Global warming is a scam.

Author: Greyparrot ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 81
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    According to the EPA, the USA and EU contribute 15% and 9% respectively to global CO2 emissions.


    Just like alarmists are not actually serious about the Global Warming scam because they won't even discuss Nuclear power, likewise, they won't express an ounce of concern for 75% of global polluters.

    Thunberg NEVER uses the word China, or India....ever.


    And yet there are some super brainwashed people out there in America that think our measly 15% actually is going to "save the planet" should we destroy all CO2 in America.   
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,350
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    Or put another way, the US and EU are the second and third largest global contributors with a proven capacity for responding and adapting to crisis.  China contributes more greenhouse gas but China is a dictatorship and dictators don't listen.  We can't get China to stop slaughtering rhinos for boner pills that don't work.  We can't get China to stop eating bats and pangolins even when it shuts down their economy for a month.  The IPCC recommends a global reduction of greenhouse gases by 40-70% before 2050 to prevent a (catastrophic) > 2 degree increase by 2100.  24% of total contribution could represent as much as 60% of the required change.

    Let's also remember that China and India create those gases while manufacturing US and EU goods.  Apple and Nike and hundreds of other US corporations have far more influence over Chinese politics than the UN or international pressure might.  The IPCC is focusing its influence on the levers that move the rocks because the rocks are heavy.

    ******

    Let's note that GP has failed to identify the "they" that won't discuss nuclear power or global polluters or offer any evidence of straw man "they."

    Let's note that GP's conclusion does not follow the premise or the evidence presented.

    GP's argues:

    • Some group of people is only responsible for one quarter of the problem, therefore the problem does not exist (scam).
    but also

    • Some people concerned about the problem are inefficient at problem solving, therefore the problem does not exist (scam).
    In effect, GP gives two arguments that the problem is difficult to solve and obtusely concludes that the problem is therefore not. 
    [INSERT PICTURE of OSTRICH with HEAD BURIED UNDER THE SAND HERE]

    *****

    Let's note that GP's only source, the EPA quite clearly states that climate change is real and recommends correction.  The site GP directs us to uses IPCC5 (2014) as the source for its data (including GP's percentages) which is the primary source of all climate change warnings and recommendations.

    Two weeks ago Antarctica broke its all time high temp record @64.9F degrees.  This week that record jumped another 5 degrees to 69.3.  You don't have to be a scientist to apply knowledge about how long ice lasts in 70 degree weather.  The observable trend called global climate change is real, well-tested, well-documented and quite palpable to any earthling paying attention.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Right.

    Our 15% still isn't worth a tick on a tit when it comes to global environmental engineering.

    Americacentrism and Eurocentrism are still unjustifiably strong zeitgeists in academia.


    The conversation about climate change is overwhelmingly dominated by Chinese, Indian, and African apologists as clearly evidenced by the response above.

    In fact, the UN seems to be just fine with calculating a predicted 35-40% contribution of global CO2 from China as emission rates inexorably rise in China while falling in America and the EU. It's as though there is nothing we can do about it (because the truth that we really can't isn't something the public wants to hear from politicians)

    Instead, it's the same old garbage from the same people with the usual suspects. That climate change is an existential threat, and only Americans have the power to do anything about it. Neither of which is true.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Greyparrot
    I hear you GP. It isn't about saving anything except keeping them in power.

    From Over Population To Climate Change.

    Dang! I should have put that thread here.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    You don't have to be a scientist to apply knowledge about how long ice lasts in 70 degree weather.  

    Actually you do. You don't just eyeball values of solar joules and latent heat of ice. Anyone who lives in the north will tell you it can take quite a while for a mound of snowplowed ice to melt depending on how much ice there is in the mound, even in 70-degree weather.


    And then there’s the ice. We are supposedly melting the ice; the literature is filled with papers making this claim. These papers invariably whine about human activity warming the planet, but they never seem to get around to discussing how much energy is actually required, or how it gets to the ice. But do humans really generate enough energy to melt significant amounts of ice?

    How much energy is needed to melt 1.32X10^6 Km3 of ice?

    It takes 333.55X10^3 J to melt 1 kg of ice.

    Doing the math, we see it takes 3.07X10^17 J to melt a cubic km of ice. This is our basic unit of heat energy for melting any large amount of ice in Antarctica, or anywhere else.

    We have determined how much ice is involved in an 11-foot ocean rise: a volume of 1.32X10^6 Km3. To melt it, the ice must receive 1.32X10^6 Km3 X 3.07X10^17 J, or 4.05X10^23 J. This is true regardless of what process gets the heat to Antarctica. A steady melt would require 2.03X10^22 J per year to melt it in 20 years, or 8.1X10^21 J per year to melt it in 50 years.
    We can argue until the cows come home about how that much heat can reach the glaciers. But for our nontechnical friends, it’s interesting to compare the energy requirement with how much energy humans produce. In other words, if humans set out to deliberately melt the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers in the Antarctic, could they even do it?

    Well, let us see!

    According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2016 the world produced 84.412479 quadrillion (84.412479X10^15) BTU. That converts to 8.906X10^19 J, consisting of fossil fuel (the largest component), nuclear, and renewable. And if we used all of the world’s energy to do nothing but melt the ice, we could not do it in 20 years, or even in 50 years. We could do it in about 4,500 years.

    That kind of heat to melt that much ice in 20 years would also require a significant increase in solar joules, one that would cause temperatures to rise far above 70 degrees F.



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ethang5
    Also, the science is hardly conclusive that there is a definitive runaway melting of land ice in the Antarctic. The changes in sea level annually are in fractions of millimeters, yet alarmists would have us believe human life will cease to exist within a few years.

  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,932
    3
    5
    9
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    Bro are you secretly Andrew Yang with all that math???

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    I learned a bit about thermodynamics at Naval Nuclear Propulsion School a LONG time ago.

    The real point I was trying to make was that an application of the amount of energy needed to melt the Antarctic Ice Sheets in 20 years applied on every area of land across the globe, not JUST the Antarctic, would cause insanely far more complications for life than a simple 11-foot rise in sea levels.

    Imagine living inside of a running microwave. That is what the alarmists are suggesting with a 20-year elimination of Antarctic land ice, but want us to focus on sea levels instead of seared flesh...

    Literally a WTF moment for a physicist using basic thermal equations.

     

  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 920
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @Greyparrot
    Humans are not applying energy to directly melt the ice in the context of climate change. That analysis does not make sense in the context of climate change. It only makes sense in the context of dishonestly throwing numbers at people ignorant of the mechanics of climate change and misleading them.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @dustryder
    Thanks for your predictable kneejerk contribution.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 920
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @Greyparrot
    You're most welcome!
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    Let's look at another source of heat the average person can fathom.

    The Tsar Bomba was the largest test detonation of a thermonuclear device yielding 2.09 × 10^18 joules of energy.
    Assuming we could somehow channel ALL that energy into the ice sheets, and knowing a steady melt would require 2.03X10^22 J per year to melt it in 20 years (this is additional energy added to the energy already applied currently from the sun)   

    This would require 194260 Tsar Bomba detonations across the Antarctic ice sheets over 20 years.

    9713 Tsar Bomba detonations per year, or alternatively,

    27 Tsar Bomba detonations per day for 20 years. 

    At that point, we should see a steady rise per year in sea levels of not a mere fraction of a millimeter, but 6.6 inches rise in sea level every year for 20 years.

    If that amount of thermal energy was distributed evenly across the globe over 20 years, Sea levels would be the absolute LAST thing you would be worried about.

    And yet, we are supposed to take alarmists seriously?

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Greyparrot
    that would be racist you far-right russian bot fascist!!!
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    with china and inida having a massive population, the percentage of co2 emissions that corrects with their population is low, but it's quickly rising and emissions will continue.

    I believe that global warming estimates are exaggerated to promote leftist and liberal ideas, but i dont want a bunch of shit in the air either

    there are better solutions

  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,932
    3
    5
    9
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    I love how US emission rates went down this year but Trump’s a climate denier 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    Do you think any of the dire predictions from alarmists might have credibility?
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,932
    3
    5
    9
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    Do you think any of the dire predictions from alarmists might have credibility?

    Nope. It’s all natural.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5


    and


  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,932
    3
    5
    9
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    I personally think technology will evolve (it has been evolving) to account for this climate change whether it’s true or not. Remember Thomas Malthus? We won’t have enough food? His prediction would’ve been right but it proved false because of the human mind and innovation.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    Well yeah, of course. Humans have a creative way of taking garbage and making something useful out of it. Most of civil engineering consists of the construction of buildings to combat the adverse effects of climate. People can make buildings way faster than nature can change, barring an asteroid impact or volcanic burst. There will always be ways for humans to creatively produce food regardless of how many ecosystems fail.

    There is a famous quote from the movie Jurassic Park. 


    "Life finds a way."

    As proven through multiple extinction-level events from asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, and magnetic shifts,  all of which are beyond any dire prediction from "climate change"...and yet we know from fossils that life found a way.


    70,000 years ago, humans survived an extinction-level event with zero technology. I am totally not worried today.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,350
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Greyparrot
    thx, GP.
    \
    --> @oromagi
    Right.

    Our 15% still isn't worth a tick on a tit when it comes to global environmental engineering.
    disagree.  It is worth at least 15% and considering America's out-sized influence in global commerce and politics, probably much more than 15%

    Americacentrism and Eurocentrism are still unjustifiably strong zeitgeists in academia.
    Nationalism and ethnocentrism are commonplace biases. I'd disagree that American schools are more nationally biased or particularly jingoistic compared to other American public or commercial institutions- baseball, for example, or cattle ranching.

    GP complains about academic bias and immediately follows with an opinion piece from a JP Morgan Oil Trader who became an energy advisor after he and his boys crashed the market in 2008.  Simon Lack's entire career depends on increasing global fossil fuel dependency.  One can't help but notice that his solution to climate change is for China to switch from coal power plants to gas.  Lack's main point is not that China burns fossil fuels unchecked but that China doesn't buy those fossil fuels from Lack's clients.  Why are you citing this?

    The conversation about climate change is overwhelmingly dominated by Chinese, Indian, and African apologists as clearly evidenced by the response above.
    Just to be clear, these are 'Americacentric' Chinese apologists GP is worried about?  Aren't these two characteristics rather contradictory?  Also, where in Lack's opinion piece does he talk about Chinese apologists?  How are you connecting Lack's piece?

    In fact, the UN seems to be just fine with calculating a predicted 35-40% contribution of global CO2 from China as emission rates inexorably rise in China while falling in America and the EU.
    Well, the IPCC does the calculating but as far as this reader can tell, the UN is quite concerned with China's contribution to greenhouse gases.
    GP needs to offer evidence that the UN is "just fine" with China's pollution or retract the statement as false.

    It's as though there is nothing we can do about it (because the truth that we really can't isn't something the public wants to hear from politicians)
    Instead, it's the same old garbage from the same people with the usual suspects. That climate change is an existential threat, and
    only Americans have the power to do anything about it. Neither of which is true.
    Ultimately, I suspect this is GP's true thesis: there's nothing we can do about it (and so, let's maintain the status quo).   "Your eyelids are getting heavier, heavier .....sleep....sleep.....sleep."  This strikes me as a particularly un-American sentiment.  Whatever the critiques American exceptionalism, we've never been to sort to look at a problem and say, 'there's nothing we can do about that."  

    The global economy is not an American possession but it is an American artifact. More than any nation, our little 4.2% of the world's population imagined, invented, designed, and engineered the modern world's economy.  Americans filled the world with Coca-Cola bottles and Big Macs and cars and planes and plastic wrappers and televisions and refrigerators and nukes and advertising and phones and computers. China's post-industrial industrial revolution is modeled on America.  The Rise of China is also, to an important extent, the Americanization of China - the blending of American commerce with Chinese culture. I suppose the half-empties of the world look at American influence and decry America's fault in the world's warming but American's have never been all that interested in regrets or blame.  The American spirit is a half-full world view.  We, the first nation to be able to destroy the world and the first nation to refrain; we, who fly our flags first  on the Moon and Mars; we, the architects of the modern global economy; we, who warmed the world can choose to cool it and those who say we can't can take a seat and watch.

    Dropped arguments:

    • 24% of total contribution could represent as much as 60% of the required change.
    • US commercial interests have more influence in China than any other international lever
    • Who is the "they" that won't discuss nuclear power or China?
    • That some group of people is only responsible for one quarter of the problem does not serve as proof that the problem does not exist
    • That some people concerned about the problem are inefficient at problem solving does not  serve as proof that the problem does not exist.
    • Both of GP's sources clearly state that climate change is real.   If GP does not trust his sources regarding climate change, why is he citing them as evidence?



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
    Who is the "they" that won't discuss nuclear power or China?

    You, and Greta.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @oromagi
     If GP does not trust his sources regarding climate change...

    I don't trust alarmists. Especially political alarmists.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    US commercial interests have more influence in China than any other international lever.

    The USA has zero methods to prevent China from becoming a 40% global emitter of CO2 by 2030.
    The UN has zero methods.
    Greta has zero methods.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,787
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    24% of the total contribution could represent as much as 60% of the required change.

    You don't understand basic math. As the USA lowers emission rates and China, India, and Africa increases emission rates, the net effect is a global rise in emission rates because China, India, and Africa are increasing CO2 emission rates much faster than the USA can possibly hope to lower their rates.

    2030 UN estimations put CO2 emission rates at higher than 2020 even if the 15% global contribution from the USA were to drop to zero magically.

    The American-centric view that ONLY America can change the climate is a narrative spun uniquely by politicians and virtue puppets and by no actual scientists.

    Politicians in America and the EU clearly do not personally believe a single alarmist theory or they would have already declared war on China, India, and Africa to protect their own interests in "saving the planet" before 2030 inexorably rolls around.