The man made global warming scam was created in 1991.

[Flash]

When everybody realized there is no science to the man made warming bullshit and it was nothing more than a scam then the idiots made a religion out of it based on faith alone.

 

[Crick]

When everybody realized there is no science to the man made warming bullshit and it was nothing more than a scam then the idiots made a religion out of it based on faith alone.

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Flash]

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

You little dumbasses that have adopted AGW as your religion are like the 12 year old girl that has been told that Santa Claus doesn't exist but still holds on to the fantasy because she wants to believe.

 

[Crick]

You little dumbasses that have adopted AGW as your religion are like the 12 year old girl that has been told that Santa Claus doesn't exist but still holds on to the fantasy because she wants to believe.

So, you're refusing to look at the science?

 

[Flash]

So, you're refusing to look at the science?

You morons that believe in this silly ass AGW scam are like the people in the movie "Idocracy" that have been told that crops need Brawndo instead of water because it has electrolytes.

 

[luiza]

it goes back further than that,,
recall a lot of claims back in the 70s with the ice age scare,,

Yes .
Club of Rome was set up in 1968 and it was in 1972 that they published , Limits to Growth, which sold 30 million copies .
First Climate Conference was in Vienna in 1979.
Al Gore , Maurice Strong and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin were the big three initially but it was not until 1988 that the IPCC was set up .
All political aimed at making billions from suckers and Gullibles .
And it did . And still does .

 

[Crick]

Yes .
Club of Rome was set up in 1968 and it was in 1972 that they published , Limits to Growth, which sold 30 million copies .
First Climate Conference was in Vienna in 1979.
Al Gore , Maurice Strong and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin were the big three initially but it was not until 1988 that the IPCC was set up .
All political aimed at making billions from suckers and Gullibles .
And it did . And still does .

In 1968, Al Gore was 20 years old, in college and 8 years away from his first elected seat in the House of Representatives. You might try to get your facts straight.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes .
Club of Rome was set up in 1968 and it was in 1972 that they published , Limits to Growth, which sold 30 million copies .
First Climate Conference was in Vienna in 1979.
Al Gore , Maurice Strong and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin were the big three initially but it was not until 1988 that the IPCC was set up .
All political aimed at making billions from suckers and Gullibles .
And it did . And still does .

murice strong is the name I couldnt remember,, thanks for that,,

 

[Crick]

By elites of the Club of Rome, they freely admit it. Direct quite,
""In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill." "The real enemy is humanity itself."

You can likely find this online for free also.

THE FIRST GLOBAL REVOLUTION: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (Unabridged Binder Print Copy)​

Amazon product

​

The Club of Rome did not invent AGW

​

1938 - Proof that global temperatures are rising​

A little-known amateur scientist called Guy Callendar makes history by discovering the planet has warmed

In 1938, steam engineer Callendar decided to take a break from his day job and began painstakingly collecting records from 147 weather stations across the world. Doing all his calculations by hand, he discovered that global temperatures had risen 0.3°C over the previous 50 years.

Callendar argued that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industry were responsible for global warming. However, this was largely ignored by other scientists who didn’t believe that humans could impact such a large system as the climate.

Remarkably, despite his crude methods, Callendar’s estimates of global warming were extremely accurate and in line with modern assessments.

1958 - CO2 levels are rising, and fossil fuels are to blame​

Dr Charles David Keeling provides the first evidence that CO2 levels are rising

In 1958, a young postgraduate geochemist called Charles David Keeling decided to compare the amounts of CO2in water and air.

Nobody had ever really tried to measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before, so there was no off-the-shelf equipment he could use.

He designed his own apparatus and set off to a weather observation station on the top of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. Once there, he took meticulous measurements every day and within five years he had provided the first unequivocal proof that CO2 concentrations were rising.

What’s more, by analysing the CO2 in his samples, Dr Keeling was able to attribute this rise to the use of fossil fuels.

Although some scientists in the 19th century had argued that burning fossil fuels could increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere, these concerns had remained largely hypothetical.

Dr Keeling’s discovery was one of the most important scientific works of the 20th century. Since then, daily readings at Mauna Loa have continued almost uninterrupted for more than 60 years. The 'Keeling Curve', which documents changes in CO2 levels over time, is the longest continuous record of CO2 concentrations in the world.

1967 - Earth’s changing climate modelled for first time​

Scientists create the first computer model of planet Earth’s climate. The model predicts that doubling concentrations of CO2 could raise global temperatures by 2°C

In 1967, researchers Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald produced the world’s first accurate computer model of planet Earth’s climate.

The model looked at all the different components that contribute to climate, including the atmosphere, oceans and clouds, and the relationships between them.

It even allowed researchers to adjust levels of CO2 to see what impact this would have on global temperatures.

Manabe and Wetherald wrote that:

‘According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2°C.’

Measurements from the pre-industrial revolution through to today match that prediction extremely well. Since the 1880s we have increased CO2 by about 50%, and temperatures have increased by 1.1°C.

Syukuro Manabe is one of three scientists to have been awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on understanding complex systems, such as the Earth's climate.

Supercomputer empowers next generation of climate models
Unlike Manabe and Wetherald, today's scientists have access to a huge amount of climate data from satellites. However, the computing power needed to process that data is astronomical. For example, the current Sentinel Earth observation satellites produce 10 terabytes of data every day which is the equivalent to data from 8.7 million WhatsApp messages going through the network every minute!

This is where the JASMIN supercomputer comes in. JASMIN provides environmental scientists with access to very large sets of environmental data, which are typically too big for them to download to their own computers. It can also reduce the time it takes to test new ideas, as well as give results in hours rather than months. JASMIN is operated by the Science & Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) RAL Space Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) on behalf of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

​

1968 - Scientist predicts melting ice caps​

Dr John Mercer, a glaciologist at Ohio State University in Columbus, warns that global warming could cause Antarctic ice sheets to collapse, leading to a disastrous rise in sea levels

In 1968, Dr Mercer was conducting fieldwork at the Reedy Glacier in West Antarctica when he discovered evidence of a former freshwater lake, 1,400 metres high up in the Transantarctic Mountains.

Dr Mercer took that as evidence that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet had once melted away, something that previously had been thought to be impossible.

His landmark paper found evidence that sea levels rose six metres in the previous interglacial period, around 120,000 years ago. Temperatures at that time were 6-7°C higher than they are today.

In his study, Dr Mercer called the West Antarctic Ice Sheet a 'uniquely vulnerable and unstable body of ice'.

He warned that current atmospheric warming could once more cause the ice shelves to disintegrate, causing a sea level rise of about five metres.

It took a while for his warning to take hold. However, this changed when, in 1995 the massive Larsen A ice shelf collapsed. The B ice shelf followed in 2002, and then in 2017 there was a major rift in Larsen C. In 2014, a team of scientists reported that the loss of ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment had accelerated and appeared 'unstoppable'.

A brief history of climate change discoveries

www.discover.ukri.org

 

[luiza]

In 1968, Al Gore was 20 years old, in college and 8 years away from his first elected seat in the House of Representatives. You might try to get your facts straight.

For one who is seen as a Troll on most major issues your advice is amusing .
Of course my info is correct as ever with young Al parroting his father but more importantly misunderstanding the work of Dr Revelle whilst studying politics at Harvard .
DYOR , Troll .

 

[Crick]

For one who is seen as a Troll on most major issues your advice is amusing .
Of course my info is correct as ever with young Al parroting his father but more importantly misunderstanding the work of Dr Revelle whilst studying politics at Harvard .
DYOR , Troll .

Then you'll have no problem providing a link.

 

[ding]

So, you're refusing to look at the science?

Computer models aren't science.

 

[Mushroom]

Computer models aren't science.

Sure they are, almost all computer gamers know that they are fact.

However, in reality, the models are only as good as the data used in them is as well as the conditions. And it is simply impossible to make really good models of a system as complex as the entire climate of a planet. Which is why when the models fail (which they keep doing), they simply modify the data to get the results they want. Or modify the code to achieve the results that were recorded. Either way, destroying the very purpose of the model in the first place.

And for those that do not know about "Nuclear Gandhi", in a game written in 1991 the game adversaries were all given a "hostility rating" from 0 to 254. And being the most peaceful, Gandhi was assigned a rating of 0. However, once the game progressed and a character developed nukes, because of that power their aggression level would be reduced by 1 to reflect their new power weapon. Which had the unintended hilarity of Gandhi instantly going from a hostility of 0 to a hostility of 254 (the well known "zero overrun" error not unlike Y2K). And that is such a meme before memes in the gamer community, it is still a thing over 3 decades later (now not because of historical accuracy but it is simply expected as part of the game).

But it is also a real life example of how computer models can go horribly wrong.

 

[Crick]

However, in reality, the models are only as good as the data used in them is as well as the conditions.

Now that's profound. What "conditions"?

And it is simply impossible to make really good models of a system as complex as the entire climate of a planet.

Quantify "really good". And could you tell us what parameters and functions are being left out of these models due to that complexity? What makes it "impossible"?

Which is why when the models fail (which they keep doing), they simply modify the data to get the results they want.

Can you give us a link that shows such a train of events taking place?

Or modify the code to achieve the results that were recorded. Either way, destroying the very purpose of the model in the first place.

Where did you learn of this?

And for those that do not know about "Nuclear Gandhi", in a game written in 1991 the game adversaries were all given a "hostility rating" from 0 to 254. And being the most peaceful, Gandhi was assigned a rating of 0. However, once the game progressed and a character developed nukes, because of that power their aggression level would be reduced by 1 to reflect their new power weapon. Which had the unintended hilarity of Gandhi instantly going from a hostility of 0 to a hostility of 254 (the well known "zero overrun" error not unlike Y2K). And that is such a meme before memes in the gamer community, it is still a thing over 3 decades later (now not because of historical accuracy but it is simply expected as part of the game).

But it is also a real life example of how computer models can go horribly wrong.

GCMs use numeric methods to solve differential equations describing physical, thermocynamic and chemical processes between cells representing a small piece of the planet's atmopshere, ocean and land surface. What you've demonstrated here is that your knowledge of modern data processing and modeling is virtually nil.

 

[ding]

Now that's profound. What "conditions"?

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Quantify "really good". And could you tell us what parameters and functions are being left out of these models due to that complexity? What makes it "impossible"?

See post #35

 

[ding]

Can you give us a link that shows such a train of events taking place?

See post #35

 

[ding]

Where did you learn of this?

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[ding]

GCMs use numeric methods to solve differential equations describing physical, thermocynamic and chemical processes between cells representing a small piece of the planet's atmopshere, ocean and land surface. What you've demonstrated here is that your knowledge of modern data processing and modeling is virtually nil.

See posts #35 and #38

 

[Crick]

See posts #35 and #38

I stand by my conclusions. You don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.