swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> WOW - THIS IS FROM 1912!
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FySJY1uXgAIZD6M?format=jpg&name=medium

So the Titanic sunk itself!

--
Spike

On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 20:05:13 UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> WOW - THIS IS FROM 1912!
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FySJY1uXgAIZD6M?format=jpg&name=medium

Prediction came true in <100 years and not "several centuries".

Simon Mason <swldxer2022@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 20:05:13 UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> WOW - THIS IS FROM 1912!
>>
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FySJY1uXgAIZD6M?format=jpg&name=medium

> Prediction came true in <100 years and not "several centuries".

Either way, the ’thinking’ was wrong, as your recent post noted. They
should have fessed up early doors.

--
Spike

Polar ice caps are melting as global warming causes climate change. We lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade, and over the past 30 years, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95%.

If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040. But what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. Sea ice loss has far-reaching effects around the world.

The Arctic and Antarctic are the world’s refrigerator. Since they are covered in white snow and ice that reflect heat back into space, they balance out other parts of the world that absorb heat. Less ice means less reflected heat, meaning more intense heatwaves worldwide. But it also means more extreme winters: as the polar jet stream—a high-pressure wind that circles the Arctic region—is destabilized by warmer air, it can dip south, bringing bitter cold with it.
2. Coastal communities

Global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900 and it’s getting worse. Rising seas endanger coastal cities and small island nations by exacerbating coastal flooding and storm surge, making dangerous weather events even more so. Glacial melt of the Greenland ice sheet is a major predictor of future sea level rise; if it melts entirely, global sea levels could rise 20 feet.
We need your help

Stand up, raise your voice, and demand urgent, meaningful, and concrete climate action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C and help communities and wildlife adapt. There’s still time to avoid many of the worst impacts of sea ice loss and climate change if we act now and we act together.
3. Food

Polar vortexes, increased heat waves, and unpredictability of weather caused by ice loss are already causing significant damage to crops on which global food systems depend. This instability will continue to mean higher prices for you and growing crises for the world’s most vulnerable.
4. Shipping

As ice melts, new shipping routes open up in the Arctic. These routes will be tempting time-savers, but incredibly dangerous. Imagine more shipwrecks or oil spills like the Exxon-Valdez in areas that are inaccessible to rescue or clean-up crews.
5. Wildlife

When there’s less sea ice, animals that depend on it for survival must adapt or perish. Loss of ice and melting permafrost spells trouble for polar bears, walruses, arctic foxes, snowy owls, reindeer, and many other species. As they are affected, so too are the other species that depend on them, in addition to people. Wildlife and people are coming into more frequent contact – and often conflict – as wildlife encroach on Arctic communities, looking for refuge as their sea ice habitat disappears.
6. Permafrost

Arctic ice and permafrost—ground that is permanently frozen—store large amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. When it thaws, that methane is released, increasing the rate of warming. This, in turn, causes more ice and permafrost to thaw or melt, releasing more methane, causing more melting. As we lose more ice more quickly and see more rapid permafrost melt, we will start seeing the worst climate change predictions come true.

“As we lose more ice more quickly and see more rapid permafrost melt, we
will start seeing the worst climate change predictions come true.”

Strictly speaking, they aren’t predictions. We now know so much more about
ice ages and interglacials, we know what’s going to happen. Forecasting
what you already know to be the case isn’t science, it’s the sort of
technique used by carpet salesmen.

Simon Mason <swldxer2022@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Polar ice caps are melting as global warming causes climate change. We
> lose Arctic sea ice at a rate of almost 13% per decade, and over the past
> 30 years, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95%.
>
> If emissions continue to rise unchecked, the Arctic could be ice-free in
> the summer by 2040. But what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the
> Arctic. Sea ice loss has far-reaching effects around the world.
>
> The Arctic and Antarctic are the world’s refrigerator. Since they are
> covered in white snow and ice that reflect heat back into space, they
> balance out other parts of the world that absorb heat. Less ice means
> less reflected heat, meaning more intense heatwaves worldwide. But it
> also means more extreme winters: as the polar jet stream—a high-pressure
> wind that circles the Arctic region—is destabilized by warmer air, it can
> dip south, bringing bitter cold with it.
> 2. Coastal communities
>
> Global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900 and
> it’s getting worse. Rising seas endanger coastal cities and small island
> nations by exacerbating coastal flooding and storm surge, making
> dangerous weather events even more so. Glacial melt of the Greenland ice
> sheet is a major predictor of future sea level rise; if it melts
> entirely, global sea levels could rise 20 feet.
> We need your help
>
> Stand up, raise your voice, and demand urgent, meaningful, and concrete
> climate action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C and help
> communities and wildlife adapt. There’s still time to avoid many of the
> worst impacts of sea ice loss and climate change if we act now and we act together.
> 3. Food
>
> Polar vortexes, increased heat waves, and unpredictability of weather
> caused by ice loss are already causing significant damage to crops on
> which global food systems depend. This instability will continue to mean
> higher prices for you and growing crises for the world’s most vulnerable.
> 4. Shipping
>
> As ice melts, new shipping routes open up in the Arctic. These routes
> will be tempting time-savers, but incredibly dangerous. Imagine more
> shipwrecks or oil spills like the Exxon-Valdez in areas that are
> inaccessible to rescue or clean-up crews.
> 5. Wildlife
>
> When there’s less sea ice, animals that depend on it for survival must
> adapt or perish. Loss of ice and melting permafrost spells trouble for
> polar bears, walruses, arctic foxes, snowy owls, reindeer, and many other
> species. As they are affected, so too are the other species that depend
> on them, in addition to people. Wildlife and people are coming into more
> frequent contact – and often conflict – as wildlife encroach on Arctic
> communities, looking for refuge as their sea ice habitat disappears.
> 6. Permafrost
>
> Arctic ice and permafrost—ground that is permanently frozen—store large
> amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
> When it thaws, that methane is released, increasing the rate of warming.
> This, in turn, causes more ice and permafrost to thaw or melt, releasing
> more methane, causing more melting. As we lose more ice more quickly and
> see more rapid permafrost melt, we will start seeing the worst climate
> change predictions come true.
>
>

--
Spike

It is “too late” to save summer ice in the Arctic despite scientists warning about its loss “for decades”, a new study suggests.

It is feared Arctic summer sea ice could be wiped out in as little as 10 years - a decade earlier than previously predicted - due to human-induced climate change..

Scientists have warned that even if greenhouse gas emissions are sharply reduced it still won’t be enough and the Arctic will be ice-free in the coming decades.

The bleak new study, led by Professor Seung-Ki Min of Pohang University, South Korea, found that 90% of the melting is the result of human-caused global heating.

Professor Min told the Guardian: “Unfortunately it has become too late to save Arctic summer sea ice. This is now the first major component of the Earth system that we are going to lose because of global warming. People didn’t listen to our warnings”.

He warned that extreme weather could be on cards as a result, and countries in North America, Europe and Asia should prepare for the worst of this.

In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the Arctic would not lose its summer ice if greenhouse gas emissions were cut and global temperature rises were limited to 2C. It also said that in high emission scenarios the Arctic would lose its summer ice in the 2040s.

But the new research states that summer sea ice in the Arctic will be wiped out by 2050 even in the low emissions scenario, and under high emissions it will be gone by 2030.

Scientists did not say an exact year for the first ice-free summer as the Arctic is subject to several natural environment occurrences including heatwaves that can accelerate ice melt and volcanic eruptions which can slow it down - as the ash blocks the sunlight from reaching the ice.

The scientists said that the results of the new study “emphasise the profound impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic” and “demonstrate the importance of planning for and adapting to a seasonally ice-free Arctic in the near future”.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is “too late” to save summer ice in the Arctic despite scientists
> warning about its loss “for decades”, a new study suggests.

It was ‘too late’ to save the Arctic as soon as the glaciers started their
retreat from the south of France
Some 11000 years ago. This is well known and understood, from millions of
years of this happening.

“As we lose more ice more quickly and see more rapid permafrost melt, we
will start seeing the worst climate change predictions come true.”

Strictly speaking, they aren’t predictions. We now know so much more about
ice ages and interglacials, we know what’s going to happen. Forecasting
what you already know to be the case isn’t science, it’s the sort of
technique used by carpet salesmen.

> It is feared Arctic summer sea ice could be wiped out in as little as 10
> years - a decade earlier than previously predicted - due to human-induced climate change..
>
> Scientists have warned that even if greenhouse gas emissions are sharply
> reduced it still won’t be enough and the Arctic will be ice-free in the coming decades.
>
> The bleak new study, led by Professor Seung-Ki Min of Pohang University,
> South Korea, found that 90% of the melting is the result of human-caused global heating.
>
> Professor Min told the Guardian: “Unfortunately it has become too late to
> save Arctic summer sea ice. This is now the first major component of the
> Earth system that we are going to lose because of global warming. People
> didn’t listen to our warnings”.
>
> He warned that extreme weather could be on cards as a result, and
> countries in North America, Europe and Asia should prepare for the worst of this.
>
> In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded
> that the Arctic would not lose its summer ice if greenhouse gas emissions
> were cut and global temperature rises were limited to 2C. It also said
> that in high emission scenarios the Arctic would lose its summer ice in the 2040s.
>
> But the new research states that summer sea ice in the Arctic will be
> wiped out by 2050 even in the low emissions scenario, and under high
> emissions it will be gone by 2030.
>
> Scientists did not say an exact year for the first ice-free summer as the
> Arctic is subject to several natural environment occurrences including
> heatwaves that can accelerate ice melt and volcanic eruptions which can
> slow it down - as the ash blocks the sunlight from reaching the ice.
>
> The scientists said that the results of the new study “emphasise the
> profound impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic” and
> “demonstrate the importance of planning for and adapting to a seasonally
> ice-free Arctic in the near future”.
>
>

--
Spike

Temperatures in parts of the Arctic were six degrees or more above average in February. Researchers are observing that the ice is thinning rapidly - and models predict that ice-free Arctic summers are on the horizon. In this special edition Climate Now reports from a -24C freezer in Tromsø, Norway.

Temperatures in parts of the Arctic were six degrees or more above average in February.

It's difficult to forecast with certainty the speed at which climate change will transform our planet's northern polar region, however researchers are observing that the ice is thinning rapidly, and models predict that ice-free Arctic summers are on the horizon.

In this special episode of Climate Now, we travelled to Tromsø in northern Norway to hear more from sea ice experts at the Norwegian Polar Institute.

Data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service shows that globally, February 2023 was the fifth-warmest on record, with temperatures 0.3° Celsius above the 1991-2020 average.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/20/ice-free-arctic-summers-are-on-the-way-researchers-say

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Temperatures in parts of the Arctic were six degrees or more above
> average in February. Researchers are observing that the ice is thinning
> rapidly - and models predict that ice-free Arctic summers are on the
> horizon. In this special edition Climate Now reports from a -24C freezer in Tromsø, Norway.

Models don’t have a good history, in the climate change industry. The
Maldives were supposed to be under water by 2015, for example.

But an ice-free Arctic doesn’t need a model, it is well-known from
ice-cores and the like, it occurs at every interglacial period. It isn’t
news.

> Temperatures in parts of the Arctic were six degrees or more above average in February.
>
> It's difficult to forecast with certainty the speed at which climate
> change will transform our planet's northern polar region, however
> researchers are observing that the ice is thinning rapidly, and models
> predict that ice-free Arctic summers are on the horizon.
>
> In this special episode of Climate Now, we travelled to Tromsø in
> northern Norway to hear more from sea ice experts at the Norwegian Polar Institute.
>
> Data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service shows that globally,
> February 2023 was the fifth-warmest on record, with temperatures 0.3°
> Celsius above the 1991-2020 average.
>
> https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/20/ice-free-arctic-summers-are-on-the-way-researchers-say
>

--
Spike

Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.

In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.

“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”
Geoffrey Supran,

“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author.

“We thought this was a unique opportunity to understand what Exxon knew about this issue and what level of scientific understanding they had at the time,” added co-author Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science whose work looks at the causes and effects of climate change denial. “We found that not only were their forecasts extremely skillful, but they were also often more skillful than forecasts made by independent academic and government scientists at the exact same time.”

Allegations that oil company executives sought to mislead the public about the industry’s role in climate change have drawn increasing scrutiny in recent years, including lawsuits by several states and cities and a recent high profile U.S. House committee investigation.

Harvard’s scientists used established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statistical techniques to test the performance of Exxon’s models. They found that, depending on the metric used, 63-83 percent of the global warming projections reported by Exxon scientists were consistent with actual temperatures over time. Moreover, the corporation’s own projections had an average “skill score” of 72 percent, plus or minus 6 percent, with the highest scoring 99 percent. A skill score relates to how well a forecast compares to what happens in real life. For comparison, NASA scientist James Hansen’s global warming predictions presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988 had scores from 38 to 66 percent.

The researchers report that Exxon scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age, accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000, plus or minus five years, and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

The current debate about when Exxon knew about the impact on climate change carbon emissions began in 2015 following news reports of internal company documents describing the multinational’s early knowledge of climate science. Exxon disagreed with the reports, even providing a link to internal studies and memos from their own scientists and suggesting that interested parties should read them and make up their own minds.

“That’s exactly what we did,” said Supran, who is now at the University of Miami. Together, he and Oreskes spent a year researching those documents and in 2017 published a series of three papers analyzing Exxon’s 40-year history of climate communications. They were able to show there was a systematic discrepancy between what Exxon was saying internally and in academic circles versus what they were telling the public. “That led us to conclude that they had quantifiably misled the public, by essentially contributing quietly to climate science and yet loudly promoting doubt about that science,” said Supran.
Naomi Oreskes

“I think this new study is the smoking gun, the proof, because it shows the degree of understanding ... this really deep, really sophisticated, really skillful understanding that was obscured by what came next,” said Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes.

Harvard file photo

In 2021, the team published a new study in One Earth using algorithmic techniques to identify ways in which ExxonMobil used increasingly subtle but systematic language to shape the way the public talks and thinks about climate change — often in misleading ways.

These findings were hardly a surprise to Oreskes, given her long history of studying climate communications from fossil fuel companies, work that drew national attention with her 2010 bestseller, “Merchants of Doubt.” In it she and co-author, Caltech researcher Erik Conway, argued that Exxon was aware of the threat of carbon emissions on climate change yet waged a disinformation campaign about the problem. Despite the book’s popularity and the peer-reviewed papers with Supran, however, some continued to wonder whether she could prove the effect these campaigns had, if they indeed made a difference.

“I think this new study is the smoking gun, the proof, because it shows the degree of understanding … this really deep, really sophisticated, really skillful understanding that was obscured by what came next,” Oreskes said. “It proves a point I’ve argued for years that ExxonMobil scientists knew about this problem to a shockingly fine degree as far back as the 1980s, but company spokesmen denied, challenged, and obscured this science, starting in the late 1980s/early 1990s.”

Added Supran: “Our analysis here I think seals the deal on that matter. We now have totally unimpeachable evidence that Exxon accurately predicted global warming years before it turned around and publicly attacked climate science and scientists.”

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit
(CRU) of the University of East Anglia, in 2000:

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is"

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking
environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the
stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's
culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global
climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white
Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in
much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the
South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly
visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from
1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from
1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall
was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of
industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international
community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the
Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by
0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on
record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are
less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a
senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a
very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. Britain's
winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental
change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the
stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's
culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global
climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white
Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in
much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the
South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly
visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from
1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from
1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall
was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of
industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international
community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the
Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by
0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on
record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are
less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a
senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a
very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

[NOTE: the original item has been pulled from the internet, but fortunately
has been archived]

--
Spike

The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.

A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.

A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.

Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.

Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.

“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”

The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in independent publications between 1977 and 2014.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/df570102c60aa745583ac90d6dbc246b58b77755/0_6_1282_1602/master/1282.jpg?width=620&quality=45&dpr=2&s=none

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature
9 years ago Anthony Watts
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins

Using data published by the IPCC on the diminishing effect of increasing
CO2 concentrations and the latest proportional information on global
Man-made CO2 emissions, these notes examine the potential for further
warming by CO2 emissions up to 1000ppmv and the probable consequences of
decarbonisation policies being pursued by Western governments.

The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but
its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration
increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration.
Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.
IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature
increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has
been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay
reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4
Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial
fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].

The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global
Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within
the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This
diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse
warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at
levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying diagram shows
the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmv up to 1000ppmv
and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere:

§ Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature
increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain
photosynthesis in plants and thus the viability of all life on earth.

§ A further ~100 ppmv was the level prior to any industrialisation, this
atmospheric CO2 made the survival of the biosphere possible, giving a
further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse effect.

§ Following that a further 100ppmv, (certainly man-made in part), adding
~4.1% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.

§ CO2 at 400pmmv is already committed and immutable. So CO2 has already
reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.

--
Spike

QUOTE: The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.. ENDS

A handy diagram of their scam.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyWnH_xX0AEyDhp?format=jpg&name=900x900

Remember: 97% of scientists don’t work in the climate change industry.

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature
> 9 years ago Anthony Watts
> Guest essay by Ed Hoskins
>
> Using data published by the IPCC on the diminishing effect of increasing
> CO2 concentrations and the latest proportional information on global
> Man-made CO2 emissions, these notes examine the potential for further
> warming by CO2 emissions up to 1000ppmv and the probable consequences of
> decarbonisation policies being pursued by Western governments.
>
> The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but
> its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration
> increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration.
> Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.
> IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature
> increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
> radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information has
> been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay
> reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4
> Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial
> fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for Policy Makers[2].
>
> The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global
> Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within
> the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This
> diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse
> warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at
> levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying diagram shows
> the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmv up to 1000ppmv
> and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the biosphere:
>
> § Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature
> increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain
> photosynthesis in plants and thus the viability of all life on earth.
>
> § A further ~100 ppmv was the level prior to any industrialisation, this
> atmospheric CO2 made the survival of the biosphere possible, giving a
> further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse effect.
>
> § Following that a further 100ppmv, (certainly man-made in part), adding
> ~4.1% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.
>
> § CO2 at 400pmmv is already committed and immutable. So CO2 has already
> reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.
>

--
Spike

QUOTE: The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate. ENDS

Better than the idiot denier swivels and their clueless drivel.

This information has been presented in the IPCC reports. It is well
disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate
Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate)
[1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC summary for
Policy Makers[2].

The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global
Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within
the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed.

This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway
greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known
to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. The following simplifying
diagram shows the logarithmic diminution effect using tranches of 100ppmv
up to 1000ppmv and the significance of differing CO2 concentrations on the
biosphere:

§ Up to ~200 ppmv, the equivalent to about ~77% of the temperature
increasing effectiveness of CO2. This is essential to sustain
photosynthesis in plants and thus the viability of all life on earth.

§ A further ~100 ppmv was the level prior to any industrialisation, this
atmospheric CO2 made the survival of the biosphere possible, giving a
further 5.9% of the CO2 Greenhouse effect.

§ Following that a further 100ppmv, (certainly man-made in part), adding
~4.1% of the CO2 effectiveness brings the current level ~400 ppmv.

§ CO2 at 400pmmv is already committed and immutable. So CO2 has already
reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere.

--
Spike

QUOTE: “This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.” ENDS

They got a bung for denying the science - they give proper scientists a bad name.

The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but
its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration
increases.

It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration.

Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.

IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature
increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
radically diminishes with increasing concentrations.

This information has been presented in the IPCC reports.

It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of
Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing
Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC
summary for Policy Makers[2].

From: The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature
Anthony Watts
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: “This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil
> fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put
> a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former
> research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is
> that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and
> predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only
> for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that
> very climate science.” ENDS
>
> They got a bung for denying the science - they give proper scientists a bad name.
>

--
Spike

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 8:03:04 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: “This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.” ENDS
>
> They got a bung for denying the science - they give proper scientists a bad name.

Follow the money as always.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyZtAA7WcAAkybj?format=jpg&name=900x900

The key equation for the change in radiative forcing of increasing
concentrations of CO2 is given by

ΔF = α ln (C/Co)

(Using the usual notation)

So for a doubling of concentration (C/Co =2) from 100 to 200ppm, or 200 to
400ppm, or 400 to 800ppm, the increased radiative forcing is given by

ΔF = α* ln (2) or α* 0.693

Α popular but not unique figure for α is 5.38, as it is not agreed among
climate scientists, who think it lies between 2 and 6.

Note that the relationship between ΔF and (C/Co) is logarithmic: one
doubling of concentration gives x W/m^2, but to get another x W/m^2 the
concentration needs to double again, for example from 100 to 200ppm, then
200 to 400ppm, 400 to 800ppm, etc.

It is *not* a linear relationship between C and ΔF.

QUOTE
IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature
increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
*radically diminishes* with increasing concentrations. [emphasis added]

This information has been presented in the IPCC reports.

It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of
Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing
Estimate) [1]. It is a crucial fact, but not acknowledged in the IPCC
summary for Policy Makers[2].
ENDQUOTE

[Largely based on The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on
temperature
Anthony Watts
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins]

--
Spike

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee earlier this month widened its inquiry into the oil industry’s role in fostering doubt about the role of fossil fuels in causing climate change. A letter from the panel to Darren Woods, ExxonMobil chief executive, said lawmakers were “concerned that to protect … profits, the industry has reportedly led a coordinated effort to spread disinformation to mislead the public and prevent crucial action to address climate change.” The Gazette spoke with Geoffrey Supran, a research fellow in the History of Science, who, together with Naomi Oreskes, the Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science, published a series of studies in recent years, the most recent one in May, on the climate communications of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies.

In 2017, our research was the first peer-reviewed analysis of ExxonMobil’s 40-year history of climate-change communications. And what we discovered was that there were systematic discrepancies between, on the one hand, what Exxon and ExxonMobil scientists said about climate-science privately and in academic circles, versus what Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil said to the general public in The New York Times and elsewhere. That analysis showed that ExxonMobil misled the public about basic climate science and its implications. They did so by contributing quietly to climate science, and loudly to promoting doubt about that science.

Our work and others’ in that area provides evidence for the committee, demonstrating ExxonMobil’s long history of attacking science and scientists in order to undermine and delay climate action. Our more recent work, this May, is an evolution of that study in that it focuses on how, beyond outright disinformation, ExxonMobil has used language to subtly but systematically shape the way the public thinks about climate change, often in misleading ways. That study demonstrates how the company has selectively emphasized some terms and topics in public while consistently avoiding others.

The takeaway message across all of our work is that over and over, ExxonMobil has misled the public about climate change by telling the public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed doors. Our latest work shows that while their tactics have evolved from outright, blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of lobbying and propaganda, their end goal remains the same. And that’s to stop action on climate change.

You may be astonished to discover, probably at some future date, that even
within climate science, the public pronouncements are not necessarily
aligned with private discussions.

Some years ago, in a conversation at a conference of climate scientists,
someone let slip regarding the various groups that produced climate models,
on the forecasts of which so much public money was squandered, that “we
make sure all our models give the same results”. In other words, they were
faking it.

As far as satellite temperature data us concerned, try this:

QUOTE
An all new reanalysis of the STAR satellite data finds markedly lower
temperature trends for the last 40 years. The big deal about this is that
this third dataset suddenly supports the original UAH satellite data, not
the other RSS system, and not the “surface thermometers” sitting near hot
tarmacs and absolutely not the climate models.

The warming trend in the troposphere was only half of what the expert
models predicted. From the paper:

Santer et al. (2021) reported that the multi-model averages for the TTT
trends from CMIP5 and CMIP6 were 0.28–0.29 K/decade during 1979–2019. The
total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model
simulations during the same period.
UNQUOTE

Satellite temperature rise = 0.5x model-predicted rise.

Data from thousands of balloon flights agrees with the satellite data.

Quote taken from
<https://joannenova.com.au/2023/04/40-years-of-expert-failure-new-noaa-star-satellite-temperatures-only-show-half-the-warming-that-climate-models-do/>

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The U.S. House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee earlier this month
> widened its inquiry into the oil industry’s role in fostering doubt about
> the role of fossil fuels in causing climate change. A letter from the
> panel to Darren Woods, ExxonMobil chief executive, said lawmakers were
> “concerned that to protect … profits, the industry has reportedly led a
> coordinated effort to spread disinformation to mislead the public and
> prevent crucial action to address climate change.” The Gazette spoke with
> Geoffrey Supran, a research fellow in the History of Science, who,
> together with Naomi Oreskes, the Henry Charles Lea Professor of the
> History of Science, published a series of studies in recent years, the
> most recent one in May, on the climate communications of ExxonMobil, one
> of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies.
>
> In 2017, our research was the first peer-reviewed analysis of
> ExxonMobil’s 40-year history of climate-change communications. And what
> we discovered was that there were systematic discrepancies between, on
> the one hand, what Exxon and ExxonMobil scientists said about
> climate-science privately and in academic circles, versus what Exxon,
> Mobil, and ExxonMobil said to the general public in The New York Times
> and elsewhere. That analysis showed that ExxonMobil misled the public
> about basic climate science and its implications. They did so by
> contributing quietly to climate science, and loudly to promoting doubt about that science.
>
> Our work and others’ in that area provides evidence for the committee,
> demonstrating ExxonMobil’s long history of attacking science and
> scientists in order to undermine and delay climate action. Our more
> recent work, this May, is an evolution of that study in that it focuses
> on how, beyond outright disinformation, ExxonMobil has used language to
> subtly but systematically shape the way the public thinks about climate
> change, often in misleading ways. That study demonstrates how the company
> has selectively emphasized some terms and topics in public while
> consistently avoiding others.
>
> The takeaway message across all of our work is that over and over,
> ExxonMobil has misled the public about climate change by telling the
> public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed
> doors. Our latest work shows that while their tactics have evolved from
> outright, blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of lobbying and
> propaganda, their end goal remains the same. And that’s to stop action on climate change.
>

--
Spike

Fighting the facts

Almost all the lawsuits draw on the oil industry’s own records as the foundation for claims that it covered up the growing threat to life caused by its products.

Shell, like other oil companies, had decades to prepare for those consequences after it was forewarned by its own research. In 1958, one of its executives, Charles Jones, presented a paper to the industry’s trade group, the American Petroleum Institute (API), warning about increased carbon emissions from car exhaust. Other research followed through the 1960s, leading a White House advisory committee to express concern at “measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate” by 2000.

API’s own reports flagged up “significant temperature changes” by the end of the twentieth century.

The largest oil company in the US, Exxon, was hearing the same from its researchers.

Year after year, Exxon scientists recorded the evidence about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. In 1978, its science adviser, James Black, warned that there was a “window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategy might become critical”.

Exxon set up equipment on a supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, to monitor carbon dioxide in seawater and the air. In 1982, the company’s scientists drew up a graph accurately plotting an increase in the globe’s temperature to date.

“The 1980s revealed an established consensus among scientists,” the Minnesota lawsuit against Exxon says. “A 1982 internal Exxon document … explicitly declares that the science was ‘unanimous’ and that climate change would ‘bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate’.”

Then the monitoring on the Esso Atlantic was suddenly called off and other research downgraded.

What followed was what Naomi Oreskes, co-author of the report America Misled, called a “systematic, organised campaign by Exxon and other oil companies to sow doubt about the science and prevent meaningful action”.

The report accused the energy companies of not only polluting the air but also “the information landscape” by replicating the cigarette makers’ playbook of cherry-picking data, using fake experts and promoting conspiracy theories to attack a growing scientific consensus.

Many of the lawsuits draw on a raft of Exxon documents held at the University of Texas, and uncovered by the Columbia Journalism School and the Los Angeles Times in 2015.

Among them is a 1988 Exxon memo laying out a strategy to push for a “balanced scientific approach”, which meant giving equal weight to hard evidence and climate change denialism. That move bore fruit in parts of the media into the 2000s as the oil industry repositioned global heating as theory, not fact, contributing to the most deep-rooted climate denialism in any developed country.

The company placed advertisements in major American newspapers to sow doubt.. One in the New York Times in 2000, under the headline “Unsettled Science”, compared climate data to changing weather forecasts. It claimed scientists were divided, when an overwhelming consensus already backed the evidence of a growing climate crisis, and said that the supposed doubts meant it was too soon to act.

Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, Lee Raymond, told industry executives in 1996 that “scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate”.

“It’s a long and dangerous leap to conclude that we should, therefore, cut fossil fuel use,” he said.

Documents show that his company’s scientists were telling Exxon’s management that the real danger lay in the failure to do exactly that.

In 2019, Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University, told a congressional hearing that as a consultant to Exxon on climate modelling in the 1980s, he worked on eight scientific papers for the company that showed fossil fuel burning was “increasingly having a perceptible influence on Earth’s climate”.

Hoffert said he “hoped that the work would help to persuade Exxon to invest in developing energy solutions the world needed”. That was not the result.

“Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this. This was immoral and has greatly set back efforts to address climate change,” said Hoffert.

“They deliberately created doubt when internal research confirmed how serious a threat it was. As a result, in my opinion, homes and livelihoods will likely be destroyed and lives lost.”

Exxon worked alongside Chevron, Shell, BP and smaller oil firms to shift attention away from the growing climate crisis. They funded the industry’s trade body, API, as it drew up a multimillion-dollar plan to ensure that “climate change becomes a non- issue” through disinformation. The plan said “victory will be achieved” when “recognition of uncertainties become part of the ‘conventional wisdom’”.

The fossil fuel industry also used its considerable resources to pour billions of dollars into political lobbying to block unfavourable laws and to fund front organisations with neutral and scientific-sounding names, such as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). In 2001, the US state department told the GCC that President George W Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “in part, based on input from you”.

Exxon alone has funded more than 40 groups to deny climate science, including the George C Marshall Institute, which one lawsuit claims orchestrated a “sham petition” denying manmade global climate change. It was later denounced by the National Academy of Science as “a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists”.

Climategate tells you all you need to know.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fighting the facts
>
> Almost all the lawsuits draw on the oil industry’s own records as the
> foundation for claims that it covered up the growing threat to life caused by its products.
>
> Shell, like other oil companies, had decades to prepare for those
> consequences after it was forewarned by its own research. In 1958, one of
> its executives, Charles Jones, presented a paper to the industry’s trade
> group, the American Petroleum Institute (API), warning about increased
> carbon emissions from car exhaust. Other research followed through the
> 1960s, leading a White House advisory committee to express concern at
> “measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate” by 2000.
>
> API’s own reports flagged up “significant temperature changes” by the end
> of the twentieth century.
>
> The largest oil company in the US, Exxon, was hearing the same from its researchers.
>
> Year after year, Exxon scientists recorded the evidence about the dangers
> of burning fossil fuels. In 1978, its science adviser, James Black,
> warned that there was a “window of five to ten years before the need for
> hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategy might become critical”.
>
> Exxon set up equipment on a supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, to monitor
> carbon dioxide in seawater and the air. In 1982, the company’s scientists
> drew up a graph accurately plotting an increase in the globe’s temperature to date.
>
> “The 1980s revealed an established consensus among scientists,” the
> Minnesota lawsuit against Exxon says. “A 1982 internal Exxon document …
> explicitly declares that the science was ‘unanimous’ and that climate
> change would ‘bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate’.”
>
> Then the monitoring on the Esso Atlantic was suddenly called off and
> other research downgraded.
>
> What followed was what Naomi Oreskes, co-author of the report America
> Misled, called a “systematic, organised campaign by Exxon and other oil
> companies to sow doubt about the science and prevent meaningful action”.
>
> The report accused the energy companies of not only polluting the air but
> also “the information landscape” by replicating the cigarette makers’
> playbook of cherry-picking data, using fake experts and promoting
> conspiracy theories to attack a growing scientific consensus.
>
> Many of the lawsuits draw on a raft of Exxon documents held at the
> University of Texas, and uncovered by the Columbia Journalism School and
> the Los Angeles Times in 2015.
>
> Among them is a 1988 Exxon memo laying out a strategy to push for a
> “balanced scientific approach”, which meant giving equal weight to hard
> evidence and climate change denialism. That move bore fruit in parts of
> the media into the 2000s as the oil industry repositioned global heating
> as theory, not fact, contributing to the most deep-rooted climate
> denialism in any developed country.
>
> The company placed advertisements in major American newspapers to sow
> doubt. One in the New York Times in 2000, under the headline “Unsettled
> Science”, compared climate data to changing weather forecasts. It claimed
> scientists were divided, when an overwhelming consensus already backed
> the evidence of a growing climate crisis, and said that the supposed
> doubts meant it was too soon to act.
>
> Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, Lee Raymond, told industry
> executives in 1996 that “scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to
> whether human activities affect global climate”.
>
> “It’s a long and dangerous leap to conclude that we should, therefore,
> cut fossil fuel use,” he said.
>
> Documents show that his company’s scientists were telling Exxon’s
> management that the real danger lay in the failure to do exactly that.
>
> In 2019, Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University,
> told a congressional hearing that as a consultant to Exxon on climate
> modelling in the 1980s, he worked on eight scientific papers for the
> company that showed fossil fuel burning was “increasingly having a
> perceptible influence on Earth’s climate”.
>
> Hoffert said he “hoped that the work would help to persuade Exxon to
> invest in developing energy solutions the world needed”. That was not the result.
>
> “Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew were
> wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this.
> This was immoral and has greatly set back efforts to address climate change,” said Hoffert.
>
> “They deliberately created doubt when internal research confirmed how
> serious a threat it was. As a result, in my opinion, homes and
> livelihoods will likely be destroyed and lives lost.”
>
> Exxon worked alongside Chevron, Shell, BP and smaller oil firms to shift
> attention away from the growing climate crisis. They funded the
> industry’s trade body, API, as it drew up a multimillion-dollar plan to
> ensure that “climate change becomes a non- issue” through disinformation.
> The plan said “victory will be achieved” when “recognition of
> uncertainties become part of the ‘conventional wisdom’”.
>
> The fossil fuel industry also used its considerable resources to pour
> billions of dollars into political lobbying to block unfavourable laws
> and to fund front organisations with neutral and scientific-sounding
> names, such as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). In 2001, the US state
> department told the GCC that President George W Bush rejected the Kyoto
> protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “in part, based on input from you”.
>
> Exxon alone has funded more than 40 groups to deny climate science,
> including the George C Marshall Institute, which one lawsuit claims
> orchestrated a “sham petition” denying manmade global climate change. It
> was later denounced by the National Academy of Science as “a deliberate
> attempt to mislead scientists”.
>

--
Spike