Responding to the CO2 Coalition's "Fact #4" on the Last Four Glacial Advances

CO2 Coalition's "fact #4" is virtually identical to its "fact #1" but just on a different time scale. All they did with this "fact" is change the scale and repeat the same lies with the same dose of alarmism. Rather than showing a climate model of CO2 for 140 million years, they show proxy evidence for CO2 for the last 420,000 years.

They simply repeat here that CO2 fell to ~180 ppm, and we should be alarmed by this because below 150 ppm "terrestrial plant life cannot exist." And if you're not sufficiently scared by this lie, they reinforce it and then imply the fossil fuel industry saved us from a mass extinction. 
We came within about 30 ppm (30 molecules out of every one million) to the extinction of most plant life on land, and with it the extinction of all higher terrestrial life-forms that depend on it. Bear in mind that, before we began adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we weren’t sure that we wouldn’t cross that critical 150-ppm threshold during the next glacial period.
The only new lie in this that isn't explicitly stated in their "fact #1" is their claim that CO2 at ~180 ppm is "thought to be the lowest in the Earth’s history." Except it wasn't. Even in the Phanerozoic, CO2 levels spent about 1 million years at ~100 ppm. We went over all this before when I responded to "fact #1," so I don't feel the need to go over it all again.


The Earth's temperature has also lowered to temperatures in which glacial ice extended into the tropics (called "slush ball earth" episodes) and even to the equator (called "snowball earth" episodes). These were during Precambrian times. But we don't have to worry about this because CO2 is much higher now and increasing at rates that are likely unprecedented in geologic history.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more