Thread: The ExxonMobil Agenda on Global Warming

Originally Posted by Xei

The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been hundreds of times higher in Earth's history. This illustrates how the claim that the Earth could develop a Venusian climate is complete and utter nonsense; because it hasn't.

Way off, since the first life which brought the CO2 levels to current levels it has only gone to about 5x what it is right now, and that was due to huge amounts of volcanic activity. The temperature skyrocketed because of it and eventually caused an ice age.

In the past 450,000 the CO2 level hasn't even been close to what it is at right now.

Another fact - this time, one which has an comparatively huge amount of empirical verification; higher temperatures decrease CO2 solubility. So, as soon as the planet gets warmer, a whole 2/3 of its surface starts to churn out large quantities of CO2. Wanted an explanation for your graphs? There you have it. At the very least it's worthy of some serious study (if there has been any it has been ignored; the CO2 debate is not a scientific one at all, it's a complete joke).

The temperatures in that study were very high (hundreds of degrees outside of Earthly temperatures.) It doesn't change the fact that CO2 has a serious greenhouse effect.

Originally Posted by Arby

Originally Posted by Xei

Conclusion from your own data: if the amount of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is enough to cause its temperature to rise by, say, 200K (rough guess), a simple calculation shows us that the rise in temperature due the totalCO2 in Earth's atmosphere (not the change, which is even smaller) is reponsible for roughly a 0.1K temperature rise.

DAMMIT Xei, thats what I wanted to point out =(

Venu's atmosphere is 90 thicker than ours, it's core is unstable, and it has clouds of sulfuric acid which majority contribute to it's temperature. CO2 is the only reason that the earth's temperature is the way that it is. NO2 and O2 have almost no greenhouse effects, without the CO2 in the atmosphere the dark side of the earth would go to negative hundreds of degrees, which would cause daily storms with winds of hundreds of miles an hour. Saying that CO2 on earth contributes about .1K makes everyone know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Global Warming is a big sack of shit.

Totally bollocks.

I would sit around and bore you with all the nitpicking stuff, but MC has already done this for me:

http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-ou...talfuture.html

I don't agree with your conclusion, but I do thank you for actually posting something of interest to read, something the others here have not bothered doing.

Michael Crichton was an extremely bright and talented man, and I was sad to hear he passed recently. He is very well-educated, and what he has written is always worth a read, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. I gave this read my full attention.

He does a credible job of dissecting some of this information, and I would like to address this more closely soon, but I will make a couple of points on his speech.

First it is important to note that Crichton, while a smart man, was not a climate scientist. That certainly does not mean he was clueless, but it puts this in a little better perspective.

Next, I must mention that his speech is now almost 4 years old, and the data has been greatly updated in that short time. As we continue our understanding, the data continues to improve, and at this point, it even further supports the claim of global warming. A small but important point.

Last I will point out that he several times makes it clear that he does not know to what extent climate change might be happening, only that there is in his mind reason enough to doubt the data. He rightfully points out other huge problems we are facing that are not getting the same due attention, and I agree with this assessment. To his credit, he provides many caveats to his conclusions, such as:

"But the question is whether the sun accounts for a significant part of twentieth-century warming. Nobody is sure."

"And let me repeat: nobody knows how much is attributable to carbon dioxide right now."

"Finally, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can know the present."

But I also believe he is leading the audience somewhat here. Regard this statement:

"If the system is non-linear and chaotic—and it is—then it can’t be predicted, and if it can’t be predicted, what are we doing here?"

This is a surprising statement from such a studied person. Let me give you an example more or less taken directly from his own writing, Jurassic Park. From the movie version, recall the scene with Jeff Goldblum, where he makes a point about Chaos theory while on the plane to the park. He demonstrates that supposed initial conditions don't necessarily lead to a predictable conclusion by putting a drop of water on his hand, and showing that it may go in different directions each time from the same starting point. (A very poor demonstration to attempt on a moving plane, but I digress.)

If it is impossible to guess which route the water takes, it is still very easy to see the general trend: downward. To extrapolate the conclusion that not knowing the details of a chaotic system means that we cannot gauge trends in that system shows a lack of understanding in a subject in which he seems to have placed great value.

Points for the link; it's actually a very good read. There is very little science on the side of global warming denial, and Crichton did his best. I don't however believe that he is ultimately qualified to draw the conclusions he implies.

First it is important to note that Crichton, while a smart man, is not a climate scientist. That certainly does not mean he is clueless, but it puts this in a little better perspective.

Agreed. Why are you guys listening to a writer as opposed something like.. oh I don't know... NASA?

"But the question is whether the sun accounts for a significant part of twentieth-century warming. Nobody is sure."

The number of sunspots has been fairly constant that past century. Sunspots increase as the sun's temperature increases, constant sunspots means that the temperature has been constant.

"And let me repeat: nobody knows how much is attributable to carbon dioxide right now."

We know how much the CO2 level is increasing every year and the heat capacitance of CO2. Computers can accurately predict the past, so it's a safe bet that it can predict the future and the present.

There are simulations that can accurately show almost every major fluctuation including the middle ages warming period and the little ice age of the mid 1800s.

Way off, since the first life which brought the CO2 levels to current levels it has only gone to about 5x what it is right now, and that was due to huge amounts of volcanic activity. The temperature skyrocketed because of it and eventually caused an ice age.

In the past 450,000 the CO2 level hasn't even been close to what it is at right now.

Where do you get this information? Did you just guess it?

The first result for "history of Earth's CO2 levels" gave me this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

There's a good graph there. Note that

- You are completely wrong, and
- The temperature was unaffected

The temperatures in that study were very high (hundreds of degrees outside of Earthly temperatures.) It doesn't change the fact that CO2 has a serious greenhouse effect.

Study?? What study?? This is basic chemistry here, you'll find it in any highschool textbook and you can do the experiment yourself. Hundreds of degrees?? Again, please reassure me that you don't simply make this up as you go along. First Google result:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...solubility.png

Venu's atmosphere is 90 thicker than ours, it's core is unstable, and it has clouds of sulfuric acid which majority contribute to it's temperature. CO2 is the only reason that the earth's temperature is the way that it is. NO2 and O2 have almost no greenhouse effects, without the CO2 in the atmosphere the dark side of the earth would go to negative hundreds of degrees, which would cause daily storms with winds of hundreds of miles an hour. Saying that CO2 on earth contributes about .1K makes everyone know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, completely and utterly objectively wrong. Water vapour contributes to between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. First Google result:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...ect_gases.html

We know how much the CO2 level is increasing every year and the heat capacitance of CO2. Computers can accurately predict the past, so it's a safe bet that it can predict the future and the present.

There are simulations that can accurately show almost every major fluctuation including the middle ages warming period and the little ice age of the mid 1800s.

Completely wrong. The IPCC report itself states that this is utterly impossible, because the climate is a chaotic system. Did you read that speech? It listed many examples, such as the global cooling scare and population growth models which accurately modelled the past but were completely wrong when predicting the future. There's absolutely no way you can model something like that so precisely (they had 400% error margin, remember?). As the guy said, there's no way at all that it is scientifically acceptable to create a model designed to predict results that you already have for the past, and then ask it to predict the future. I could make such a model;

1400 - 2008: Copy data
2008 -: Last piece of data * e^(year-2008)

Originally Posted by Xei

Where do you get this information? Did you just guess it?

The first result for "history of Earth's CO2 levels" gave me this:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

There's a good graph there. Note that

- You are completely wrong, and
- The temperature was unaffected

Okay, the since life thing was wrong, but in the last 350 million years that graph shows that it has never been more than 5x what it is right now.

You do realize that plate tectonics also effect the earth's temperatures so that the CO2 vs temperature over long periods of times is stupid unless you take into consideration that. Second step in the scientific method: Identify the variables.

150 million years ago: Massive volcanism caused the CO2 levels to skyrocket, but the temperature didn't go up because the ash amount was so high that it blocked the sunlight and caused the temperatures to plummet. The plummeting temperatures caused huge ice shelves which reflected sunlight so it caused the temperature to stay low. I'm guessing, I could find out for sure with a little googling, but I guarantee there is a reason for temperatures going down and CO2 going up.

Try looking at the last 450,000 years where the plate tectonics and amount of volcanism has been constant.

Again, completely and utterly objectively wrong. Water vapour contributes to between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. First Google result:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...ect_gases.html

And CO2 and methane is the rest. CO2 amount is rising slowly, methane amounts have doubled in the past 100 years.

Completely wrong. The IPCC report itself states that this is utterly impossible, because the climate is a chaotic system. Did you read that speech? It listed many examples, such as the global cooling scare and population growth models which accurately modelled the past but were completely wrong when predicting the future. There's absolutely no way you can model something like that so precisely (they had 400% error margin, remember?). As the guy said, there's no way at all that it is scientifically acceptable to create a model designed to predict results that you already have for the past, and then ask it to predict the future. I could make such a model;

If you take the lower end of the 400% error margin there is still an enormous warming.

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8yJhHEw_ys

Explains when and why the earth temperature and CO2 levels where the way that they were. Has testimonials by real climatologists, and cites all of it's sources. 9 parts.

Okay, the since life thing was wrong, but in the last 350 million years that graph shows that it has never been more than 5x what it is right now.

Indeed, but that has not relevant to what I was saying. To remind you, I was saying that there is empirical evidence that uncontrollably spiralling temperatures when you (say) double CO2 concentration is pure propaganda.

Try looking at the last 450,000 years where the plate tectonics and amount of volcanism has been constant.

Remember it is a fallacy to assert that correlation implies causation. Either one variable causes the other, vice versa, or a third variable causes both (basic statistics). Also recall why I mentioned CO2 solubility.

And CO2 and methane is the rest. CO2 amount is rising slowly, methane amounts have doubled in the past 100 years.

Yes but the point was you said the Earth without CO2 would freeze and then said I had no idea what I was talking about... these things are equally wrong.

If you take the lower end of the 400% error margin there is still an enormous warming.

These lower limits were all generated by a computer model based upon the same hypotheses. Just like the global population, even if the previous trend was a beautiful exponential curve, we are dealing with real systems here. And even then; a 1 degree rise isn't going to set anybody's hair on fire.

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8yJhHEw_ys

Explains when and why the earth temperature and CO2 levels where the way that they were. Has testimonials by real climatologists, and cites all of it's sources. 9 parts.

I may watch it, but 1 1/2 hours is quite a lot considering it will have no implications for my lifestyle at all.

Originally Posted by Xei

Indeed, but that has not relevant to what I was saying. To remind you, I was saying that there is empirical evidence that uncontrollably spiralling temperatures when you (say) double CO2 concentration is pure propaganda.

Not according to the historical data.

Remember it is a fallacy to assert that correlation implies causation. Either one variable causes the other, vice versa, or a third variable causes both (basic statistics). Also recall why I mentioned CO2 solubility.

Identify the variable then. CO2 traps heat, you don't need to be a climatologist to know that, more CO2 means more heat.

Yes but the point was you said the Earth without CO2 would freeze and then said I had no idea what I was talking about... these things are equally wrong.

That 35% of greenhouse gases would bring the global temperature way down, causing humidity to go down to near 0, which would mean that there would be no water vapor. The temperature would spiral down to nothing.


Just watch the show, then you can debate causality. It's also cool, the CG of the green and red oceans are cool

Not according to the historical data.

Wait... there's historical data for the Earth spiralling into a Venusian climate?

Identify the variable then.

...you're not getting this, are you?

Temperature. Temperature decreases CO2 solubility. Remember that bit?

That 35% of greenhouse gases would bring the global temperature way down, causing humidity to go down to near 0, which would mean that there would be no water vapor. The temperature would spiral down to nothing.

Complete fantasy. Please stop making elaborate things up with no references or anything.

Originally Posted by Xei

Wait... there's historical data for the Earth spiralling into a Venusian climate?

I never said anything about venus. Venus's atmosphere is 90 times as thick as ours and full of sulfur. Even if your atmosphere was 100% CO2 it wouldn't reach venus, it would maybe get to 200 degrees, no more.

Temperature. Temperature decreases CO2 solubility. Remember that bit?

I'm not saying that that isn't true, but the ocean is huge and it's temperature is very constant. Something has to trigger it to start releasing CO2. In ancient cases it was CO2 greenhouse effects of volcanism, but this time it was people.

You're saying that the temperature just randomly went up which caused the oceans to release CO2. There are only so many things that can change the global temperature. Solar temperatures (which haven't changed) and greenhouse gases (which are emitted by people.)

Complete fantasy. Please stop making elaborate things up with no references or anything.

You think if the atmosphere lost 35% of it's greenhouse capabilities the humidity level wouldn't plummet? The ability of air to hold water vapor is proportional to the temperature. Low air temperature means little water vapor. Stop ignoring simple science.

I never said anything about venus. Venus's atmosphere is 90 times as thick as ours and full of sulfur. Even if your atmosphere was 100% CO2 it wouldn't reach venus, it would maybe get to 200 degrees, no more.

Well then apparently you just lost track of the conversation I suppose (that bit started around post 27). It was about how CO2 can't cause a spiralling effect as is sometimes suggested.

You're saying that the temperature just randomly went up which caused the oceans to release CO2. There are only so many things that can change the global temperature. Solar temperatures (which haven't changed) and greenhouse gases (which are emitted by people.)

Yes, I am saying that, or at least suggesting it. Please tell me how we know the solar teperatures thousands of years ago, and then post some data. 'Greenhouse gases are emitted by people'; this is a very silly statement. Yes they are... but not exclusively! Many organisms give off large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gases. In case you weren't aware (I'm not insinuating that you aren't), organisms have completely shaped the atmosphere of the Earth.

You think if the atmosphere lost 35% of it's greenhouse capabilities the humidity level wouldn't plummet? The ability of air to hold water vapor is proportional to the temperature. Low air temperature means little water vapor. Stop ignoring simple science.

That's not science. Do some proper calculations or, considering they're probably very hard and obscure, find somebody who's done them for you. You continue to make things up without justification...

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You're saying that the temperature just randomly went up which caused the oceans to release CO2. There are only so many things that can change the global temperature. Solar temperatures (which haven't changed) and greenhouse gases (which are emitted by people.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You think if the atmosphere lost 35% of it's greenhouse capabilities the humidity level wouldn't plummet? The ability of air to hold water vapor is proportional to the temperature. Low air temperature means little water vapor. Stop ignoring simple science.

Did you know that water is an extremely potent greenhouse gas?

I have heard and seen so much contradicting information concerning both sides of global warming, my brain feels like exploding.

I think I'll buy a fuel efficient car and solar panels just to be safe.

Goddamnit Drew. I came in here to play devil's advocate for a minute only to realize you had sucked all the fun out of it by being a giant douchebag. Why do you always have to be as big an asshole as possible when disagreeing with someone, or even just posting in general? Stop being a douche already, it doesn't make you sound smart.

Life has existed on this planet for about 4.5 billion years. The industrial revolution started around 200 years ago. The predominant theory is that we reached peak oil production around 2000, which means about half of the earth's oil supply has already been used up. You would have to be a complete idiot to think that 2.5 billion years of carbon build up being released into the atmosphere in just over 200 years will have no effect on the global climate.

I think I'll buy a fuel efficient car and solar panels just to be safe.

You'll save money and be less dependent on oil anyway. You don't need to give a shit about global warming.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

I see a graph that shows an 11 year cycle that is not increasing. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with that link.

Did you know that water is an extremely potent greenhouse gas?

Everyone knows that. I'm again not sure what you're getting at. The average humidity in the atmosphere is not increasing

Originally Posted by Xei

Well then apparently you just lost track of the conversation I suppose (that bit started around post 27). It was about how CO2 can't cause a spiralling effect as is sometimes suggested.

You're contradicting yourself. You keep saying that the solubility of CO2 decreasing is increasing global warming by released CO2 from the ocean (which is true) I'm confused how Venus got involved in this. Yes, CO2 is the major reason Venus' atmosphere is so hot, but it's got 90x as much atmosphere as Earth. Earth can never get like Venus even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2.[/quote]

Yes, I am saying that, or at least suggesting it. Please tell me how we know the solar teperatures thousands of years ago, and then post some data.

Watch the damn Youtube. No one knows solar activity from 1000 years ago, but Galeglio started recording them in the 1600 and they've been watched constantly since the 1800s.

'Greenhouse gases are emitted by people'; this is a very silly statement. Yes they are... but not exclusively! Many organisms give off large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gases. In case you weren't aware (I'm not insinuating that you aren't), organisms have completely shaped the atmosphere of the Earth.

All oxygen breathing life gives off CO2, but it wouldn't increase it dramatically like it's been doing. You know that graph of the CO2 levels over the last 50 years? Those cyclical ups and downs every year are because of animals.

Animals can only shape an atmosphere over very long periods of time. The only thing that can change it abruptly like we're seeing is the sun, volcanos, or man.

That's not science. Do some proper calculations or, considering they're probably very hard and obscure, find somebody who's done them for you. You continue to make things up without justification...

It is science. Cold air doesn't hold water vapor as well. Fact. Less CO2 in the atmosphere means cooler temperatures. Fact. I can do calculations, they aren't hard. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to get, removing CO2 brings down temperature, which brings down humidity, which further decreases temperature.

100% (all greenhouse components) - 35% (CO2 + methane) = 65%
65% * 1 (constant heat from the sun) = .65 (amount of heat held by the atmosphere)

Graph of water capacity vs temperature


Take any point on the graph, take 65% of it and you get the drop in water vapor temperature. Now add the loss of water vapor to the CO2 + methane portion and repeat until the change is negligible.

You're constantly contradicting yourself. Yes animals give off CO2 and yes increasing temperature makes the ocean give off CO2. Both have problems. Refer to the graph in post 31.

in the last 100 years the graph shows a huge spike. 1.5x the levels in the last 450,000. Animals respiration can not produce that much CO2 that fast.

Your other argument is that CO2 is the effect, not the cause. If that were the case, the spike in temperature should occur first The ocean temperature has risen 1 degree globally (and is accelerating.) If your theory was right, then there should be a spike in ocean temperature a few decades before a spike in CO2. We don't see that, the CO2 has spiked and the temperature is following it. Temperature is not the independent variable, greenhouse gases are.

Here is the point that every single person here is missing.

None of us here are climate scientists. I doubt anyone here is a scientist of any type whatsoever. If you are, please let us know your credentials, otherwise we can all assume this is the case.

Every single one of us is relying on information supplied to us by somebody else. Every single one of us is ignoring or brushing aside information given to us by yet another party.

The question at this point should have nothing to do with C02, peak oil, sun spots, or ice cores. ALL of that information is coming to you third hand.

The question you should be asking yourselves at this moment is "who authored this information, and can they be trusted?"

I submit to you that any source that has direct money ties to ExxonMobil is automatically suspect. Note that I did not say "wrong," I said "suspect." It could not be any clearer that ExxonMobil would have a vested interest in supressing or distorting any data that suggested that burning fossil fuels can cause harm. If you can not see the logic in this statement, you have no business debating anything here whatsoever.

In light of this, it would behoove each and every one of you deniers to find a source of data you can trust. I will again explain my challenge to all of you.

Find ONE American scientist (preferably in the area of climate, earth sciences, or a related field) who denies global warming, and who has does not have direct ties to ExxonMobil. Or find ONE publication or organization that has publicly denied global warming that has no such ties. Just one. Post it here. Drewmandan showed that a "quick google search" fails miserably, so I implore you to put a little thought into it.

If you cannot find one, you really need to start rethinking your position. Of course ExxonMobil can put money wherever they want, and it's not illegal for them to support research of any kind. But if the fact that (as far as I can determine) EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE SCIENTISTS takes money from ExxonMobil should ring gigantic alarm bells for you. In absense of said ringing, you can only be regarded as beyond gullable.

If this challenge does not appeal to you, perhaps you can go the other route and show me an American scientist in an appropriate field who supports global warming, for whom you can demonstrate any questionable funding from anywhere at all. This is certainly more than fair: I promise to try to identify EVERYBODY on your side as taking questionable funding, and all I ask in return is that you identify ONE person on my side. And please don't waste everyone's time answering "Al Gore." He is not a scientist.

There's the challenge. If there is no global warming, this should be a walk in the park for you.

Found this on wiki:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I'll leave it to you guys to investigate the credibility of each person on the list. I'm not really partial in this debate but I thought this should be thrown out there.

Originally Posted by DuB

Found this on wiki:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I'll leave it to you guys to investigate the credibility of each person on the list. I'm not really partial in this debate but I thought this should be thrown out there.

That's a good place for people to start. Anything from the category of "Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased," "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes," or "Believe global warming will benefit human society" would fit the bill, assuming their credentials are valid. Of course I caution the challengers to tread carefully here. I already see several people on the list who I recognize as having very well-known large ties to Exxon.

Good luck.

Addendum: Just to be clear, I am not at all certain that such a person can't be found. I'm kind of hoping you can find him. Then at least reading the particulars of what they say might have some merit to bring to your side of the argument. I do welcome debating the merits of the two sides of the argument, just not against the usual suspects with the usual motives.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Goddamnit Drew. I came in here to play devil's advocate for a minute only to realize you had sucked all the fun out of it by being a giant douchebag. Why do you always have to be as big an asshole as possible when disagreeing with someone, or even just posting in general? Stop being a douche already, it doesn't make you sound smart.

The only one making an ass of himself is you, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Life has existed on this planet for about 4.5 billion years. The industrial revolution started around 200 years ago. The predominant theory is that we reached peak oil production around 2000, which means about half of the earth's oil supply has already been used up. You would have to be a complete idiot to think that 2.5 billion years of carbon build up being released into the atmosphere in just over 200 years will have no effect on the global climate.

Life has existed for 3.5-4 billion years.

Burning of hydrocarbons has been going on for all of human history.

Yes, we have probably reached peak oil, and that's a problem if the economy runs on oil. Here's an interesting video about how fucked we are because of this (includes math for simpletons!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2...eature=channel

But here's the thing: Not all of the CO2 from burning lingers in the atmosphere, and the Earth has an extremely robust negative feedback mechanism for capturing CO2, called "plants". So frankly, I don't see a problem. I see some graphs without error bars because they would probably be bigger than the graphs. I see some naively calculated numbers showing that *gasp* the temperature has increased by less than a degree on average, ±10 degrees. I just don't see the need to add Reason #347 for why we shouldn't use oil. It just takes away the credibility of all the valid reasons.

A human breathes 0.5 tons of CO2 per year on average.
A Prius driven 20 miles to work 5 days a week for a year produces 2.3 tons of CO2

Yes, there are animals who produce more CO2 than humans, but most people don't have a brand new Prius and drive a hell of a lot more than that. Most of the claims against global warming aren't that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (which is Chem 101) it's that we don't put off that much CO2.

Until the industrial revolution that amount of CO2 absorbed by plants and emitted by animals was fairly equal. How opponents think that the millions of tons of CO2 produced by humans since the industrial revolution just disappears somehow boggles my mind. Cars emit CO2 is huge quantities, so do coal power stations. That's not debate, it's fact.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Until the industrial revolution that amount of CO2 absorbed by plants and emitted by animals was fairly equal.

Clear-cutting/deforestation doesn't help much either. If plants are what's saving us from too much C02, shouldn't we be worried that we're systematically eliminating a great deal of them?

By the way, still waiting on takers on the challenge.