Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

[Lord of Planar]

But the change in solar insolation resulting from Milankovich effects between the last ice age and now wasn't 2.5 Wm-2, it was 0.235 Wm−2.

It would nice if you would actually read what I write!

Well at least on published paper says the change is solar insolation was as much as 2.5 W-m2
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/71cf/2b17dd2107786268fabe01dbf1fa60cc090e.pdf

No details understood from Surface Detail...

Do you even understand the difference between insolation and TSI?

To me, it is clear that you are clueless about this aspect of the sciences too. I really don't understand how you can continually contend you are right and we are wrong, when you clearly do not understand these sciences.

 

[Media_Truth]

The current science places the forcing warming from CO2 at between 1 and 1.1 C.
The amplified feedback warming is speculation, and has not validated, or measured in any definitive way.

Are you disagreeing with my statement that the atmosphere can currently hold more than 2% additional moisture due to the current warming trends? You've conveniently changed the subject so that you could masturbate your repetetive data.

 

[longview]

Yes, the solar insolation due to changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity can vary by as much as 2.5 W-m2. However, the difference between the last ice age and now is just 0.235 Wm−2. Look at the graph in the reference you posted. See how small the change is from the last ice age to now.

Since the cycles in the orbits, 100,000 years, 40,000 years, and I think 22,000 years, why would you think no minimums and maximums would have been reached?

 

[longview]

Are you disagreeing with my statement that the atmosphere can currently hold more than 2% additional moisture due to the current warming trends? You've conveniently changed the subject so that you could masturbate your repetetive data.

The amount of warming from Forcing has nothing to do with moisture, warmer air does hold more moisture, but that is not a part of the forcing.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

1988 - it took Shell that long? AGW science has been around since the early 20th century.View attachment 67231926

Yes and also that the Stanford Research Institute presented a report to the american oil and natural gas industry in 1968 that showed that burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

A Harvard study also showed that 80 percent of Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

 

[Bergslagstroll]

How does an origination claim to be an actual non profit group, they ether are are they are not,
what they promote is not much of a factor in their non profit status, they just cannot make any income.
What is claimed about the oil companies is that they knew that burning fossil fuels could increase CO2 levels,
and the CO2 was a greenhouse gas. There were people in the the oil companies who voiced concerns similar to James Hansen,
but the uncertainty was just as high back then as it is now.
The Science is simply that if we double the CO2 level, we could raise the average temperature by about 1.1 C.
The uncertainty is weather that 1.1 C is a good thing or a bad thing.
Further uncertainty is if the 1.1 C will be amplified through feedbacks to produce additional warming.
These ideas are nothing new, Businesses, Governments, and Organizations, all understood the risks, but also saw the benefits.
People can say the Oil companies conspired to hide this truth from people, but the reality is that they were all complicit.
The risks were known, and accepted.
I think the risks are still acceptable, because the data does not support high levels of feedback,
so we can use fossil fuels until the economic forces displace them from the market.
The best our Government can do at this point, is to ensure that home power generation is not restricted in it's growth.
Current grid tie laws, are toxic to the growth of grid tied home power generation.

If the fossil fuel companies truly believed that the benefits of fossil fuels outweighed the negative effect of manmade global warming then they could use their waste resource to communicate that. Instead they used deceptive tactics. Like for example creating groups that falsely claimed to be grassroots organization that opposed policies on climate change and renewable energy. The fossil fuel companies even sent forged letters claiming to be from actual nonprofit groups to members of Congress to influence votes on federal climate change legislation.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WttvvW6FOUk

Also, it’s very telling that the fossil fuel companies after several decades haven’t been able to come up to alternative scientific findings . That instead the fossil fuel companies now have to acknowledge the IPCC findings and the need to act against manmade global warming.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

The fossil fuel companies’ deceptive tactic has also have had huge negative effect on our societies. Because they contributed to halt earlier action on climate change that could have made the transition away from fossil fuel much easier. Just like the paint companies massive spending on PR, marketing and lobbying made it possible to sell lead paint in USA decades after the negative effects was know leading to huge costs for society.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Are you disagreeing with my statement that the atmosphere can currently hold more than 2% additional moisture due to the current warming trends? You've conveniently changed the subject so that you could masturbate your repetetive data.

Do you think that an additional 2% will cause more than an additional 2% of greenhouse effect?

If not then not significant effect at all.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If the fossil fuel companies truly believed that the benefits of fossil fuels outweighed the negative effect of manmade global warming then they could use their waste resource to communicate that. Instead they used deceptive tactics. Like for example creating groups that falsely claimed to be grassroots organization that opposed policies on climate change and renewable energy. The fossil fuel companies even sent forged letters claiming to be from actual nonprofit groups to members of Congress to influence votes on federal climate change legislation.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WttvvW6FOUk

Also, it’s very telling that the fossil fuel companies after several decades haven’t been able to come up to alternative scientific findings . That instead the fossil fuel companies now have to acknowledge the IPCC findings and the need to act against manmade global warming.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

The fossil fuel companies’ deceptive tactic has also have had huge negative effect on our societies. Because they contributed to halt earlier action on climate change that could have made the transition away from fossil fuel much easier. Just like the paint companies massive spending on PR, marketing and lobbying made it possible to sell lead paint in USA decades after the negative effects was know leading to huge costs for society.

There is no truth about them being deceptive. The pundits you regurgitate are lying. They are a corporation interested in maximizing profits. That's all they are guilty of. They need not lie to do such things. They offer a resource needed by the public. If they didn't, someone else would.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you think that an additional 2% will cause more than an additional 2% of greenhouse effect?

If not then not significant effect at all.

What the faithful to the dogma fail to comprehend is that if we went from 2-3% H2O in the atmosphere to 4-5%, the warming would be minimal anyway. That much extra moisture would cancel out most of the warming effect, maybe even reduce it due to the extra cloud coverage and global albedo increase.

 

[Media_Truth]

Are you disagreeing with my statement that the atmosphere can currently hold more than 2% additional moisture due to the current warming trends? You've conveniently changed the subject so that you could masturbate your repetetive data.

OK then, I'll just assume your changing of the topic was a faux pas on your part.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is no truth about them being deceptive. The pundits you regurgitate are lying. They are a corporation interested in maximizing profits. That's all they are guilty of. They need not lie to do such things. They offer a resource needed by the public. If they didn't, someone else would.

"Pundit?"
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Also, and this is rather basic: people, and yes even corporations, lie all the time, it's human nature.
Sorry that you have to learn this so later in life.

It is fascinating to watch you label anyone who opposes your view as liars and yet hold up corporations as being incapable of lying, by saying they'd never do such a thing, all because they sell something.

 

[Media_Truth]

Do you think that an additional 2% will cause more than an additional 2% of greenhouse effect?

If not then not significant effect at all.

Longview answered your first question. As I said, significance is relative. At 2%, a 24-hour storm can extend another 1/2 hour. That half hour could be the difference of a neighborhood being flooded. In addition, in a decade, that 2% will be 4-5%. In 2 decades, 7-8%, etc. etc.

Despite the misinformation being put out by the Rightist oil-funded groups, we are on a very steady warming course. And even considering all weather patterns and natural events, El Nino, Mount Pinataubo, etc, we have continued on this steady warming course.

 

[Tim the plumber]

What the faithful to the dogma fail to comprehend is that if we went from 2-3% H2O in the atmosphere to 4-5%, the warming would be minimal anyway. That much extra moisture would cancel out most of the warming effect, maybe even reduce it due to the extra cloud coverage and global albedo increase.

If it is due to increased carry capacity of the air then cloud couver would be er,......... OK, it's more complex than the simple uneffected I was going to say............ you may be right. They don't model clouds do they......

 

[Tim the plumber]

Longview answered your first question. As I said, significance is relative. At 2%, a 24-hour storm can extend another 1/2 hour. That half hour could be the difference of a neighborhood being flooded. In addition, in a decade, that 2% will be 4-5%. In 2 decades, 7-8%, etc. etc.

Despite the misinformation being put out by the Rightist oil-funded groups, we are on a very steady warming course. And even considering all weather patterns and natural events, El Nino, Mount Pinataubo, etc, we have continued on this steady warming course.

How do you get to the idea that a 2% extra carry capacity for the air will extend a storm by 2%?

The loss of heat energy from start of the storm to the end is the due to the difference between start temperature and the end. If the start and end are both increased than there is not much change.

Also it is still an extra 2% of water at most.

And I take it you agree that a 2% increase in water vapor will not do more than a 2% increase in greenhouse effect (well, a lot less)?

As I asked originally;

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Do you think that an additional 2% will cause more than an additional 2% of greenhouse effect?

If not then not significant effect at all.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

"Pundit?"
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Also, and this is rather basic: people, and yes even corporations, lie all the time, it's human nature.
Sorry that you have to learn this so later in life.

It is fascinating to watch you label anyone who opposes your view as liars and yet hold up corporations as being incapable of lying, by saying they'd never do such a thing, all because they sell something.

Yes, and for the fossil fuel companies have been very profitable. That their deceptive tactics have saved them billions of dollars by delaying action on climate change.

You can also see the effectiveness in the propaganda from that United States have gotten a president that claimed that global warming was a Chinese hoax, before he became president.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

While the new head of the EPA under Trump ignore the scientific evidence for manmade global warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There is no truth about them being deceptive. The pundits you regurgitate are lying. They are a corporation interested in maximizing profits. That's all they are guilty of. They need not lie to do such things. They offer a resource needed by the public. If they didn't, someone else would.

If you had clicked on the link you could have seen that The Climate Deception Dossiers consists of the fossil fuels companies’ own internal company and trade association documents. There fossil fuel companies have even gone as far as forging letters to congress.

While the surreptitious funding of astroturf groups to disseminate a corporate message is certainly a deceptive practice, on at least one key occasion, some fossil fuel companies have gone much further, backing an effort in which forged letters from actual nonprofit groups were sent to members of Congress in an effort to influence a vote on key federal climate change legislation.

Page 16 in the dossier.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you had clicked on the link you could have seen that The Climate Deception Dossiers consists of the fossil fuels companies’ own internal company and trade association documents. There fossil fuel companies have even gone as far as forging letters to congress.

Page 16 in the dossier.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

I have read such material before. I'm not chasing your tail on fibs. If you think it's valid, quote the valid paragraph. I'm tired of looking for information in a page or link that people claim is there, but I don't see when I look for it.

I think your confirmation bias is keeping your deluded.

 

[longview]

If the fossil fuel companies truly believed that the benefits of fossil fuels outweighed the negative effect of manmade global warming then they could use their waste resource to communicate that. Instead they used deceptive tactics. Like for example creating groups that falsely claimed to be grassroots organization that opposed policies on climate change and renewable energy. The fossil fuel companies even sent forged letters claiming to be from actual nonprofit groups to members of Congress to influence votes on federal climate change legislation.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WttvvW6FOUk

Also, it’s very telling that the fossil fuel companies after several decades haven’t been able to come up to alternative scientific findings . That instead the fossil fuel companies now have to acknowledge the IPCC findings and the need to act against manmade global warming.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

The fossil fuel companies’ deceptive tactic has also have had huge negative effect on our societies. Because they contributed to halt earlier action on climate change that could have made the transition away from fossil fuel much easier. Just like the paint companies massive spending on PR, marketing and lobbying made it possible to sell lead paint in USA decades after the negative effects was know leading to huge costs for society.

It is not just the fossil fuel companies who believe the benefits outweigh the negative effects, but
almost anyone who looks at the science.

The oil companies and many others tried to communicate that the science was not settled, and that the uncertainty was very high.
Anyone who voiced the idea that our use of fossil fuels may not lead to catastrophic consequences, was shouted down,
labeled a denier, or even a heretic. (The use of the term heretic for Dr. Judith Curry, says quite a bit.)

You say the fossil fuel companies haven’t been able to come up to alternative scientific findings,
to which I would ask alternative to what? What scientific finding do you think we have?
Yes the oil companies acknowledge that the science portion of the IPCC is correct, because it is,
but the science portion, is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The predicted catastrophic warming, is not directly from the added CO2, but from the predicted amplified feedbacks,
which have not been validated at the levels necessary for concern.

The IPCC says the ECS from doubling the CO2 level could be as low as 1.5 C.
(They also say the ECS could be as high as 4.5 C.)
The range between those two is the uncertainty.
Scientist, some of whom were lead authors on the last IPCC report, looked at how our climate has responded
to warming in the past. They found a most likely ECS of 2 C, (This finding strangely did not make it into the IPCC report.)

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It is not just the fossil fuel companies who believe the benefits outweigh the negative effects, but
almost anyone who looks at the science.

The oil companies and many others tried to communicate that the science was not settled, and that the uncertainty was very high.
Anyone who voiced the idea that our use of fossil fuels may not lead to catastrophic consequences, was shouted down,
labeled a denier, or even a heretic. (The use of the term heretic for Dr. Judith Curry, says quite a bit.)

You say the fossil fuel companies haven’t been able to come up to alternative scientific findings,
to which I would ask alternative to what? What scientific finding do you think we have?
Yes the oil companies acknowledge that the science portion of the IPCC is correct, because it is,
but the science portion, is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The predicted catastrophic warming, is not directly from the added CO2, but from the predicted amplified feedbacks,
which have not been validated at the levels necessary for concern.

The IPCC says the ECS from doubling the CO2 level could be as low as 1.5 C.
(They also say the ECS could be as high as 4.5 C.)
The range between those two is the uncertainty.
Scientist, some of whom were lead authors on the last IPCC report, looked at how our climate has responded
to warming in the past. They found a most likely ECS of 2 C, (This finding strangely did not make it into the IPCC report.)

The people that question the need for action against manmade global warming is still after decades all over the place. From those who claim manmade global warming is real, but the benefit of fossil fuel outweighs the negative, those who claim that global warming is real but mostly caused by other factors. To the president of the United States that have claimed that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

That all the money fossil fuel companies have spend have been able to distort the debate and delay action on manmade global warming, but not giving any coherent alternative answer.
Instead the evidence for manmade global warming and the need for action is so strong that even the fossil fuel companies now openly admit the need to reduce C02 emissions.

Climate issues are an integral part of our corporate strategic vision, aimed at keeping global warming below 2°C in relation to pre industrial levels by 2100. We have a responsibility to provide cost-effective, reliable and clean energy to as many people as possible, while managing energy consumption and the related emissions. This is the meaning behind our ambition of becoming the responsible energy major.

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

Statoil acknowledges the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) scientific consensus of the influence human activities have on inducing climate change. Statoil aims to be a part of a global energy transformation and continue to turn natural resources into energy for people and progress for society.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

You also have organization like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that show the yearly trillion dollars cost of fossil fuels.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

 

[Hawkeye10]

The people that question the need for action against manmade global warming is still after decades all over the place. From those who claim manmade global warming is real, but the benefit of fossil fuel outweighs the negative, those who claim that global warming is real but mostly caused by other factors. To the president of the United States that have claimed that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

That all the money fossil fuel companies have spend have been able to distort the debate and delay action on manmade global warming, but not giving any coherent alternative answer.
Instead the evidence for manmade global warming and the need for action is so strong that even the fossil fuel companies now openly admit the need to reduce C02 emissions.



https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change



https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

You also have organization like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that show the yearly trillion dollars cost of fossil fuels.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

Yes but should the action be trying to stop the change or should it be towards dealing with the change?

History is pretty clear on which way to go here.

We are blowing it.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Yes but should the action be trying to stop the change or should it be towards dealing with the change?

History is pretty clear on which way to go here.

We are blowing it.

We need to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time address the effects of climate change. There for example the Green Climate Fund will help the poorest countries accomplish just that. So, it’s bad that Trump have withdraw from the Paris Accord and USA’s payment to the fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-paris-green-climate-fund.html

Also, the three billion USA would have paid in total to the Green Climate Fund up until 2020 is little money compared to the ten billions a year that Trump’s plan to prop up American nuclear and coal power plants would have cost, where a lot of that money would have gone to the oldest and dirtiest coal power plants.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-trump-coal-industry-plan-rejected-rick-perry

You also have the Obama executive order that added caution when building structures in flood-prone areas, that could have helped with the adaption to climate change. Still for some reason the Trump administration rescinded that order.

Hurricane Harvey: Trump Killed Obama?s Flood Protection Rule | Fortune

 

[Lord of Planar]

You also have the Obama executive order that added caution when building structures in flood-prone areas, that could have helped with the adaption to climate change. Still for some reason the Trump administration rescinded that order.

Hurricane Harvey: Trump Killed Obama?s Flood Protection Rule | Fortune

I suggest you pull up executive orders 13690 and 11988 and see what was really changed, instead of listening to a lying pundit.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Obama's change actually reduced effectiveness. His EO requires the usage of FEMA data and in areas only close to waterways. With storm sewers of inadequate size as population grows, flooding can be cause by precipitation that can't flow away fast enough. Before the change, the EO 11988 requires the usage of HUD floodmaps, or the best available.

 

[longview]

The people that question the need for action against manmade global warming is still after decades all over the place. From those who claim manmade global warming is real, but the benefit of fossil fuel outweighs the negative, those who claim that global warming is real but mostly caused by other factors. To the president of the United States that have claimed that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

That all the money fossil fuel companies have spend have been able to distort the debate and delay action on manmade global warming, but not giving any coherent alternative answer.
Instead the evidence for manmade global warming and the need for action is so strong that even the fossil fuel companies now openly admit the need to reduce C02 emissions.



https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change



https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

You also have organization like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that show the yearly trillion dollars cost of fossil fuels.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

It is not action by the oil companies which hamper AGW, but the data itself.
The alarmist have not been able to show that the amplified feedbacks necessary for a catastrophic results exists.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We need to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time address the effects of climate change. There for example the Green Climate Fund will help the poorest countries accomplish just that. So, it’s bad that Trump have withdraw from the Paris Accord and USA’s payment to the fund.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-paris-green-climate-fund.html

Also, the three billion USA would have paid in total to the Green Climate Fund up until 2020 is little money compared to the ten billions a year that Trump’s plan to prop up American nuclear and coal power plants would have cost, where a lot of that money would have gone to the oldest and dirtiest coal power plants.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-trump-coal-industry-plan-rejected-rick-perry

You also have the Obama executive order that added caution when building structures in flood-prone areas, that could have helped with the adaption to climate change. Still for some reason the Trump administration rescinded that order.

Hurricane Harvey: Trump Killed Obama?s Flood Protection Rule | Fortune

Clearly you suffer from a one track mind.....

Trumpity Trump Trump Trump.