Walmart and Bikinis Cause Global Warming

[engineerdude]

Walmart and Bikinis Cause Global Warming

I have uncovered some disturbing information.

Background

I live in Toledo, Ohio, USA. Counting the suburbs, we have about a million people in our area. This past March, a Walmart superstore opened near my house. That’s when the trouble began. Look at this chart:



I bought my first thermometer this past March, and I recorded the temperature daily from March through August. Based on the data I have recorded and shown in the chart above, the temperature in Toledo is clearly exploding out of control.

How could this be happening you ask? The answer, believe it or not, is Walmart and good-looking women in skimpy bathing suits.

Based on historical records, it has been shown that the number of attractive women wearing bikinis and the overall daily temperature is closely related. Look at the chart below:



As you can see from above, the number of attractive women observed in bikinis is closely related to the daily temperature.

The Problem

Now for the bad part. When the Walmart came to our town, they started selling surplus green bikinis very cheaply. Probably due to this reduced cost, the number of women observed wearing bikinis has exploded. We have historically averaged around 275 women wearing bikinis out of our million-person population. The average number of observed bikinis has exploded to over 380 women out of our million people! This is reflected in the chart below:


Walmart started selling their cheap green bikinis in March 2008, and the extra hundred women wearing bikinis out of our total population of a million is almost certainly due to this.

The Green-Bikini effect

OK, so how can a hundred extra women wearing bikinis out of a population of a million people affect temperature at all?

The answer is, The Green-Bikini effect.

It goes like this: A cute girl buys a cheap green bikini from Walmart that she could not otherwise afford. When she puts it on, men notice, and the men begin to get warm and sweat. This attracts other women, who put on their bikinis for the attention, and this attracts more men who get steamy, and so on. It eventually cascades out of control.

Here’s an illustration:



There are critics of this theory. The manager of my local Walmart called me an idiot. I am ignoring his words, since the “Green-Bikini” theory proves Walmart is bad, and thus anything anyone from Walmart says has to be a lie.

The IPGBW

I formed an independent panel to investigate this “Green-Bikini Effect”, and that panel has in fact produced these charts and report. The panel is named the Internal Panel on Green Bikini Warming (IPGBW). The panel is made up of me, my next door neighbor Tom, and my brother-in-law James. The three of us know what attractive women can do to a guy, and since everyone on the IPGBW agrees, we are declaring a consensus. Since most people we know believe our theory, it must be true.

All we have to do is stop Walmart from selling those darn cheap green bikinis! Think of how that one little sacrifice could possibly avoid a huge catastrophe. Even if you disagree with me, can you afford to take the risk of inaction, with the stakes so high? And besides, since no one has another theory that clearly disproves the Green-Bikini Effect, this must be at least roughly correct.

We are now getting money from the local city government, and all this makes us feel important. Now, it is true that if our findings ever showed that the Green-Bikini effect isn’t real, Tom would have to go back to work in a machine shop, and James, well, he’d have to go back to being unemployed. Despite that, the IPGBW will continue working selflessly to inform the public of the dangers of cheap Walmart swimwear.


Epilogue

Well, I fashioned this article to as closely mirror contemporary Global Warming Theory as possible. For instance, there have historically been around 250 parts CO2 out of million in our air – I had 250 women out of a million people, and so on.

Think my analogy between sweaty men and CO2 is out of line? Consider this:
Each person produces body heat. If that person produces more body heat than normal, our planet will heat up, at least a tiny amount. If you had enough sweaty guys, the temperature change could be measurable. And that is the basis for the current argument about how CO2 in our air affects planetary temperature.

By the way, all the charts are taken from Wikipedia’s article on Global Warming, with some modifications to the captions.

I have made a logical, if implausible argument here. The same can be said for the relation between CO2 and global temperature. Fortunately, people have been forming arguments for a long, long time, and this sort of thing has been formalized. There are rules that can prove an argument as untrue if broken. Here is a list of rules that my above article, and current pop-global warming theory, violate. Look them up.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Fallacy: Appeal to Belief
Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion
Fallacy: Appeal to Fear
Fallacy: Bandwagon
Fallacy: Begging the Question
Fallacy: Biased Sample
Fallacy: Burden of Proof
Fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect
Fallacy: Gambler's Fallacy
Fallacy: Hasty Generalization
Fallacy: Ignoring a Common Cause
Fallacy: Post Hoc
Fallacy: Questionable Cause

[Flying Binghi]

Now thats funny........and a little sad - how true it is.

[Erasmus00]

You need to try and model your effect using known laws. Using the known empirical law of "bikins are uncomfortable in cold weather," we could construct a mathematical model that would make the prediction that temperature drives bikini rates. This hypothesis could be studied by putting women in bikinis with overcoats in temperature controlled rooms and adjusting the heat. This data would allow us to further improve the "bikinis are uncomfortable in cold weather" model which would further refine our model and further refine the causal relationship. After quantifying the "bikinis are uncomfortable in cold weather" law, we could even predict the new number of green bikinis per month based on the temperature.

To move to global warming, using the known property of CO2 (i.e. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation) we can make a model. This model would predict that CO2 drives temperature. We could refine our hypothesis by putting CO2 in controlled environments and measuring its properties. Its more complicated then your bikini model (CO2 also drives temperature a bit, so care must be taken), but these models have been made, and they make predictions.

In short: your analogy is flawed. It presents the data, but completely ignores the science (the why) behind everything. The mechanism at work is well understood!

[Pyrotex]

Your article is quite entertaining and amusing.
But it's not REAL science.
If you include the effects of quantum boob jiggling (QBJ) caused by the electrotitical interaction between rayon thread of a specific green color (553.7 nanometer) and the average spring constant per cubic centimeter of the female breast, it might be REAL science.
I dunno for sure -- it's a hard call.
Perhaps if you also included time lapse photography (video) of actual boob jiggling, to better calculate the QBJ, it is more likely to be REAL science.
It just occurred to me that the QBJ effect is rather small. To get accurate enough data, you better show video of actual boob jiggling with AND without the green bikini top. Do the measurements and take the difference. Yeah. THAT would be REAL science.
Oh, and get a couple of your guy friends and hook electronic thermometers to their armpits.
REAL science all the way.
Best of luck.
Post those videos as soon as you can!
Pyro

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

You need to try and model your effect using known laws. Using the known empirical law of "bikins are uncomfortable in cold weather," we could construct a mathematical model that would make the prediction that temperature drives bikini rates. This hypothesis could be studied by putting women in bikinis with overcoats in temperature controlled rooms and adjusting the heat. This data would allow us to further improve the "bikinis are uncomfortable in cold weather" model which would further refine our model and further refine the causal relationship. After quantifying the "bikinis are uncomfortable in cold weather" law, we could even predict the new number of green bikinis per month based on the temperature.

To move to global warming, using the known property of CO2 (i.e. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation) we can make a model. This model would predict that CO2 drives temperature. We could refine our hypothesis by putting CO2 in controlled environments and measuring its properties. Its more complicated then your bikini model (CO2 also drives temperature a bit, so care must be taken), but these models have been made, and they make predictions.

In short: your analogy is flawed. It presents the data, but completely ignores the science (the why) behind everything. The mechanism at work is well understood!

Well, consider these parallels:
========
CO2 is historically known to follow temperature - temperature goes up, then a few hundred years later CO2 rises. Temperature goes down, then CO2 goes down. (link to back this up below)

Bikinis are also known to follow temperature - temperature goes up, then bikinis go up. Temperature goes down, then bikinis go down. The time frame is shorter but the relationship is the same as that between CO2 and temps.
========
CO2 absorbs infrared, which acts to warm the planet. This could be a measurable effect, or the effect could be so tiny as to be insignificant

Men producing more body heat also warms the planet. Any time you put additional heat into a system, the temperature will rise. This could be a measurable effect, or the effect could be so tiny as to be insignificant
========
Models can be created to show that our tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 affects global temperatures. The models are back-checked to fit selected historic records. This does not necessarily give the models any predictive value.

I made a model in my post that shows how a tiny number of women wearing bikinis heats up my hometown. The model was back-checked to fit my selected historic records. This does not necessarily give the model any predictive value.
========
Link regarding how CO2 follows temperature:
Paleo Pubs - Icecores, Antarctica, Vostok CO2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Models can be created to show that our tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 affects global temperatures. The models are back-checked to fit selected historic records. This does not necessarily give the models any predictive value.

One can select data to fit a model, but analyses such as that coordinated by organizations such as the WMO and NASA GISS are reviewed to detect and reject these and other intentional and unintentional methodological errors. Further, much of their primary datasets are publicly available for analysis by anybody. I’m unaware of any statistically valid analysis supporting the claim of a widespread sampling bias among climatolgists in general.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

I made a model in my post that shows how a tiny number of women wearing bikinis heats up my hometown. The model was back-checked to fit my selected historic records. This does not necessarily give the model any predictive value.

By you own admission, ED, easily verified by visiting the referenced webpage, you have not done this, but rather relabeled the graphics from the wikipedia article “global warming” and other sources. Your data is not actually from thermometer measurements recorded personally by you, doesn’t agree with public sources such as the NASA GISS station data for Toledo/Expres, or, I’m fairly certain, contain any actual data about bikinis from Wal-Mart, or women wearing them.

In short, you’ve written a bit of humorous satirical fiction, admitted to it, then, oddly, claimed that it’s not fictional. I fail to see how this serves to do anything but confuse serious discussion about climatology.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by CraigD

One can select data to fit a model, but analyses such as that coordinated by organizations such as the WMO and NASA GISS are reviewed to detect and reject these and other intentional and unintentional methodological errors. Further, much of their primary datasets are publicly available for analysis by anybody. I’m unaware of any statistically valid analysis supporting the claim of a widespread sampling bias among climatolgists in general. By you own admission, ED, easily verified by visiting the referenced webpage, you have not done this, but rather relabeled the graphics from the wikipedia article “global warming” and other sources. Your data is not actually from thermometer measurements recorded personally by you, doesn’t agree with public sources such as the NASA GISS station data for Toledo/Expres, or, I’m fairly certain, contain any actual data about bikinis from Wal-Mart, or women wearing them.

In short, you’ve written a bit of humorous satirical fiction, admitted to it, then, oddly, claimed that it’s not fictional. I fail to see how this serves to do anything but confuse serious discussion about climatology.

I attempted to make a silly argument that was logically thought out that would also mirror current thinking on AGW. My goal was to illustrate the absurdity and flaws in logic that surround current pop-global warming theory.

[Moontanman]

What i want to know is this, If we all go naked and run Walmart of of business by not buying clothes will the temps come down? Can we test this hypothesis? Soon? Can I observe the test? And i thought science was boring!

[Tormod]

I think the original post is quite funny. Back when I worked at the Norwegian Space Centre I had a colleague who could basically use any statistic to support the global warming theories (for example the amount of Republicans in Congress vs the solar cycles).

But the basic premise is of course that this is flawed science, and simply buying the global warming theories on face value is a tough buy for a lot of people. One thing is accepting that a star is 4 light years away (who can imagine what sort of distance that is, anyway?), quite another is to expect people to understand the complexity of the interaction between the atmosphere and the planet's biosphere. When quack science i used at all ends of the table it doesn't help anyone.

[Flying Binghi]

When quack science i used at all ends of the table it doesn't help anyone.

An interesting observation Tormod