CO2 Coalition Resources

CO2 Coation's "Facts"

CO2 Coalition also publishes a series of what they think of as "facts." Most 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 my list of responses to their list of "facts. Since so many of these "facts" are virtually identical to others on this list (with slight nuances between them) I took the liberty of occasionally grouping 2 (or 3) of these together to save you more reading.

  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 (same as fact 7).
  7. Response to Fact #7 on CO2 Concentrations in Geologic Periods (same as fact 6).
  8. Response to Fact #8 on Crop Yields in Lab Experiments (same as fact 9)
  9. Response to Fact #9 on Grain Production (same as fact 8)
  10. Response to Fact #10 on when "Modern Warming" Began.
  11. Response to Fact #11 on Mountain Glacier Shortening.
  12. Response to Fact #12 on Sea Level Rise.
  13. Response to Fact #13 on Temperature Changes during the last 10,000 years (same as fact 16).
  14. Response to Fact #14 on Glacial Cycles.
  15. Response to Fact #15 on Eemian Warmth.
  16. Response to Fact #16 on whether current warming is unprecedented (part 1).
  17. Response to Fact #17 on whether current warming is unprecedented (part 2 - same as fact 26).
  18. Response to Fact #18 on Orbital Cycles.  
  19. Response to Fact #19 on Geologic Temperatures (same as facts 20 and 28).
  20. Response to Fact #20 on Geologic Temperatures (same as facts 19 and 28).
  21. Response to Fact #21 on Climate Models.
  22. Response to Fact #22 on Warm is Better than Cold (same as fact 24).
  23. Response to Fact #23 on Corn Yields.
  24. Response to Fact #24 on Ideal Temperatures (same as fact 22).
  25. Response to Fact #25 on CO2's Effect on Soil Moisture.
  26. Response to Fact #26 on whether current warming is unprecedented (part 3 - same as fact 17).
  27. Response to Fact #27 on the 30 Years between 1944 to 1976.
  28. Response to Fact #28 on Geologic Temperatures (same as facts 19 and 20).
  29. Response to Fact #29 on US Droughts (same as facts 30 and 31).
  30. Response to Fact #30 on US Droughts (same as facts 29 and 31).
  31. Response to Fact #31 on Global Droughts (same as facts 29 and 30).
  32. Response to Fact #32 on the Glacial Retreat at Glacier Bay.

Manuscripts and Self-Published Books Associated with 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: This convoluted policy paper argued that ECS is 1 C or lower, in contradiction to the previous work of both authors.
  2. Happer's Contradictory Claims: Happer 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: This counterfactual manuscript challenged the concept of global mean surface temperature.
  4. Gregory Wrightstone: His self-published book is pretty terrible. I have a two-part review of it.

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

Roy Spencer on Models and Observations

Image
A few days ago, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote a piece for the Heritage Foundation called, " Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models " ( PDF ) essentially arguing that models show too much warming compared to observations, and if we stick to observations, "global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation." He claims to frame his argument in terms of answering three questions: Is recent warming of the climate system materially attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as is usually claimed? Is the rate of observed warming close to what computer climate models—used to guide public policy—show? Has the observed rate of warming been sufficient to justify alarm and extensive regulation of CO2 emissions? We should keep in mind that this is a political document intended to support the political aims of the Heritage Foundation, and Spencer has carefully selected what he says and doesn't say to fit the political agenda of the Heritage Found...
Read more

Patrick Frank Publishes on Errors Again

Image
Recently I came across yet another paper by Patrick Frank[1] attempting to claim that climate scientists have been underestimating uncertainties in climate-related data. In this paper, he takes aim at GMST data, and he argues that  LiG resolution limits, non-linearity, and sensor field calibrations yield GSATA mean ±2σ RMS uncertainties of, 1900–1945, ±1.7 °C; 1946–1980, ±2.1 °C; 1981–2004, ±2.0 °C; and 2005–2010, ±1.6 °C. Finally, the 20th century (1900–1999) GSATA, 0.74 ± 1.94 °C, does not convey any information about rate or magnitude of temperature change. The resulting GMST graph from his calculations is below. Essentially, he's saying that errors associated with liquid in glass thermometers are so large that we can have no confidence in the global warming trend in the major GMST datasets. Of course, the organizations producing these GMST datasets all evaluate the uncertainties associated with their anomaly values, and their estimates are invariably much smaller - about ±0.05°...
Read more