Global warming is a scam.

Author: Greyparrot

Posts

Total: 81
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @oromagi
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.


Jeez, GP.   I am surprised to learn that you (and your source at WUWT) remain entirely ignorant of the central precept of global warming claims. 

No scientists anywhere are claiming that that the energy humans produce is warming the world as the your straw man claims above.  Scientists are worried about the energy produced by the Sun.  GP ignores the heat energy of the Sun which radiates the Earth with an average of 430 quintillion joules of power every hour.

So that's 43X10^19 J per hour  (43x8760 = 375,680X10^19 per year) compared to GP's claim that humans generate 8.9X10^19 J per year 

OR

The Sun provides Earth roughly 41,853 times as much energy annually as humans do.

OR

37.57X10^23 J per year is about 9 1/4 times the amount of energy GP argues is required for an 11 ft. rise is sea levels.  If GP's figures are correct (I haven't checked) what mankind couldn't do in 4500 years, the Sun's rays on Earth could accomplish in just 40 days (if the Earth weren't radiating most of the at heat back into space).

In fact, Wikipedia claims:

"The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,"
Obviously, the trick is to keep Earth's energy budget in balance. 

"In spite of the enormous transfers of energy into and from the Earth, it maintains a relatively constant temperature because, as a whole, there is little net gain or loss: Earth emits via atmospheric and terrestrial radiation (shifted to longer electromagnetic wavelengths) to space about the same amount of energy as it receives via insolation (all forms of electromagnetic radiation).

To quantify Earth's heat budget or heat balance, let the insolation received at the top of the atmosphere be 100 units (100 units = about 1,360 watts per square meter facing the sun), as shown in the accompanying illustration. Called the albedo of Earth, around 35 units are reflected back to space: 27 from the top of clouds, 2 from snow and ice-covered areas, and 6 by other parts of the atmosphere. The 65 remaining units are absorbed: 14 within the atmosphere and 51 by the Earth’s surface. These 51 units are radiated to space in the form of terrestrial radiation: 17 directly radiated to space and 34 absorbed by the atmosphere (19 through latent heat of condensation, 9 via convection and turbulence, and 6 directly absorbed). The 48 units absorbed by the atmosphere (34 units from terrestrial radiation and 14 from insolation) are finally radiated back to space. These 65 units (17 from the ground and 48 from the atmosphere) balance the 65 units absorbed from the sun in order to maintain zero net gain of energy by the Earth."
Increased greenhouse gases increase the atmosphere's capacity for absorption which means it takes longer for the Earth to radiate heat back to space which translates into increased surface temperatures (mostly absorbed by the oceans). 

GP has badly misunderstood the source  and nature of the heat driving climate change, which explains his erroneous conclusions.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
You fall into the same trap as all hysteria junkies.

Falsely correlating legal and illegal immigration.

Falsely correlating climate change and climate alarmism.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
GP has badly misunderstood the source and nature of the heat driving climate change, which explains his erroneous conclusions.

Oromagi has decided to conveniently ignore the amount of thermal heat needed to completely melt the Antarctic ice sheets to satisfy the prediction of climate ALARMISTS - namely the prediction that the sheets will melt in 20 years. The amount of thermal heat the sun would need to apply to do that in the very very short span of 20 years, (a politically expedient prediction as it is long enough timespan to keep pushing the narrative and short enough to scare the ignorant masses into hysteria) would most certainly roast the entire planet which did not have kilometers deep ice sheets. KFC extra crispy.

Oromagi is an alarmist apologist and probably brainwashed to trust political authority, not science and thermodynamic equations.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
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.


GP is citing Jay Zwally's 2015 research presenting data that the average height of glaciers in Antarctica is increasing.  Zwally used satellite mounted lasers to measure the heights but controversially used local water level measurements to calibrate sea level.  No direct observation was used to confirm that sea level so the accuracy of Zwally's findings are unconfirmed.  Forbes sums up the consensus opinion regarding this study:


"Since 2015 scientists have had a chance to look over the data and have had time to do a few follow-up studies and the results are clear.
It is agreed among scientists studying the situation that the Eastern area is gaining a lot of ice due to thousands of years of continued snowfall. However, measuring the size of that gain can be difficult at best. The major issues with Zwally’s study are that it used altimeter data from satellites, which is subject to systematic errors such as snowpack penetration and telling the difference between snow that is on the ground and snow that is still falling. Also, in order to calibrate their measurements, Zwally’s team bounced lasers of the Southern Ocean which may not have been reliable.'

'In a study published in 2017 scientists were able to combine information from satellite altimetry, gravimetry, and GPS to measure the ice balance in East Antarctica from 2003-2013 When looking at this data they were unable to confirm Zwally’s findings. This study concluded that gains in East Antarctica are smaller than losses in West Antarctica. In fact, the gains in East Antarctica were about a third of what Zwally’s study believed them to be.'

"We can clearly see that when these numbers are put together the continent is losing a lot of ice every year. Furthermore, the rate of loss is getting worse as time goes by."
Further, since GP has presented Zwally as an expert on climate change, GP should listen to Zwally's caution to climate change deniers:

"Zwally's... team agrees with the broader scientific community on the main issue: Antarctica is melting due to rising temperatures.

'Zwally said he hoped his study wouldn't detract from other research highlighting the scope and dangers of climate change.

"When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about," he told Scientific American.

He also seemed aware some people would weaponize the study for political purposes.

"I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he said. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming."
If GP accepts Zwally as an expert opinion, then GP should retract the claim that climate change is a scam.

If GP does not accept Zwally as an expert opinion, then GP should retract this citation.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Oro also looks at large numbers without context or any sort of mathematical understanding. According to his source.

"Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!"

(math does not require exclamation points unless it is to prove a point to the hysterical crowd.)

Oro's number is 4.3 x 10^20 joules per hour from the Sun.

The ice must receive 1.32X10^6 Km3 X 3.07X10^17 J, or 4.05X10^23 J just to overcome the latent heat of fusion and completely melt the kilometers thick ice sheets in the Antarctic.

Let's assume we could focus all the suns rays just on the Antarctic ice sheets with zero reflection back into space. (everyone else will have to freeze to death while Oro gets his wet alarmist dream prediction of course) let's assume the ice magically can be sustained at 32 degrees Fahrenheit without any help from the sun, which is a necessary condition before removing latent heat of fusion in ice. (every scientist knows you can't raise the temperature of ice past that in STP conditions before melting it of course)

In Oro's perfect hysterical world, it would still take 942 hours to completely melt the Antarctic ice caps or about 40 days.

But we know that the Antarctic landmass only gets about 2% of the sun's rays, we also know that not all of the thermal heat from the sun gets absorbed, we know that the Sun loses a lot of its thermal power penetrating the atmosphere, we know a significant portion of that solar energy is used to maintain the temperature of the ice near 32 degrees Fahrenheit instead of near absolute zero( −459.67°F), we know that half the time of the day the Earth is facing away from the sun at any given point, not accounting for seasonal axis tilt. 

So Oro's perfect hysterical world would never exist thankfully. 

The application of that many thermal joules concentrated on such a relatively small landmass area in that relatively short amount of time would be more catastrophic for all life on Earth than any historical meteor strike or supervolcanic eruption science has ever studied in Earth's past.

But go on believing the political alarmists with clear agendas that claim with absolute certainty that the kilometers thick Antarctic ices sheets not only CAN melt in 20 years (an astronomical mathematical absurdity) but that it most certainly WILL melt. Not in 19, nor 21 years, but a nice cool-sounding, focus group tested number like 20.

There are worse drugs to get your amygdala high fix I suppose.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
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...

<i><br></i>


In fact,

"At Earth’s average distance from the Sun (about 150 million kilometers), the average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter, according to measurements made by the most recent NASA satellite missions.... A microwave uses about 1000 watts."
The surface area of the Earth is more than 510 billion square meters and the surface area of the atmosphere would be far greater than that.  Even so, we presently live with an total solar constant greater than that  of 500 billion microwave ovens.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
The surface area of the Earth is more than 510 billion square meters and the surface area of the atmosphere would be far greater than that.  Even so, we presently live with an total solar constant greater than that  of 500 billion microwave ovens.

I can make up alarming predictions too.

I predict your arms and legs will disappear in exactly 5 years.

Unless you vote for Bernie Sanders.

I also love how you equate top of the atmosphere with the surface of the Earth.

Sounds like more of that false equivalency alarmists are so fond of.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
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?

43X10^19 J per hour from the sun vs. .209X10^19 per Tsar Bomba.  The Sun delivers 206 Tsar Bombas worth of energy every hour.  So if GP is correct in the the assertion that 194260 Tsar Bombas could melt Antartica than he should note that the Sun heats the Earth with that much energy every 943 hours or again, just under 40 days.  The Sun is the worrisome source of heat not mankind.  Scientists are worried about the amount of the Sun's heat we are unintentionally trapping in our atmosphere.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi

I also love how you equate top of the atmosphere with the surface of the Earth.

I love how you equate the surface area of the entire Earth with the surface area of Antarctic ice sheets.

I love the false equivalency arguments alarmists and Chinese apologists are also so fond of.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @oromagi
Who is the "they" that won't discuss nuclear power or China?

You, and Greta.

Well, I do advocate for nuclear energy as a short term measure although we have not adequately resolved radioactive byproduct containment and storage.  I don't know much about this Greta you keep mentioning.  I know she won the peace prize and addressed the UN but  my understanding is she just an outspoken 16 yr old granddaughter of some well-known Swedish actor and that she's pretty open about her multiple mental health diagnoses.  Since she makes no pretense of expertise on the subject, I don't know why people focus on her opinion. 

Nevertheless, you are quite wrong when you say that Greta won't discuss nuclear power.  5 seconds of googling finds this:

"Personally I am against nuclear power, but according to the IPCC [the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change], it can be a small part of a very big new carbon free energy solution, especially in countries and areas that lack the possibility of a full scale renewable energy supply - even though it's extremely dangerous, expensive and time consuming. But let’s leave that debate until we start looking at the full picture."

I discussed China in this forum even before GP claimed that I won't discuss China.

So let's note that GP's claim that Greta & I won't discuss nukes or China can be dismissed as false.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
 But let’s leave that debate 

Well said Greta. Well said.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
I discussed China in this forum even before GP claimed that I won't discuss China.

You apologized for China.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @oromagi
 If GP does not trust his sources regarding climate change...

I don't trust alarmists. Especially political alarmists.

Set aside the characterizations.  GP's sources claim that Climate Change is a real threat.  GP quotes those sources as reliable but call Climate Change a scam.  Either GP trusts his sources and admits his error or he's cherry picking data points while ignoring the conclusions.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot

The USA has zero methods to prevent China from becoming a 40% global emitter of CO2 by 2030.
False.  A study out just this month shows that even the minor shocks of Trump's 2019 trade war with China produced measurable decreases in
greenhouse gas emmsions:

"In terms of GHGs, under six rounds of shocks, global CO2 emissions decreased 0.16 % compared with BAU. Total CO2 emissions in China and the US decreased by 0.68 % and 0.02 % respectively. However, except for LAM, which produced 0.10 % CO2 emission reduction, the CO2 emissions of the other regions showed an increasing trend with a change rate of 0.01 % (ROW)-0.17 % (ROA)."

"The impacts of Sino-US trade disputes on industry production and energy consumption are major sources of GHG emission changes. In general, trade friction will be conducive to long-term GHG emission reduction, and the more intense the friction, the greater the reduction. According to the equilibrium results under various policy scenarios, the impact of trade friction on the global emissions of major GHGs is shown in Fig. 6. Under the armistice scenario (SE), there is no significant change in global GHG emissions, and the escalation of trade friction will increase GHG emission reduction incrementally. For example, under scenario CK, UA and WF, global total GHG emissions will be reduced by 0.07 %, 0.14 % and 4.23 % respectively in 2050. Moreover, all GHG emissions under global trade barriers (scenario WF) will be significantly reduced, and the change proportion is 4.95 % (CO2), 0.86 % (CH4) and 2.07 % (N2O) in 2050, respectively."

At present tarriffs, Chinese carbon emissions went down more than half of 1%.  The same report modeled a scenario in which the Sino-American trade war escalated to 100% tarriffs and concluded that even after other countries picked up the slack, total greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by nearly 5%.

GP's statement "The USA has zero methods to prevent China from becoming a 40% global emitter."is proven false.  US trade policy reduced Chinese emissions this year.

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.
Straw man.  Nobody is arguing for a US only climate change policy.

GP must provide examples of politicians arguing that the US can do it alone or retract the claim as false.  I'm sure many argue that the US must act decisively even if China won't but that is an entirely different argument than only America can change the climate.



oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
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

Alarmist predictions should not exist. Especially ones used by politicians to gain wealth and power using fear to control the dumbasses.


Non-sequitur.  Either the global temperature is increasing or GP's claim that "global warming is a scam" is true.  Both cannot be true.

The most prominent politician I can think of to make some money off of climate change is Al Gore.  I suppose one could characterize some of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" as alarmist- a graphic of Fla. under water comes to mind but Gore had given up politics 8 years before the move and now, 12 years after the movie was released, the movie's major predictions about global warming continuing to increase and its impacts seem reasonably on track.

GP should provide examples of "alarmist" predictions and "alarmist" politicians to support this claim.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot


--> @oromagi
That some people concerned about the problem are inefficient at problem-solving does not serve as proof that the problem does not exist.
Fake concern over politically useful alarmism is of immense value to a politician. The same politicians inevitably fly back home to their 30000 KW/Hr oversized homes, laughing in cigar smoked filled rooms, personally feasting on the palpable CO2 while pondering the limits of the lack of agency and the lack of rational oversight from a willingly frightened populace suckling on the teat of corporate MSM with the slow, steady IV drip of political CNN propaganda satisfying the amygdala.

Let's notice that GP continues to accuse anonymous "they"s.  I don't buy GP's story of cigar-smoking politicians but whether we buy it or not is entirely disconnected from GP's assertion that climate change is a scam.  The presence of alarmists does not disprove a problem.  For example, an alarmist might inaccurately shout that an approaching tsunami is 100 ft high when it the wave is in fact only 42 ft high- but that does not mean one should not run to high ground. 

GPs thesis is that global warming is a scam but GP has spent little effort disproving the theory.  How does all this "personality" talk have any bearing on the data supporting global warming?

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @oromagi
You fall into the same trap as all hysteria junkies.
Falsely correlating legal and illegal immigration.
Non-sequitur.  GP is trying to change the subject.

Falsely correlating climate change and climate alarmism.
Let's note that GP is the only one talking about climate alarmism.   The emotional state of some people (polititicans or otherwise) has little bearing on the truth of global warming and I can make out no correlation between climate change and alarmism. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Oromagi has decided to conveniently ignore the amount of thermal heat needed to completely melt the Antarctic ice sheets to satisfy the prediction of climate ALARMISTS - namely the prediction that the sheets will melt in 20 years.

Give me three examples of prominent predictions stating that the Antartic ice sheets will melt in 20 years.  I can't find any scientists  online making this claim.  I suspect this is just more straw man.


The amount of thermal heat the sun would need to apply to do that in the very very short span of 20 years, (a politically expedient prediction as it is long enough timespan to keep pushing the narrative and short enough to scare the ignorant masses into hysteria) would most certainly roast the entire planet which did not have kilometers deep ice sheets. KFC extra crispy.

But since nobody makes this argument what's the point of GP's refutation?

Oromagi is an alarmist apologist and probably brainwashed to trust political authority, not science and thermodynamic equations.
Note the resort to ad hom.  GP has no case.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Climate Change ALARMISM is a scam. 

Not Climate Change.

Note that Oro has an endless supply of false equivalencies and strawmen to burn.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's note that GP titled this TOPIC:  Global Warming is a scam

Now GP claims that Climate Change is NOT a scam, that wasn't what he meant when he wrote the title he meant something else entirely.

"Climate Change ALARMISM is a scam. Not Climate Change."

/thread
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
The problem with your argument is that global warming simply does not exist in the media without the corresponding alarmism.

It's fuel for corporate media and politicians.
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@Greyparrot
"The problem with your argument is that this thing that is not your argument exists, and its drawing attention to salient points of your argument in a way that humans typically react to when it comes to major issues".

Or, more to the point:

"The problem with your argument is that its getting attention."

Or even closer to the point:

"I would prefer your argument not get attention".

Which realistically translates from a point of:

"I simply don't care, but know that fixing the problem will effect me, and I fear that effect."
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
There was a great debate back on DDO that proved climate change was linked to solar activity and not humans. Let me see if I can find it
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
It's a moot point if alarmism is the poison tree that poisons all rational threats of global warming. 

The only thing more unpredictable than the weather is the ingenuity of men.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a moot point if alarmism is the poison tree that poisons all rational threats of global warming. 

The only thing more unpredictable than the weather is the ingenuity of men.
<br>
It’s more likely than not a scam.



ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
This one is also good by the same dude.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
The only thing more unpredictable than the weather is the ingenuity of men.
In fact, 5-day forecasts are accurate 90% of the time.  There are few systems in science as dynamic as weather that are that predictable.  

You have the cadence of a pithy observation here but your primary assumption is false.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
In fact, 5-day forecasts are accurate 90% of the time.

Forecasts drop off exponentially over time as errors accumulate, leading to justifiable skepticism on weather predictions over a year.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@oromagi
In fact, 5-day forecasts are accurate 90% of the time.

You should come down to Texas. More like 5% lmao
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Basic psychology suggests most of the science is flawed with an apparent financial bias from government-funded scientists.

The politicians promoting climate alarmism clearly do not personally believe in said alarmism as evident by their personal lifestyles and failure to personally protect themselves and their families from the so-called, world-ending catastrophes. Even if the politicians failed to have a personal concern,  you would surely expect an intelligent, rational scientist to look after his own skin.

When these alarmist scientists and politicians stop jet setting across the country from posh fundraisers to their oversized beachfront properties and start hoarding supplies in their personal safety bunkers, that will be the point at which I MIGHT give alarmism some credibility.

So far, not one scientist is willing to go the NOAA's Ark route. If they are not concerned, why should I be?

Knowing human nature and how self-serving politicians behave, the public would likely never know of any real, credible threat to the planet as the elites secure vital resources for survival in absolute secrecy and a media blackout.