CO2 Coalition

CO2 Coalition has written some obviously absurd content in service of their political agenda, and I've written responses to recent publications from that organization.
  1. Happer and Lindzen wrote a convoluted policy paper against a policy decision, part of which argued that ECS is 1 C or lower, in contradiction to the previous work of both authors.
  2. Happer also wrote a manuscript arguing that ECS is much higher than 1 C within a couple years of claiming that it can't be higher than 1 C. Which Happer should we believe?
  3. Lindzen and Christy wrote a counterfactual paper challenging the concept of global mean surface temperature.

CO2 Coalition also publishes a series of what they think of as "facts." Some are not factual at all. Others are superficially true but misunderstood and misrepresented. I'm planning a series of responding to each of these. Here's what I have so far:

  1. Response to Fact #1 on a 140-million year trend in decreasing CO2.
  2. Response to Fact #2 on the Warming effect of increasing CO2.
  3. Response to Fact #3 on "CO2 is Plant Food."
  4. Response to Fact #4 on the Last Four Glacial Advances.
  5. Response to Fact #5 on acceleration of Carbon Emissions.
  6. Response to Fact #6 on CO2 Concentrations in Geologic Periods.
  7. Response to Fact #7 is treated together with Fact #6, since they're essentially identical.
  8. Response to Fact #16 on whether current warming is unprecedented.
I've also spent some time debating Mr. Gregory Wrightstone on social media, especially before he became the executive director of the CO2 Coalition. With some of what I've written in response to his claims I've generated some posts regarding the climate disinformation he promotes. Here's a list of posts covering some of his false claims.

  1. Review of Inconvenient Facts, Part 1 covers paleoclimate.
  2. Review of Inconvenient Facts, Part 2 covers temperature.
  3. Wrightstone has promoted misinformation about the GISP2 ice core.
  4. Wrightstone has claimed that CO2 at 150 ppm is a "line of death" below which vegetation dies.
  5. Wrightstone has contributed to papers with Lindzen and Happer that are filled with misinformation.

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