IPCC agrees that the direct effects of CO2 will only increase world temperatures by 1.2°C. All of the projections above that (3.3°C , 6°C etc) come from model projections based on assumptions of what water vapor and clouds will do (these are the feedback effects of the original 1.2°C).[i] Are the feedbacks correct?
If the IPCC models are right about the feedbacks, we would see a hot spot 10km above the tropics. The theory is that with more heat, more water will evaporate and rise, keeping relative humidity constant at all heights in the troposphere. The point has been conclusively tested with 28 million weather balloons since 1959.[ii]
As for the ridiculous claim about CO2 and asteroid strikes, I thought surely there’s no parallel to this, no peer, no possible equal in the realm of silly-stupid claims about global warming (spoof or not).
Then, I saw this paper which is oh-too-real:
No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?
Dr Tom J. Chalko 1 , MSc, PhD
Submitted on 8 April 2001, revised 30 October 2004. Published in NU Journal of Discovery ISSN 1444 1454 Publisher: Natural University
Abstract: The heat generated inside our planet is predominantly of radionic (nuclear) origin. Hence, Earth in its entirety can be considered a slow nuclear reactor with its solid ”inner core” providing a major contribution to the total energy output. Since radionic heat is generated in the entire volume and cooling can only occur at the surface, the highest temperature inside Earth occurs at the center of the inner core. Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.Paper here: http://nujournal.net/core.pdf
God help us all, the stupid, it burns.
Here’s a link to one of my favorites:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htm
The ionosphere was found to be hundreds of kilometers lower than expected.
But of course. I just wonder how much heating are these chaps talking about?
Ancient Turtle Migrated From Asia To America Over Tropical Arctic
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201094125.htm
If I recall rightly the ice cores show that co2 follows temperature rise.
They all read like sarcasm to me especially Chalko, seems like a direct slam to the Mann.
Roger Knights, what a wonderful list.
But you didn’t say whether the 0.006C per year was up or down.
No matter – that list of stuff will just keep on happening whichever way it goes.
100% correlation guaranteed.
Happy Christmas all.
“Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.’
So we are doomed. We were told (by someone who surely must know) that the centre of the Earth is already several million degrees, so it wouldn’t take much more to make it explode.
The Universe Song, Eric Idle, music & lyrics
Global warming causes more sex!
Global Warming also increases the risk of a hostile alien invasion.
The expanded atmosphere of the earth makes it easier to detect our planet with extraterrestrial telescopes for certain (non-gravitational) detection methods.
George B says: “Ok. About 3 billion years ago, Earth had 8x more U235 than it has today, the core was also hotter than today. It didn’t explode.”
The ‘B’ stands for buzzkill, right?
I’m getting a headache. I’m going to go lie down…
No question David Viner wrapped up first place in the igNobel Prize sweepstakes very early on.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Usually when confronted with new information/perspective, my mind likes to take it to extremes to see how it might work in an out-in-left-field sort of way. One stupid idea I haven’t seen discussed regarding CO2, is that it is well known to be heavier than most of the atmospheric gases. With the critical rise in CO2 we are obviously increasing the gravitational pull of the earth, and therefore, voila, attracting more asteroids…
“Some large meteoroids have skimmed the outer reaches of Earth’s atmosphere, skipping off back into outer space”, said Professor Charles Boyle, chairman of U. of M.’s Near-Earth Asteroid Team (NEAT).
=============
Really ?
Care to list them ?
The skippers, I mean.
This one was always my favorite:
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/ancient-hurricane.htm
I thought the EcoEnquirer was Roy Spencer’s site, of UAH. Are you sure you haven’t been taken? Try “whois” on it.
apps to go:
21 Dec: San Jose Mercury News: Peter Carey: An apps-eye view of global warming and climate change
Drought in the Midwest; forest fires in the Southwest; blizzards and hurricanes on the East Coast; rising ocean levels on both coasts.
If you’re wondering what to make of the crazy weather of the past few years, maybe it’s time to check out some of the iPhone and Android apps you can use to study climate change and global warming…
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22239744?source=inthenews
Given that AR5 is still in preparation I’ll be surprised if we don’t see both of these papers included in the final report. Pachauri will no doubt defend their accuracy with the same passion (abuse) as he defended the Himalaya fraud.
“rising ocean levels on both coasts”
They can’t even get the number of beaches right.
I’m pretty sure there are 3 coasts? Left, right & gulf.
And where is the sea rising? I wants to go seez it.
Here in Oregon we’ve been told parts of the coast have already been lost to AGW sea rise.
But they never give out the address.
Other lunacy runs rampant.
http://occri.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/chapter6ocar.pdf
“There is near certainty that the rate of sealevel rise will increase in the future as a result of global warming, with the potential of greater than a 1.0 meter increase in sea level by 2100.”
About 2 minutes into this stupid video they claim coastal wet lands will be lost to sea rise.
http://www.keeporegoncool.org/content/oregons-climate
Now think about that. How can a slow increase in sea level at the coast result in less coastal wetlands?
Wouldn’t the opposite happen.
You want to hurt yourself? Stroll though Oregon Global warming pages.
http://www.oregon.gov/energy/GBLWRM/Pages/portal.aspx
Second thought do NOT do that.
You got punked, I think. A quick google turns up no such dude.
RE: University of Michigan scientists have claimed that global warming causes an increased risk of asteroids striking the Earth, due to expansion of the atmosphere outward into space making the Earth a bigger “target”.
Considering the shear volume and size of our solar system, it’s like saying that if you climb to the top of a mountain, you get a closer view of the stars!!! ;-))
gases as fluids have freely moving molecules so it can’t form a structure like green house and they are helping the earth to cool down by convection methods of heat transmission, GHE or global warming due to any gas is ridiculous. click on my name for details.
gases as fluids have freely moving molecules so they can’t form a green house or any structure instead they are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission. thus GHE or global warming due to gases is ridiculous. click on my name for details.
This is a great thread to introduce my “Skyscrapers cause Global Warming” theory.
Bear with me here, there might be some science lurking in this theory.
Skyscrapers capture light that would otherwise skip right through the atmosphere during early morning sun rise and late afternoon/evening sun set. Also, in high latitudes during late autumn / early winter the sun is low on the horizon which skyscrapers also have an opportunity to catch sun rays that might have otherwise skipped through the atmosphere. This sunlight is converted into heat when it is intercepted by the tall buildings.
Correlation with observations: Warmer at night and warmer in winter is what the observations of global warming show. This seems to have some correlation with my theory. The late evening sunset sunlight being captured by the skyscrapers and heat sinking the energy for dissipation during the night, as well as the winter low horizon sun being caught and converted into heat. There is also the correlation with the growth of high rises and temperature (except perhaps with the last decade or so). How many skyscrapers are there now any way?
If this theory is a good idea, be sure to reference my name. If not… well never mind.
An avid belief in Santa Claus is far more logical than the fantasies these people have come up with over the years. Far more.
D Böehm says:
‘Global warming causes more sex!”
Wow, I’m off to buy a coal mine 😉
(I hope that is plus increase and not a percentage increase) ! 🙁
Actually, it’s all true, although it’s nothing to do with the Earth’s “asteroid capture area”. Asteroids, like mosquitos, can detect your CO2, and your smelly feet, from a surprising distance, and will fly all night if necessary to reach you. All we can do to avert a rocky demise is wash our feet, stop breathing and hope.
/straight face