Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on ""Climate Change is a Myth" -- A Nobel Prize Winner's Embarrassing Ideas" video.

@tassiedevil2200 Assuming a skater is spinning on frictionless ice and brings her arms in, her rotational energy does increase. Her angular momentum is constant, but angular momentum is not the same thing as rotational energy. When she brings her arms in, she is doing work, and that's where the energy comes from (ultimately, from the chemical energy stored in her muscles). If she relaxes, her arms will be moved out, and she will slow down, losing energy. Mechanical energy is definitely not conserved in this case.
2
@MCWaffles2003-1 Even ignoring the fact that the earth would have to actually warm up for this to happen, as you pointed out, he still has it the wrong way around anyway. If sea levels rise, then the second moment of inertia (I) increases. Assuming angular momentum (L = Iω) is conserved (i.e. that the average angular momentum of solar radiation hitting the earth is negligible compared to the energy it supplies the ocean), then the rate of rotation (ω) must slow down in inverse proportion. But rotational energy is E = Iω², so if I increases by the same factor by which ω decreases, E must decrease too, by that same factor. So the earth would lose rotational energy due to sea level rise, not gain it. So it certainly cannot be the energy sink John Clauser proposed. That said, the earth would gain gravitational energy. Maybe that will be Clauser's next proposal.
1
@thealienrobotanthropologist Sunlight hits a full hemisphere of the earth. It hits the advancing side just as strongly as the retreating side. How could that possibly produce more torque on one side than the other? It's completely symmetrical. Even asymmetries present in the earth don't matter because it is spinning, so any asymmetry that produces a torque one direction at one moment will produce the opposite torque 12 hours later. Apart from that, think about the magnitude of the forces we are talking about. The radiation pressure on the earth is about 10⁻⁶ N/m² when the sun is directly overhead. The earth has a cross-sectional area of about 10¹⁴ m² That means the total force sunlight exerts on the earth is around 10⁸ N, around a tenth of the weight of one cargo ship. No matter where you exert that force, it's not going to do much to a planet with a mass of 10²⁵ kg. You don't need any details or even a high school physics question. And of course, there's the more basic fact that the earth's rotation has in fact not increased, which should really be the end of that.
1
@d0n77 Ice expands in the winter and shrinks in the summer. If these balance, then the average amount of ice remains constant. If not, then it doesn't. Why should ice cover shrink at all if the climate isn't getting warmer?
1
@liam3284 I had a post estimating it, but it got auto-deleted, maybe because it had too much math (youtube hates math). But my conclusion was that the total force exerted by solar radiation was like 10^8 N, or the weight of a small container ship, spread evenly over an entire hemisphere.
1