Stonyfield Farms? The makers of organic(?) yogurt, which means exactly what? The CEO of this far-left leaning company has a habit of trying to scare consumers into buying his "organic" yogurt through the use of advertising with questionable, if not outright false, scientific claims. Now this same scaremonger is trying to push consumers to purchase products from companies with smaller "carbon footprints", which is another subject altogether.

I especially like the last sentence above about stopping climate change. What does he want to do? Put out the sun? Maybe stop the earth from wobbling? Or how about righting the earth's tilt and stopping it from spinning?

Fantastic: Speculative scoring on a speculative issue. Can't be much more informative than that on this topic.

Just wait till everyone sees that Foxnews (reportedly a fair and balanced source) scores better than the other media sources who claim to be the real balance in reporting.

How incredibly arrogant of individuals or companies to believe that their actions are powerful enough to alter the climate one way or another.

It boggles the imagination to consider how irrational the discussion about CO2 (0.03% of the atmosphere) has become.

And out of that 0.03%, 98% of the CO2 is from natural sources. Which means that less than 0.0006% of the atmosphere consists of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

The whole discussion is like a dark comedy.

I hope the folks back home are surviving the unbearable midsummer heat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day_f.shtml?world=0008

More nonesense from someone who shouldn't be given any media attention at all, like Paris Hilton or Anna Nichol Smith.
Maybe another 911 will shake the media out of chasing wild rabbits and the news will be the news again.

"And out of that 0.03%, 98% of the CO2 is from natural sources. Which means that less than 0.0006% of the atmosphere consists of CO2 from burning fossil fuels."

Just as I predicted yesterday, the deniers would still post fallacies such as this one. Little did I expect that it would happen the very next day. Apparently you didn't read Brett's article from the other day, Patrick, but I'll link you here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Now, I don't expect you to stop misleading others like this, but I'll keep these links handy so that new readers to this blog aren't swayed by misleading information.

The problem with referencing the so-called "myths" is they are based on info from the IPCC report, and the IPCC is based on 2 UN organizations. Sorry, when I see UN, sorry, gotta go, can't write anymore, I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.

Mark,

The CO2 sources I quoted are directly from the 2001 IPCC report.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/NewFlowFig2.gif

As you can see in that graph, the vast majority of CO2 is from natural sources. Given that CO2 constitutes about 0.03% of the atmosphere, only about 0.0006% of the atmosphere consists of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

It would be nice to have a rational discussion about this without you constantly turning to name calling, and not so subtle allusions to Holocaust "deniers."

Mark, since you have been so knowledgeable, I beg you to link me to the research that shows me the conclusive evidence of CO2 causing temperature rise. I have been looking a lot...have been unsuccessful so far. Please help us all out.

Stonyfield Farms, Inc. is doing this to gain publicity for their products and some people are simply too gullible to recognize what is really going on. They are simply jumping on the AGW bandwagon hoping to increase sales and profits by appearing to take the "moral" high ground at the expense of their competitors who don't market their products this way. Where are the anti-capitalists when you need them?

Follow the money and who stands to benefit from these publicity stunts and you will be a much smarter consumer. I like Dannon products myself. They haven't resorted to phony publicity campaigns to sell their yogurt and I appreciate their good judgement.

Patrick, go look at that diagram you linked to me again. Notice how the natural CO2 sources have a return arrow indicating CO2 absorption? Now, do you notice how the fossil fuels ~don't~ have a return arrow indicating absorption?

That diagram proves my point exactly. Thanks.

Mark,

Let me break the annual carbon budget (as described by the IPCC) down into simpler terms. Perhaps it will be easier to understand.

1. 119 from plants and soils
2. 88 from the ocean
3. 6 from fossil fuels

i.e less than 3% of CO2 going into the atmosphere is from fossil fuels. The rest is from natural sources

210 returns to the oceans, plants and soil. Plants, soils and oceans don't know and don't care where the CO2 comes from. It makes no difference to them what the original source was.

But that point is irrelevant. CO2 makes up a tiny portion of the atmosphere 0.035%, and only a small percentage of that is from fossil fuels. Blaming all the world's problems on CO2 from cars is just plain looney.

A much more sensible explanation is this - also from the IPCC
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png

Solar intensity has increased by 0.3% over the last century, which would be expected to increase temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit.

I hope the folks back home are surviving the unbearable midsummer heat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day_f.shtml?world=0008

REPLY: Pish Tosh, Patrick. Why, you are confusing the weather with the climate! How could you? For shame!

Ram K.

Be careful of what you ask for on this blog. Obviously, you don't realize that the science is settled, the debate is over, consensus science is the new vade mecum. Besides, if the all-knowing AGW seers ever presented you with the evidence, you would be unable to interpret said evidence and summarily dismiss it as propoganda. For shame, Ram K., accept the AGW mantra as true or you will be called a troll. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Accept the Goracle as your saviour and all will be forgiven. Bow down t...

Sorry, got carried away there. They don't have any proof, otherwise they would have provided loads of links many moons ago. Don't waste your time.

CO2 makes up a tiny portion of the atmosphere 0.035%, and only a small percentage of that is from fossil fuels. Blaming all the world's problems on CO2 from cars is just plain looney.

Carbon Monoxide is lethal at concentrations of several hundred PPM -- about the same magnitude as atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Meanwhile, climatologists strongly suspect that positive feedback mechanisms exist that couple changes in CO2 concentration to global average temperature. The physical world is chock full of systems where tiny changes in concentration of one substance provoke dramatic changes in overall behavior -- see the literature on autocatalytic sets for a typical example.

Tossing about epithets like "looney" towards those who don't immediately jump to unsupported and unsupportable conclusions based on personal bias exemplifies the behavior that provokes labels such as "denier".

A much more sensible explanation is this - also from the IPCC
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png

Solar intensity has increased by 0.3% over the last century, which would be expected to increase temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit.

I call your attention to page 4 of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

The contribution of solar irradiance to global warming is dwarfed by the contribution of anthropogenic CO2. No amount of bluster, bullying, or insults will change that basic fact.

BT,

"Carbon Monoxide is lethal at concentrations of several hundred PPM"

????

Nerve gas is lethal at one part per billion, but that is also irrelevant. CO2 is not a toxin and this discussion is not about toxicity.

Absolute earth temperatures sit at about 459 degrees (above absolute zero) Fahrenheit. The change in solar radiance from from 1364 to 1367 over the last century (as the IPCC reports) is a change of 1/455. As a first order approximation, it should therefor correspond to an average temperature rise of about one degree. (If there was no solar radiation, earth's temperature would drop by about 459 degrees Fahrenheit.)

Anyone competent in science, engineering or detective work knows that you always look for the simplest explanation first. Unfortunate that the IPCC staff seems to want to ignore common sense in favor of funding and political expediency.

Please explain why antarctic ice is steadily increasing? Is that feedback?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

At 3:12p, Patrick Henry wrote:
Nerve gas is lethal at one part per billion, but that is also irrelevant. CO2 is not a toxin and this discussion is not about toxicity.

Earlier, at 10:26a, the same author wrote:
... CO2 makes up a tiny portion of the atmosphere 0.035%, and only a small percentage of that is from fossil fuels. Blaming all the world's problems on CO2 from cars is just plain looney. (emphasis mine)

Patrick Henry based his own argument on the (spurious) claim that the low concentration of CO2 makes it "just plain looney" to focus on it.

The absolute concentration of a particular atmospheric component has no relationship to the potential influence of that component. I appreciate the author's help in demonstrating just how ridiculous his own argument is.

Patrick Henry seems to have forgotten the second part of Einstein's famous aphorism: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more so." (emphasis mine)

I wonder how many times our Patrick Henry/Paul tag-team will demand responses to their endlessly repetitive questions, in this case about Antarctic ice. The pair repeated this same canard earlier this month starting with this comment from Paul. When "Thor" correctly and succinctly answered Paul's concern in this followup, Patrick Henry jumped in with his two cents.

My straight answer the question was posted in this comment on that thread:

Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Extreme cold often suppresses snowfall in cold locations. Modeling of Antarctic snowfall predicted increased snowfall as global warming increased, because the winds blowing across the Antarctic continent were predicted to carry more snow.
... (additional supporting material elided)

Thor followed with his own two succinct and accurate answers, here:

I'm sorry to learn you had a momentary lapse of comprehension. Antarctica is a virtual desert because of cold. As temperatures rise, the air supports more moisture with temperatures still below freezing; this results in augmented snowfall. ( The heaviest snows occur with a temperature just below freezing. ) It's elemental meteorology, and probably a transitory condition if the earth continues to warm; at which point ablation will take over.

Human co2 is contributing to the warming.

and here:

As to negative albedo feedback ( cooling ) it's negligible. Certainly not amounting to an offset as the spatial comparison of additional human co2 over that continent is much greater than the dark surfaces. There is also the question of where the heavier snows are falling.

This exchange took place barely ten days ago. It seems apparent enough that our denier tag-team is far more interested in filling these pages with repetitive questions than in actually reading the answers.

All in all, it adds up to simple trolling -- that's as simple as it can be, and NOT more so.

"The absolute concentration of a particular atmospheric component has no relationship to the potential influence of that component."

BT - The entire AGW story is based on rising CO2 concentrations. So you are saying now that it doesn't make any difference? Do you bother to think before you write?

BTW - a little problem with your Antarctica theory is that temperatures have fallen simultaneously with the ice pack increasing. But like most AGW folks, you choose to theorize in a vacuum.

At 5:00 PM, BT wrote:

quite a bit of twaddle ending with a statement from Thor which states Human co2 is contributing to the warming. Now, when I say twaddle, I mean that good ole BT presents a great argument on why there is heavier snow falling in Antarctica and I have no qualm with accepting his argument. I had simply asked Thor to back up his statement and he did. Great!! This brings us to Thor's statement repeated above that is presented without backup and purely out of the blue. What all the twaddle presented so eloquently by our beloved BT has to do with the price of tomatoes is beyond me. And this, in his mind, is trolling.

Yeah, right.

Seems to me BT is a bit sensitive on this CO2 proof thingy. Methinks he protests to much.

The contribution of solar irradiance to global warming is dwarfed by the contribution of anthropogenic CO2. No amount of bluster, bullying, or insults will change that basic fact.

Unfortunately, for you, we already have three time as much CO2 as is needed to get the greenhouse effect. The linear addition of CO2 does not result in a linear increase in temperature. The result is logarithmic (it's called Beer's Law), which means that doubling the CO2 concentrations does not result in a doubling of temperature, got that?

Basically, what is happening is that once CO2 reaches a certain concentration, it sort of maxes out in how much long-wave radiation it can absorb. So, the addition of more CO2 does not result in more adsorption of radiation. It's saturated in respect to radiation adsorption. It has been since the end of the last glaciation. Anthropogenic CO2 contribution does nothing. Do I need to say it another way?

So, even if the IPCC's theoretical anthropogenic CO2 contribution is real, which more than likely it is, theoretically; it has no meaning in the real world. That leaves the main mechanism for warming and cooling to the sun, which makes more sense anyway.

BT:

After being chastized repeatedly regarding my non-reading of cites so eloquently presented by the AGW believing crowd, I now take the opportunity to read the cites, including the three from yesterday's post regarding solar radiance, or lack thereof.

The CO cite means nothing other than to make a salient point. The solar constant graph is nice but I find it intriguing because whether the real numbers go up by much .3% as written, the pertinent part is it shows a constant upward trend. A point lost in the math. The most interesting cite is clearly the IPCC Climate Change 2007 Physical Science Basis.

Now I recognize that this is a summary piece for policy makers, and therefore, by proxy, scientifically light on its' feet, but whoo boy, if you actually read this paper....

The only thing that is a certainty is how uncertain they are of their certainty that humans are playing a role in warming. It repeats the same theme over and over and over again. Ah, you may saying that is exactly the point, to drill this into people's heads so they will make the changes that have to be made. But, the problem is that the behind the italics and certainty, lurk a verifiable mountain of unknowns.

Take solar radiance. It is downplayed on page 4 and does appear to be dwarfed by human created greenhouse gases. Yet, the LOSU is stated as being low for solar. Why? Could it be that no one has really studied it? Why state the LOSU as being high for CO2? To better emphasize that it is a problem? Now you may be saying, well it is high because we do in fact understand it fully. Really? Not so sure I buy that for the simple reason that there is no practical methodology for modeling the environment and its' interactions with a gas to the level of accuracy that is professed. In essence, by stating a high level of knowledge and precision in the numbers they bolster the case that they are correct. It is psychology not science. I know, I know, I have not read the volumes of science behind this summary and that would explain it. I don't think so. It would merely point out just how uncertain they are on this issue.

The other item that stands out in this piece is that while the AGW pundits here continually harp on making sure that us deniers understand the difference between weather and climate, the summary relies heavily upon weather events to bolster the cause. In fact it delves into weather related disaster scenarios repeatedly to emphasize the need to take action. The truly funny part is that when you read the actual events that trigger the "disaster", they are based on things that happened after 1970, as though 1969 and earlier never happened.

The whole rising sea level thing being a major issue is just plain laughable. While the claims fortell disaster, the graphs and clarifications tell an entirely different story.

Frankly, had I been an author of this piece, I would be embarassed. I write a number of technical engineering reports every year and if I turned out something like this, I would no longer have a job. I came away from this summary with a renewed sense that while GW may be ongoing, and man may be adding to the heat, there are far, far too many uncertainties to take any action whatsoever other than to continue to strive for efficiency in everything we do. The difference here is that this efficiency should be developed as a refinement of our society not as a mandate to stop a supposed warming. To make wholesale changes based upon this science is illogical. I now firmly believe that it will be determined through our gathering knowledge that man plays little role overall and certainly not worth the grief that has been cast out.

Apologize for the wordiness. Thanks BT, your right, it was very instructive. I soundly believe that if you went into this topic wanting to believe that the world society, and by proxy, mainly the USA, is bad, then the report is written to justify your case. If on the other hand, you want to believe that the world, and by proxy the USA, is not quite so bad, you can punch holes in the report big enough to drive gas guzzling SUV through.

BT - The entire AGW story is based on rising CO2 concentrations. So you are saying now that it doesn't make any difference? Do you bother to think before you write?

Here is what I actually wrote:
The absolute concentration of a particular atmospheric component has no relationship to the potential influence of that component. (emphasis added)

Apparently half of the tag-team either neglected to read my words or doesn't understand the meaning of the word "absolute".

He is, perhaps accidentally, correct in asserting that the CO2 part of the "AGW story" is "based on rising CO2 concentrations". (emphasis added)

AGW proponents observe that CO2 concentrations are RISING -- as in CHANGING -- and that the bulk of that CHANGE is anthropogenic.

Patrick Henry attempted to rebut this by asserting that the ABSOLUTE concentration of CO2 is so small that anyone who expresses concern about it is "just plain looney."

He is still apparently unable to comprehend that (a) his assertion is just plain wrong and (b) his insults are just plain offensive.

Meanwhile, Paul writes:
Unfortunately, for you, we already have three time as much CO2 as is needed to get the greenhouse effect. The linear addition of CO2 does not result in a linear increase in temperature. The result is logarithmic (it's called Beer's Law), which means that doubling the CO2 concentrations does not result in a doubling of temperature, got that?

Apparently Paul is under the impression that he is the only participant who is aware of the Beer-Lambert Law, articulated in eighteenth century and discovered by Pierre Bouguer before 1729.

The corrupt liberal socialist leftist communist atheist evil scientists of the IPCC surely know nothing about it, and surely hoped to just ignore it and therefore pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

There couldn't possibly be any other explanation, such as the effect of other atmospheric gases (most notably water vapor) whose absorption bands might cause the actual application of the Beer-Lambert law to the actual atmosphere to be a bit more complex than Paul asserts here.

Basically, what is happening is that once CO2 reaches a certain concentration, it sort of maxes out in how much long-wave radiation it can absorb. So, the addition of more CO2 does not result in more adsorption o