Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

thecompost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 340 posts

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#311

Post by ThomPete »

specialist wrote: post #308
ThomPete wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. Wind and solar constitute less than 1% of world energy consumption and doesn't have all the other properties and uses that makes oil such a fundamental and necessary ingredient for modern living. Hopefully overtime we will find something that's better, for now it's hard to find as amazing and flexible a resource as oil. Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal

I like this particular comment because you've stated what you're for, versus what you're against. There is a lot of daylight between our respective positions. I don't agree with most of your assumptions, or statements of fact. So of course I don't agree with your conclusions. Alas, our realities are so far apart, there's zero profit in trying to find common ground. I do have a request, a suggestion: Make some predict…

I've made several predictions in this thread and I have been making others through the years I have a pretty good intuition about what to worry about and what to now, historically.

I'm from Denmark originally I grew up with wind and understand the pros and cons pretty well and I know the reality of wind and solar which isn't what you seem to think it is.

Furthermore, now I am investing in interesting energy companies doing anything substantial and I can just tell you that it's a much harder problem than most thing and is solved by neither sun nor wind.

I am wrong about a lot of things and I will change my position when I am, however, this is not an area I am wrong about but an area I predict you will realize in 10 years from now that I was right about.

This is why I say there is no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we can't deal with and I have yet to hear anyone able to refute that. Climate catastrophism is going to be a joke a decade from now and we won't be leaving oil anytime soon, it's simply too valuable for human life and the ability to live with nature.

Furthermore, I seem to be one of the few people who actually care about the only thing that matters in the context of this discussion which is how much do humans affect the climate. What's the number? Where is scientifically demonstrated proof?

If you can give me that and show me it's high then you have convinced me. Until you do that then you are asking me to act on something there is no scientific evidence for.

Anyway, thank you for at least being civil about it and not (I assume) downvote me like more or less anyone do on anyone who dares say anything that isn't part of the normal spiel.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#312

Post by tempestn »

ThomPete wrote: post #289
tempestn wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have a point if we were just taking temperature readings and guessing about the cause. However, the greenhouse gas effect is known, and can be easily demonstrated. Likewise, we can measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and see it rapidly rising[1]. We also know all the many human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere. So there's a pretty clear causal chain here. [1] https://climate.nasa.…

It can be demonstrated but that does not mean the entire system can be. There is as an example negative feedback effects too in the system. The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900. So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in…

> The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900.

> So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variation.

First of all, global average temperature increase actually has accelerated significantly since the 1950s: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

The increase has not been proportional to the increase in C02 in the atmosphere, but that is expected. Temperature is not directly proportional to atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Rather, heat loss is dependent on them (and on other factors like surface color, which is affected by ice melting, to name one. The main one that has changed thus far though is atmospheric C02). Just because the earth is trapping more heat though, doesn't mean that the temperature will make a large change instantaneously. Instead, the change in temperature over time will be proportional to the difference between energy in from the sun, and energy out in the form of emitted heat. By increasing greenhouse gasses, we reduce the latter, causing temperature to rise over time.

Since heat emission is proportional to temperature, eventually (if we stopped emitting CO2) we would reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. In order to get back to a lower temperature, we need to eventually actually remove C02 from the atmosphere.

This is precisely why climate change is currently such a crisis: even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emission now, which is obviously impossible, we would still see a significant further increase in temperature due to the imbalance in heat transfer that already exists due to past emissions. The more that is added, the greater that increase will be.

Everything I've said is backed up by clear science, so if you're really looking at this with an open mind, please tell me what part you disagree with or are unsure about, and I'll be happy to provide supporting evidence.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#313

Post by ThomPete »

tempestn wrote: post #312
ThomPete wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be demonstrated but that does not mean the entire system can be. There is as an example negative feedback effects too in the system. The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900. So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in…

> The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900. > So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variati…

You are confusing CO2 emissions with temperature. The temperature hasn't increased significantly, CO2 has.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#314

Post by adrianmonk »

FrojoS wrote: post #193

Slightly tangential, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the political way forward for big countries: 1. Have a single CO2 budget for the whole country, with an aggressive, Hard to change roadmap of yearly reduction of said budget down to zero in the not too long future. 2. Estimate the CO2 footprint of every single product, incl. imports by one or several neutral organizations. This doesn’t have to be perfe…

I don't particularly like the idea of coupling together one problem (poverty) with another (carbon).

For one thing, it will be a temporary windfall. Then you've got to find ways to replace the revenue when you succeed.

I'd rather see the revenue from a carbon tax go into research, development, and infrastructure that further accelerates the transition to carbon neutral energy.

Obviously, the tax already gives you an incentive to look for other alternatives, but this helps make those other alternatives more practical, so it kind of pushes and pulls you in the right direction.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#315

Post by dunstad »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #44
dunstad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is option 3, come clean, change their ways and work to correct the damage? Why are 'lie' and 'kill themselves' more obvious?

Option 3 is what people admire but it is not human behavior. Throughout history people and corporations have chosen to lie to themselves and others rather than accept a cold hard truth.

Sounds like the profit motive has some significant issues.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#316

Post by tempestn »

ThomPete wrote: post #313
tempestn wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900. > So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variati…

You are confusing CO2 emissions with temperature. The temperature hasn't increased significantly, CO2 has.

No, I'm not. CO2 has increased more than temperature, but both have increased, as you can see from the graph on the link I included next to that statement.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#317

Post by wang_li »

bumby wrote: post #306
wang_li wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just responding to the proposal put forward upstream with a number of points enumerated. Things can be dictatorial but fair. And realistically I think most western countries can maintain their current standard of living while reducing emmisssions, as I too believe we are capable of solutions. It doesn't mean sacrifice if carbon became part of the economy. Honestly it could be the unit of exchange if we chose to…

> Things can be dictatorial but fair. So who gets to choose? One person's benevolent dictator is another person's despot.

Me. Obviously.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#318

Post by adrianN »

coldtea wrote: post #259
adrianN wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to stop eating meat completely. It just becomes more expensive.

So that the masses can't have it, but anybody making over say $100K year (or $1M year) it's a non issue ("yeah, burger went from $5 to $20, still hardly a dent to my finances").

We can either make things more expensive now with a tax that we can structure so that poor people are hit less hard, or we can wait until catastrophic climate change makes everything expensive and there is nothing we can do to help the poor because even the rich are struggling.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#319

Post by ThomPete »

tempestn wrote: post #316
ThomPete wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing CO2 emissions with temperature. The temperature hasn't increased significantly, CO2 has.

No, I'm not. CO2 has increased more than temperature, but both have increased, as you can see from the graph on the link I included next to that statement.

But temperatures haven't increased significantly and especially not when you compare from late 1800 to mid 1900 thats almost the same increase around the 0.5 long before any significant co2 emissions from us.

Thats the point here.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#320

Post by reitanqild »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #256
reitanqild wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every fossil fuel company is going to lie their pants off because that's what you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation. Speak for yourself. 1. A good number of people actually have a spine. I'd not say the majority "is good && have a spine" but enough that you are lying. 2. It doesn't help at all to spread the lie that everyone else lying. Speaking as someone who has been embarassingly…

Speak for myself? I speak for humanity. And did you just call me a liar? Maybe a better way to disagree with me is to say you think I'm mistaken than to call me a liar. What do you think religion is except for one big lie? Muslims and Christian's can't both be right, either one of them is right or neither of them. That puts a major portion of the world population gauraunteed to be delusional. Delusional behavior as a…

History is full of people who faced severe consequences or even death instead of lying. What you said was literally (emphasis mine):

> that's what you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation.

Which is literally false if history books and court records are to be belived.

As for religion, people can both be honest and mistaken.

Honesty is about intent, not about being verifyable true.

So while two must be technically wrong, honest Muslims and honest Christians might very well co-exist with honest Atheists.

Post reply on HN