• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

Free episodes:

i guess the earth never cools since they only seem to be looking for warming for some reason.. oh yes i remember.... NASA has been busted for manipulating climate data to show warming trends.. sorry... nothing worth reading in anything you have posted. NASA is close to going out of business so they take up what?... climate alarmism.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY MAAAAAAAAAAN!

No seriously though, you're so smart, so much smarter than me, and so much smarter than NASA, NOAA, and every climate scientist out there who agrees that AGW is a fact. ROFL. We're all just a bunch of ignorant rubes compared to the magnificent, shining glory of your intellect.

Sorry, you're still not convincing me, but at least you're not trying to present your bullshit as science anymore, that's a step in the right direction. I'll keep taking my information from real scientists, not the conspiracy guy on the paranormal forum. You want to talk about alarmism? Look at your buddy Alex Jones, and the rest of the 911 truth movement, apparently there's going to be a false flag attack and war with Iran any day now for the last two years. Give me a break.
 
i guess the earth never cools since they only seem to be looking for warming for some reason

Oh look, more bullshit....
The global cooling myth

Filed under:
— william @ 14 January 2005 - ()
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.
Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.
The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.
Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:
  1. Establish National climatic research program
  2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
  3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
  4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
  5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
  6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network
Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.
Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
  1. The cooling trend from the 40′s to the 70′s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
  2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
  3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.
 
give it up. you lost this debate before it started. Rising CO2 levels are not causing anything but a GREENER planet... isnt that what we all want?

And what a surprise, more bullshit.....

CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate

Posted on 1 July 2010 by Mariana Ashley

Guest post by Mariana Ashley
CO2 feeds plants. And so, too, does ignorance and a little bit of politicking feed inane misconceptions. Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois made famous the CO2 as plant food argument during a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in 2009. The basic plant food argument is that since plants need CO2 to grow, more CO2 means, by proxy, more sustained and robust plant growth globally.
A quick look at the science behind this argument demonstrates its inherent weaknesses. In closed, controlled environments, like greenhouses and plant nurseries, an increase in CO2 does indeed spur plant growth. However, the globe is not a controlled environment, and it’s incredible sensitivity to a variety of factors is something that is often taken for granted when such narrow arguments are proffered. A rise in CO2 levels is not the only consequence of climate change, and it is these other effects that have had and will have more abiding adverse effects on plant growth around the world.
While CO2 is an important element that stimulates plant growth, the planet's flora requires a cocktail of elements to maintain its health. Arguably the most important of these elements is water. With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture. Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns. This causes extreme weather in certain geographic locations only sporadically, with overall, balanced rainfall drastically reduced.
Suppose, however, that CO2 does prime plant growth in the world at large. To what extent will this happen? For one, the increased density of forest vegetation could increase the risk of wildfires, which have reared their ugly heads in California all too often in the past few years, wreaking devastating damage. Presumably the CO2 as plant food enthusiasts offer their argument in an effort to demonstrate the resulting agricultural advantages. But even if "CO2 fertilization" occurs, weeds proliferate in tandem with crops, which would only increase the global cost of agriculture.
We could discuss the scientific finer points of global climate change and the unlimited effects it could have on global plant growth all day. A Climate Denial Crock of the Week video does just that in debunking the CO2 plant food argument. However, at its most basic level, the CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains.
When CO2 is framed as an element good for plants in order to dismiss the other existing pieces of evidences that suggest the dangers of global climate change, we are left with an idea that only distracts us from the more pressing issues of our planet's increased loss of balance.
 
what percentage of CO2 is in the atmosphere? (we are talking GHG) (approx .28 % conservatively)
what percentage of H2O is in the atmosphere? (we are talking GHG) (approx 95 % conservatively)

ooh scary. run away, run away!


 

More Heartland Institute bullshit, let's take a look at who they are:

Documents Reveal Plans, Funders and Goals of 'Climate Denial' Machine
- Common Dreams staff
The DeSmogBlog, which has long covered the impacts global warming and fossil fuel industry-backed misinformation campaigns, on Tuesday released internal documents from the Heartland Institute -- "the heart of the climate denial machine" -- that discuss "its current plans, many of its funders, and details" confirming years of suspicion and reporting on their goals and machinations.

The Koch-funded Heartland Institute is the 'heart' of the climate denial machine. "The heart of the climate denial machine," writes Brendan Demelle at DeSmog,"Relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses including Microsoft, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more."
The documents include:
The January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy states:
“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”
  • Heartland Institute’s global warming denial machine is chiefly – and perhaps entirely – funded by one Anonymous donor:
Our climate work is attractive to funders, especially our key Anonymous Donor (whose contribution dropped from $1,664,150 in 2010 to $979,000 in 2011 - about 20% of our total 2011 revenue). He has promised an increase in 2012…”
  • Confirmation of exact amounts flowing to certain key climate contrarians.
“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”
And:
Forbes and other business press are favored outlets for Heartland’s dissemination of climate denial messages, and the group is worried about maintaining that exclusive space. They note in particular the work of Dr. Peter Gleick:
“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)
Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.​
And Suzanne Goldenberg, writing for The Guardian:

The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute, which works to undermine the established science on climate change. (Photograph: Koch Industries)
It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents. "There is nothing I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.
The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels at New York's Time Square as well as in Washington DC.
If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.
"It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy."
The Valentine's Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN's climate summit later that year.
In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack.​
 
I just do not understand why all these alarmists dont kill themselves because of their contributions to global warming via their CO2 output. How hypocritical can you get? They piss and moan CO2 is killing us and the planet yet not one has stepped up and brought their CO2 outputs down to zero. I bet Muadib and Angel both drive cars, drive them on paved roads, buy factory made products, use air conditioning, wear clothes, use computers, etc etc etc... yet they wet their pants over someone trying to set the record straight about the most important and essential gas on the planet. go figure...:rolleyes:
 
Just wanted to repost this in case you missed it:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)
Note the irony here that Heartland Institute – one of the major mouthpieces behind the debunked ‘Climategate’ email theft who harped about the suppression of denier voices in peer-reviewed literature – now defending its turf in the unscientific business magazine realm.

How stunningly hypocritical.
 
I just do not understand why all these alarmists dont kill themselves because of their contributions to global warming via their CO2 output. How hypocritical can you get? They piss and moan CO2 is killing us and the planet yet not one has stepped up and brought their CO2 outputs down to zero. I bet Muadib and Angel both drive cars, drive them on paved roads, buy factory made products, use air conditioning, wear clothes, use computers, etc etc etc... yet they wet their pants over someone trying to set the record straight about the most important and essential gas on the planet. go figure...:rolleyes:

Except you're not setting the record straight about anything. You're simply throwing more red herrings into the debate. So that's your argument? If you think CO2 is bad kill yourself? That's your scientific argument? ROFLROFLROFLROFL


What happened, I thought you said you agreed with me on AGW? Still trying to muddy the waters?
 
yes i do agree that there is an barely measurable amount of warming from humans called AGW. i am quite certain that all scientists in my "camp" agree. the fact that you do not know this proves you are very very very ignorant on the topic and can do nothing more than copy paste your blather.
and yes... i do think you should kill yourself IF you believe that human caused CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet now or in the future.
 
let me go out on a limb here and say that you are horrified at the thought of a glacier melting too.
 
You certainly are going out on a limb, one could make that observation about your entire argument. My position is that AGW is a fact, and you agree, therefore there really isn't much left to talk about. I don't know what the consequences are, we'll have to wait and see. I do think we should be using fossil fuels more efficiently and looking for alternative energy sources. Your argument that CO2 is good therefore global warming is good simply doesn't hold water, as I've proven. I'm not horrified at the thought of glaciers melting, but rising sea levels do concern me, as does the acidification of the oceans. Like I said, I'm not some hippy environmentalist on a crusade against global warming. Your assertion that anyone who believes global warming is bad should kill themselves is ridiculous in the extreme, kind of like your assertions of a conspiracy. Weird.
 
You certainly are going out on a limb, one could make that observation about your entire argument. My position is that AGW is a fact, and you agree, therefore there really isn't much left to talk about. I don't know what the consequences are, we'll have to wait and see. I do think we should be using fossil fuels more efficiently and looking for alternative energy sources. Your argument that CO2 is good therefore global warming is good simply doesn't hold water, as I've proven. I'm not horrified at the thought of glaciers melting, but rising sea levels do concern me, as does the acidification of the oceans. Like I said, I'm not some hippy environmentalist on a crusade against global warming. Your assertion that anyone who believes global warming is bad should kill themselves is ridiculous in the extreme, kind of like you assertions of a conspiracy. Weird.
you have yet to tell me how much CO2 it takes to make you wet your pants like you are doing.
global warming IS good. you would not be here if not for global warming.
 
timeline for global cooling and warming alarmism.

Consensus - not

The 31,000-strong “˜Petition Project‘ is proof that there’s no scientific consensus on climate change! Except that it’s not. An investigation by the Seattle Times into the “˜scientists’ who signed the petition found that dozens of names were made up including “Perry S. Mason”, “Michael J. Fox”, “John C. Grisham” and Spice Girl “Dr. Geri Halliwell”.
Only 0.1% of the Petition Project signers have a background in climatology. An unrelated survey found that 97.5% of actual climatologists who actively publish research on climate change believe that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
26 scientific organizations and the Academy of Sciences from 19 different countries all support the consensus, and a survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject of global climate change published between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single paper rejected the consensus position.


This was an old article, today the consensus position is even stronger.
 
you have yet to tell me how much CO2 it takes to make you wet your pants like you are doing.
global warming IS good. you would not be here if not for global warming.

And you have yet to provide anything that explains why the data we have is wrong and a model that explains why the Earth is heating up and why it's not a result of CO2. Of course I've already pointed out that if you could provide this, you wouldn't be here arguing with me, you'd be off winning a Nobel Prize overturning the consensus view on AGW.
 
Regardless of what one's beliefs in global warming or climate change and whether (weather?) they exist or not, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the u.k. is in possession of the midwestern u.s. rain clouds. please give it back.
 
Back
Top