• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

Surface Detail said:
As I point out in the "science facts" thread, a gain of 0.63 will give a feedback factor of 2.7, thus amplifying a 1.1 C rise to 3 C. This does indeed produce dramatic swings in climate (cf. ice ages) but not runaway warming, which would require a gain >= 1.
Click to expand...

OK, fairly said.
 
longview said:
There were people at Exxon who raise concerns, but they were no more certain then than they are now
about the accuracy of what ECS would be.
By the way the National Academy of Sciences, Charney report in 1979 had the same 1.5 to 4.5 C ECS range we use today.
Last time I checked 1979 was just 2 years after 1977, so much for Scientific American's Exxon knew something 11 years early.
No, people knew CO2 was a greenhouse gas, and some people suspected it might do more than the simple forcing,
but here we are 39 years and billions of dollars after the Charney report, still not closer to how sensitivity the climate is to added CO2.
If you want to look for conspiracies, perhaps you should look at how all that money was wasted?
Click to expand...

Shoulda read it...

"They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,"

I usually talk about consensus being reached roughly 20 years ago.

But most of the work has pointed to AGW for 40 years.

You beat dead horses for oil companies.
 
longview said:
That is what I am saying, that when people say there is a consensus, the consensus is not
the 3 C, but rather that likely ECS is a broad range.
Click to expand...
You do know that we can read what you've posted, right? Around two hours ago, you wrote:

"Many Scientist likely think there is some positive feedbacks,
but the level of those feedbacks cannot be high enough for an ECS of 3 C."

It should be very obvious that 3C is possible, and that a part of that will be feedbacks.

I don't recall anyone saying "the consensus is an ECS of 3C." In fact, we got off on this tangent because you claim that Threegoofs once said that an ECS of 3C is likely. That was also about 2 hours ago.

I suggest you stop moving the goalposts. While you're at it, stop arguing for the sake of argument.
 
Surface Detail said:
As I point out on the other thread, the input is not 1.1 C; it is a forcing that would eventually result in 1.1 C of warming if there were no feedbacks present.
Click to expand...
The input is the warming, not the energy imbalance.
 
Visbek said:
You do know that we can read what you've posted, right? Around two hours ago, you wrote:

"Many Scientist likely think there is some positive feedbacks,
but the level of those feedbacks cannot be high enough for an ECS of 3 C."

It should be very obvious that 3C is possible, and that a part of that will be feedbacks.

I don't recall anyone saying "the consensus is an ECS of 3C." In fact, we got off on this tangent because you claim that Threegoofs once said that an ECS of 3C is likely. That was also about 2 hours ago.

I suggest you stop moving the goalposts. While you're at it, stop arguing for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...
So tell me, what goal post moved.
I have said that the consensus, is related to CO2 being a greenhouse gas, and not a firm ECS number.
I have also said that the feedback factor (Closed Loop Gain) necessary to produce a 3 C output from a 1.1 C input
is almost impossible, because it would have also amplified earlier warming out of control long ago.
 
late said:
Shoulda read it...

"They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,"

I usually talk about consensus being reached roughly 20 years ago.

But most of the work has pointed to AGW for 40 years.

You beat dead horses for oil companies.
Click to expand...

I think SA is misrepresenting what Exxon knew, James Black did write a memo stating his concerns.
I am not sure if he included the uncertainties, of which there are still plenty,
but the memo was supposedly addressed.
The same rules apply today, CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and burning fossil fuels releases long sequestered CO2,
BUT, Humanity benefits far more from fossil fuels, than the possible risks from burning them.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Perhaps I can put it in simple terms. Longview, please tell me if this is not the idea you are getting at;

If you have a microphone and speaker, the closer the mic is to the speaker the higher the chance of feedback. If the mic is too close and the input high the the slightest sound causes the high piched wine of feedback that has reached the max the speakers can put out. (Feedback greather than 1)

If the mic is away from the speaker then there is no feed back. (feeback <1)

If the mic is in the zone of potential feedback where all is quiet untill somebody speaks into the mic then if the effect of speaking is that you get a short feedback effect the feedback multiplier is less than 1 still but close to it.

If the effect of speaking causes the set up to go into continious wine mode it was above 1.

If the climate feedback from some input warming is over 1 we would already be Venus II. Thus it must be less than 1.

So a warming due to CO2 of 1.1c cannot cause more than another 1.1c of warming because that would have already fried us.

It can cause any range of warming below that. And obviously it must be distinctly below 1 or the swings in climate would be very very very dramatic.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much it, except they are using the term feedback factor to represent closed loop gain,
that is the gain of the entire amplifier including the feedback.
Describing a 3 C output for a 1.1 C input is too high, as it would quickly run out of control.
I think some slight positive feedback is possible, but it would have to be withing the range of
the natural processes absorbing the difference, least it also go out of control.
 
longview said:
I think SA is misrepresenting what Exxon knew
Click to expand...

I got interest in climate research in the early 80s, all I remember is oil company fighting the idea.

I do adore the naivete, btw. Oil comapnies are famous for overthrowing governments, assasinations, funding rebels, blackmail, and more.

Oil and ethics are non-intersecting sets. Which makes your assumption charming.
 
longview said:
That is pretty much it, except they are using the term feedback factor to represent closed loop gain,
that is the gain of the entire amplifier including the feedback.
Describing a 3 C output for a 1.1 C input is too high, as it would quickly run out of control.
I think some slight positive feedback is possible, but it would have to be withing the range of
the natural processes absorbing the difference, least it also go out of control.
Click to expand...

Have you read S.D's post below mine where he explains that a 0.63(?) amplifier would finally result in a +2.7c(?) over the initial input.

Pure maths was never my strong point so I'll get back to spectating...
 
late said:
I got interest in climate research in the early 80s, all I remember is oil company fighting the idea.

I do adore the naivete, btw. Oil comapnies are famous for overthrowing governments, assasinations, funding rebels, blackmail, and more.

Oil and ethics are non-intersecting sets. Which makes your assumption charming.
Click to expand...

Why do you expect the green/red side of the adjenda to be more pure than snow?
 
late said:
I got interest in climate research in the early 80s, all I remember is oil company fighting the idea.

I do adore the naivete, btw. Oil comapnies are famous for overthrowing governments, assasinations, funding rebels, blackmail, and more.

Oil and ethics are non-intersecting sets. Which makes your assumption charming.
Click to expand...

Several decades ago I worked in that industry, and know that they are not examples of Moral fortitude,
but what they knew about AGW, was already common knowledge, and their only concern was how to profit
from the concerns of others.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Have you read S.D's post below mine where he explains that a 0.63(?) amplifier would finally result in a +2.7c(?) over the initial input.

Pure maths was never my strong point so I'll get back to spectating...
Click to expand...
In a feedback amplifier, there is a number for the open loop gain, and a number for the closed loop gain.
The open loop gain is the volume of sound the speaker produces if no feedbacks are present.
The closed loop gain is the total gain including the feedbacks.
Op Amp Bandwidth
With an unknown delay factor in the feedback, we do not know the cycle time, but with even minor
"feedback factor" the overall system would quickly start accumulating energy.
Also all warming would be subject to amplification, so earlier warming would be amplified,
by the "feedback factor" times as many cycles had passed.
 
late said:
I got interest in climate research in the early 80s, all I remember is oil company fighting the idea.

I do adore the naivete, btw. Oil comapnies are famous for overthrowing governments, assasinations, funding rebels, blackmail, and more.

Oil and ethics are non-intersecting sets. Which makes your assumption charming.
Click to expand...

Exxon published all their research.
 
longview said:
Not really, as you implied they kept this exclusive knowledge secret, but the ideas and concepts were already,
in the public domain, and had been for decades.
Click to expand...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.


https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago
The oil industry’s knowledge of dangerous climate change stretches back to the 1960s, with unearthed documents showing that it was warned of “serious worldwide environmental changes” more than 45 years ago.

The Stanford Research Institute presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

The emergence of this stark advice follows a series of revelations that the fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change for decades, only to publicly deny its scientific basis.


They knew. They kept their research secret. They denied what they knew. They spread false information.
 
Visbek said:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.


https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago
The oil industry’s knowledge of dangerous climate change stretches back to the 1960s, with unearthed documents showing that it was warned of “serious worldwide environmental changes” more than 45 years ago.

The Stanford Research Institute presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

The emergence of this stark advice follows a series of revelations that the fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change for decades, only to publicly deny its scientific basis.


They knew. They kept their research secret. They denied what they knew. They spread false information.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that estimates in the range of current ECS estimates were not in the public record in 1896?
 
longview said:
So are you saying that estimates in the range of current ECS estimates were not in the public record in 1896?
Click to expand...
The articles are pointing out that Exxon and other oil companies had private research showing that the climate was warming, which they did not release to the public, and which was not "common knowledge." Yes, that includes spending over $1 million (in 1970s dollars, no less) on research no one else had conducted.

Instead of publishing their research, they distributed falsehoods, in order to protect their bottom line.

Ironically, Exxon's chief scientist hypothesized the atmosphere would warm by 2-3ºC -- sound familiar? And yes, we know more now than we did in the 1970s. A great deal more.

So...
• Exxon and other oil companies had proprietary research that they kept secret
• Their chief scientist had few doubts that CC/AGW was real and happening
• SciAm is not "misrepresenting" Black by quoting exactly what he wrote
• They fought against the idea of CC/AGW, including spending millions on lobbying, blocking legislation, spreading information they knew was false, etc
• You're shilling for the fossil fuel industry

Late is correct. You're incapable of admitting you're wrong. I'm shocked. Shocked and stunned.
 
Visbek said:
The articles are pointing out that Exxon and other oil companies had private research showing that the climate was warming, which they did not release to the public, and which was not "common knowledge." Yes, that includes spending over $1 million (in 1970s dollars, no less) on research no one else had conducted.

Instead of publishing their research, they distributed falsehoods, in order to protect their bottom line.

Ironically, Exxon's chief scientist hypothesized the atmosphere would warm by 2-3ºC -- sound familiar? And yes, we know more now than we did in the 1970s. A great deal more.

So...
• Exxon and other oil companies had proprietary research that they kept secret
• Their chief scientist had few doubts that CC/AGW was real and happening
• SciAm is not "misrepresenting" Black by quoting exactly what he wrote
• They fought against the idea of CC/AGW, including spending millions on lobbying, blocking legislation, spreading information they knew was false, etc
• You're shilling for the fossil fuel industry

Late is correct. You're incapable of admitting you're wrong. I'm shocked. Shocked and stunned.
Click to expand...

Exxon published all their research.


The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared

If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…
 
longview said:
In a feedback amplifier, there is a number for the open loop gain, and a number for the closed loop gain.
The open loop gain is the volume of sound the speaker produces if no feedbacks are present.
The closed loop gain is the total gain including the feedbacks.
Op Amp Bandwidth
With an unknown delay factor in the feedback, we do not know the cycle time, but with even minor
"feedback factor" the overall system would quickly start accumulating energy.
Also all warming would be subject to amplification, so earlier warming would be amplified,
by the "feedback factor" times as many cycles had passed.
Click to expand...

Yes but if it is less than 1 then eventually it will trail off.
 
Visbek said:
The articles are pointing out that Exxon and other oil companies had private research showing that the climate was warming, which they did not release to the public, and which was not "common knowledge." Yes, that includes spending over $1 million (in 1970s dollars, no less) on research no one else had conducted.

Instead of publishing their research, they distributed falsehoods, in order to protect their bottom line.

Ironically, Exxon's chief scientist hypothesized the atmosphere would warm by 2-3ºC -- sound familiar? And yes, we know more now than we did in the 1970s. A great deal more.

So...
• Exxon and other oil companies had proprietary research that they kept secret
• Their chief scientist had few doubts that CC/AGW was real and happening
• SciAm is not "misrepresenting" Black by quoting exactly what he wrote
• They fought against the idea of CC/AGW, including spending millions on lobbying, blocking legislation, spreading information they knew was false, etc
• You're shilling for the fossil fuel industry

Late is correct. You're incapable of admitting you're wrong. I'm shocked. Shocked and stunned.
Click to expand...

Was it a legal requirement that Exxon or any company for that matter release intellectual property?
The answer is no, it was not a legal requirement!
Oil companies are not nice people, and they do act in their own interest.
Also just because the idea of some scientist hypothesized 2-3ºC of warming from added CO2 does not make
that prediction any more true then than it is today.
This particular topic has been the subject of a lawsuit, and it went in favor of the oil companies.
Federal Judge Dismissed Claim Of A Conspiracy To Suppress Global Warming Science | The Daily Caller
A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case —
oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science.
Click to expand...
So much for Exxon knew, yes they knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, but so did everyone else.
So in those companies even thought there might be more warming than the direct forcing would produce,
but the uncertainty was just as great as it is today, or greater.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Yes but if it is less than 1 then eventually it will trail off.
Click to expand...
Right, each cycle ether add some or reduces some, and will ether stop the feedback or hit the limit of the amplifier.
 
longview said:
Was it a legal requirement that Exxon or any company for that matter release intellectual property?
The answer is no, it was not a legal requirement!
Click to expand...
"I love the smell of rationalizations in the morning. It smells like... victory"

Exxon is certainly entitled to proprietary information. However, research is normally kept private when it provides a competitive advantage -- e.g. studying geological formations in specific areas that may have oil; methods of extraction, and so forth. I can't imagine that research into greenhouse gases falls into that category.

Equally -- if not more -- problematic is that while their own research was finding that greenhouse gases posed a major threat to the environment, they were also running PR and lobbying campaigns that tried to convince the public and legislators that climate change was not a problem, that AGW was not real, and that regulation was bad for everyone.

This is comparable to tobacco companies knowing that their products were addictive and carcinogenic, while publicly denying what they knew, and fighting any regulation. Even if it's legal, it is immoral.


This particular topic has been the subject of a lawsuit, and it went in favor of the oil companies.
Click to expand...
The Daily Caller? Please.

The suit didn't get tossed because Exxon acted ethically, nor were the lawsuits specifically holding Exxon accountable for their PR campaigns. San Francisco and Oakland wanted to hold Exxon accountable for the damage they caused, not the lies they told. The judge dismissed it because, in his view, the judiciary shouldn't be handling these problems.

Meanwhile, other lawsuits are continuing, including one by NYC, another by Seattle, a new one brought by Rhode Island. You might not want to count your chickens before they're hatched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom