Taxonomy of Global Warming Denial

[leftrightleftrightleft]

And lets see what that investigation turns up.

Innocent until proven guilty. No need for a witch hunt.

They have known about the link between fossil fuels and climate change for many decades.

Exactly. They weren't "hiding the truth" from anyone! In some cases they were actively involved in the research.

We had scientific evidence in the 1970's that increasing carbon dioxide causes the planet to warm, and that fossil fuels were raising CO2 levels. In fact, scientists had warned us about fossil fuels in the early 1900's. Arrhenius did the first calculations of human induced climate change in 1896.

Read the first IPCC report. For you to say that in 1990 there was certainty about the effects of man-made carbon dioxide on climate change is a re-writing of history. There are many factors which control the climate and, as the IPCC 1990 report says, as of 1990, not all natural causes had been ruled out.

There was no doubt that CO2 trapped IR heat based on absorption bands. That had been established by Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, etc in the early 1900s and into the 1950s. But the question of how much of an effect was still not completely clear because it was imperative that they understood all the inputs and outputs of the Earth's energy budget. In the intervening 25 years since the IPCC's first report, we have seen a growing body of knowledge about those inputs and outputs and greater and greater certainty and precision about CO2's effects.

It seems wrong to punish a company for being hesitant about something 25 years ago which now looks so certain. Judge the company as if you were there 25 years ago without the knowledge that you have now.

 

[Loudmouth]

Innocent until proven guilty. No need for a witch hunt.

Fair enough.

Exactly. They weren't "hiding the truth" from anyone! In some cases they were actively involved in the research.

That is yet to be determined.

Read the first IPCC report. For you to say that in 1990 there was certainty about the effects of man-made carbon dioxide on climate change is a re-writing of history.

The science existed well before the IPCC report. Arrhenius showed us that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures, and that was 1896. Not 1996. Eighteen ninety six.

There are many factors which control the climate and, as the IPCC 1990 report says, as of 1990, not all natural causes had been ruled out.

We already knew we were dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

But the question of how much of an effect was still not completely clear because it was imperative that they understood all the inputs and outputs of the Earth's energy budget.

The calculations that Arrhenius made in 1896 as to the impact of CO2 are still used today with not a whole lot of changes.

It seems wrong to punish a company for being hesitant about something 25 years ago which now looks so certain. Judge the company as if you were there 25 years ago without the knowledge that you have now.

We should punish companies for lying about the science. I think we can both agree that Exxon has done just that. I think we can both agree that businesses are behind the Republican party's continual denial of climate change and the impact it has had on our climate. We then see that same misrepresentation of science on these very threads, lies that have been produced by Exxon and others and repeated by those who are more loyal to a political party than they are the truth.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That is yet to be determined.

The fact that they have openly and publicly admitted that carbon dioxide causes global warming is proof that they are not "hiding the truth".

I'm not sure if you have academic access to journals, but this is an interesting journal article about the differences in approaches between Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil: Oil Companies and Climate Change: Inconsistencies between Strategy Formulation and Implementation?. If you don't have access, here are two quotes:

"Multinational oil companies have formulated varying climate strategies. At the one end of the scale is ExxonMobil, which has not fully acknowledged the potential impact of GHG emissions and remains opposed to the Kyoto Protocol.6 Accordingly the company is generally seen as having adopted a reactive strategy. Conversely, Shell and BP are regarded as proactive oil companies, not only because they have acknowledged the challenge of climate change, but also because they support the Kyoto Protocol and have set targets for greenhouse gas emissions in their business operations."

"Throughout the period studied, Shell has acknowledged the challenge of climate change and stated that precautionary measures are needed. In 1998, the company also stated its support for the Kyoto Protocol and adopted a reduction target, intending to reduce emissions by 10 per cent (relative to 1990 levels) by 2002. In 2002, Shell introduced a new reduction target—a 5 percent reduction of GHG emission from facilities worldwide by 2010, below 1990 levels. In addition, Shell’s businesses—upstream as well as downstream—have targets for energy efªciency improvements to be met by 2007."

Shell has been proactive for nearly 20 years.

The science existed well before the IPCC report. Arrhenius showed us that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures, and that was 1896. Not 1996. Eighteen ninety six.

Yes, I know about Arrhenius and Tyndall and Angstrom's criticisms and etc etc.

Read the first IPCC report. The full report can be found here. In 1990, there were many questions to be answered. It is no wonder that oil companies (and the world at large) were somewhat hesitant. The politicization of the debate was just beginning. The Heartland Institute (one of the major players in global warming denial) did not become actively involved in climate denial until 2008.

We already knew we were dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The calculations that Arrhenius made in 1896 as to the impact of CO2 are still used today with not a whole lot of changes.

You seem to think that the "all the science was settled" a long time ago. In reality, much of the settling did not occur until the 21st century. And many things were not settled in 1990 which is the time from which people now want to accuse Shell of "lying" about even though they couldn't have even known about it yet! They are also accused of "hiding" some sort of truth which had not fully developed as a widely accepted truth.

In fact, the taxonomy proposed in this thread poll roughly follows the chronology of the debate as it was settled.

Point is: in 1990 there was very little that was settled. Natural influences such as clouds, solar irradiance, ocean currents, polar icecap albedo had not yet been fully taken into account in climate models. If an oil company exec were to read the 1990 IPCC report, I can't see them jumping fully on board right then and there. There were still too many questions.

We should punish companies for lying about the science. I think we can both agree that Exxon has done just that. I think we can both agree that businesses are behind the Republican party's continual denial of climate change and the impact it has had on our climate. We then see that same misrepresentation of science on these very threads, lies that have been produced by Exxon and others and repeated by those who are more loyal to a political party than they are the truth.

I agree with this.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact that they have openly and publicly admitted that carbon dioxide causes global warming is proof that they are not "hiding the truth".

Just like cigarette companies have openly admitted that cigarettes cause cancer, yet they were still hiding the truth for decades, and paying think tanks to push out bad science. What I am interested in seeing is their history.

I'm not sure if you have academic access to journals, but this is an interesting journal article about the differences in approaches between Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil: Oil Companies and Climate Change: Inconsistencies between Strategy Formulation and Implementation?. If you don't have access, here are two quotes:

"Multinational oil companies have formulated varying climate strategies. At the one end of the scale is ExxonMobil, which has not fully acknowledged the potential impact of GHG emissions and remains opposed to the Kyoto Protocol.6 Accordingly the company is generally seen as having adopted a reactive strategy. Conversely, Shell and BP are regarded as proactive oil companies, not only because they have acknowledged the challenge of climate change, but also because they support the Kyoto Protocol and have set targets for greenhouse gas emissions in their business operations."

"Throughout the period studied, Shell has acknowledged the challenge of climate change and stated that precautionary measures are needed. In 1998, the company also stated its support for the Kyoto Protocol and adopted a reduction target, intending to reduce emissions by 10 per cent (relative to 1990 levels) by 2002. In 2002, Shell introduced a new reduction target—a 5 percent reduction of GHG emission from facilities worldwide by 2010, below 1990 levels. In addition, Shell’s businesses—upstream as well as downstream—have targets for energy efªciency improvements to be met by 2007."

Shell has been proactive for nearly 20 years.

We have known about the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas for over 100 years. That's what bothers me.

You seem to think that the "all the science was settled" a long time ago. In reality, much of the settling did not occur until the 21st century.

I completely disagree. We knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. We knew we were dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We knew we were increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. All the IPCC did was confirm what we already suspected would happen.

It's a bit like someone smoking cigarettes their entire life, and then at the age of 65 being diagnosed with cancer. You can't say that they didn't know about the risk until they were diagnosed with cancer.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Just like cigarette companies have openly admitted that cigarettes cause cancer, yet they were still hiding the truth for decades, and paying think tanks to push out bad science. What I am interested in seeing is their history.

I am not as familiar with the tobacco industry and its denial of cigarette's harmful effects.

Also, how does a company "openly admit" something while also "hiding the truth" about that same thing?

I think the tobacco companies essentially funded groups which spread doubt among the public.

We have known about the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas for over 100 years. That's what bothers me.

I provided a very clear citation of the different paths that Shell and ExxonMobil have taken with climate policy. Since 1998, Shell has been proactive on climate change while ExxonMobil has lagged. ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers are the primary sponsors of climate denial, not oil companies in general.

Your response to this citation seems to imply that Shell should have been more proactive and your suggestion is that they should've been responding to this a 100 years ago?

I completely disagree. We knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. We knew we were dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We knew we were increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. All the IPCC did was confirm what we already suspected would happen.

I guess this raises the question: How much evidence of a phenomenon is required before action is required?

And as a corollary: How much evidence of a negative phenomenon is required before a group can be charged for inaction or misinforming the public?

My opinion is that, in 1990, it was not entirely certain how negative climate change was going to be. There were still several things to iron out. The IPCC's first report had just been released which was to become the standard for climate science in years to come. In 1990, it was still possible that certain models had not properly accounted for various effects (like cloud cover and full ocean circulation) which would have negated some of the warming and perhaps made the predictions less dire.

As the science improved in the intervening 25 years, these various effects have been better accounted for and we see that the predictions have tended to become more dire rather than less dire. As this evidence has come in, we have seen more and more companies, nations and organizations (including oil companies) come on board.

It's a bit like someone smoking cigarettes their entire life, and then at the age of 65 being diagnosed with cancer. You can't say that they didn't know about the risk until they were diagnosed with cancer.

It would be like someone smoking in the 1960s and 1970s when there were still things to iron out to really nail down the firm causative nature of smoking and lung cancer. Then, when they get cancer in the 1990s you say, "You should've known about this in the 60s!"

Yea, by the 1990s, it was very, very firmly established in scientific communities, but 25-30 years prior...not so much.

Blaming someone retroactively for knowledge that you have now which they didn't have then seems unfair.

 

[Loudmouth]

Also, how does a company "openly admit" something while also "hiding the truth" about that same thing?

They hide the truth, and then fess up when caught lying about it.

I provided a very clear citation of the different paths that Shell and ExxonMobil have taken with climate policy.

Yes, since a specific time in history. I am curious about the history before that. I admit that I may not be giving them a fair shake, but given the actions of others in the oil industry it makes me skeptical of their honesty.

Your response to this citation seems to imply that Shell should have been more proactive and your suggestion is that they should've been responding to this a 100 years ago?

At least by the 1970's.

I guess this raises the question: How much evidence of a phenomenon is required before action is required?

That is actually a really good question. I personally don't see how you could avoid the obvious conclusion that dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere would not raise global temps with the work that was already done by the 1970's. The only hiccup I can see was the question of CO2 absorbance saturation, whereby most of the IR radiation released by the Earth's surface is absorbed within a few feet above the surface. However, in the 1950's they were able to measure water vapor and CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere, and scientists were able to figure out that it was the heat exchange in the upper atmosphere that really mattered, and that CO2 was an important greenhouse gas after all.

And as a corollary: How much evidence of a negative phenomenon is required before a group can be charged for inaction or misinforming the public?

On the extreme, paying a lobbying firm to spread misinformation would seem to be worth investigating.

My opinion is that, in 1990, it was not entirely certain how negative climate change was going to be. There were still several things to iron out. The IPCC's first report had just been released which was to become the standard for climate science in years to come. In 1990, it was still possible that certain models had not properly accounted for various effects (like cloud cover and full ocean circulation) which would have negated some of the warming and perhaps made the predictions less dire.

Compare that to what we see in threads like this one. People have been fed lies, and they repeat them here. People will outright deny that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas. They will make silly claims about how a gas at a concentration of 400 ppm can't have any effect because it is so dilute. Where is that coming from?

It would be like someone smoking in the 1960s and 1970s when there were still things to iron out to really nail down the firm causative nature of smoking and lung cancer. Then, when they get cancer in the 1990s you say, "You should've known about this in the 60s!"

"Mechanisation and mass marketing towards the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit, however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics."
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, since a specific time in history. I am curious about the history before that. I admit that I may not be giving them a fair shake, but given the actions of others in the oil industry it makes me skeptical of their honesty.

Fair enough. Just make sure you aren't on a witch hunt.

At least by the 1970's

That is actually a really good question. I personally don't see how you could avoid the obvious conclusion that dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere would not raise global temps with the work that was already done by the 1970's. The only hiccup I can see was the question of CO2 absorbance saturation, whereby most of the IR radiation released by the Earth's surface is absorbed within a few feet above the surface. However, in the 1950's they were able to measure water vapor and CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere, and scientists were able to figure out that it was the heat exchange in the upper atmosphere that really mattered, and that CO2 was an important greenhouse gas after all.

While the theory of global warming was well-established in the 1950s, observations to validate those theories came later.

It wasn't firmly established that atmospheric CO2 was rising until Keeling et al., 1976 when they published firm results from the Mauna Loa and South Pole CO2 monitoring sites which were set up in the late 1950s. Prior to this 1976 result, there was a lack of continuous recordings, biases from urban effects, poor spatial distribution, etc. The Keeling paper is the first truly rigorous observation from well-positioned sites.

It also wasn't firmly established that there was an observed global warming trend until Hansen et al., 1981. Prior to this 1981 result, there were many similar problems to CO2 measurement: poor global distribution, lack of continuous, unbiased recordings, etc. Hansen et al also put to rest the idea that the global temperature had cooled from 1940 to 1970 by showing that this cooling was only present in the Northern Hemisphere. This put to rest the ideas of Mitchell (1973) and Mitchell (1972) that other radiative forcings (such as aerosols) were overpowering the global enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one was seriously doing anything about global warming in the 1970s. To expect oil companies to have done something seems like an unfair standard.

On the extreme, paying a lobbying firm to spread misinformation would seem to be worth investigating.

Agreed.

Compare that to what we see in threads like this one. People have been fed lies, and they repeat them here. People will outright deny that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas. They will make silly claims about how a gas at a concentration of 400 ppm can't have any effect because it is so dilute. Where is that coming from?

Primarily groups like Heartland Institute and Friends of Science.

I also think there are some ideologically based politicians that oppose government regulation on purely ideological grounds. I'm not sure that they are in it for the money but that their motives are rather pure ideological passion. They will oppose and oppose and oppose any regulation whether scientifically-supported or not. Some don't even want public schools...


But, in some random googling, it is depressing to learn about the actions of groups like Energy and Environment Legal Institute. How do those lawyers live with themselves? Seems so wrong....

Also, reading about the Koch Brothers is like reading about a caricature of an evil villain.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fair enough. Just make sure you aren't on a witch hunt.

I would describe it as a bit miffed, but rational.

While the theory of global warming was well-established in the 1950s, observations to validate those theories came later.

I hear where you are coming from, but I just see it differently. When you have a really good theory warning you that your current actions are going to raise global temps, should you really be surprised when you finally see warming temps?

It wasn't firmly established that atmospheric CO2 was rising until Keeling et al., 1976 when they published firm results from the Mauna Loa and South Pole CO2 monitoring sites which were set up in the late 1950s. Prior to this 1976 result, there was a lack of continuous recordings, biases from urban effects, poor spatial distribution, etc. The Keeling paper is the first truly rigorous observation from well-positioned sites.

We knew how many tons of fossil fuels we were burning, what the carbon content of those fossil fuels are, and we could do the math to figure out how many tons of carbon dioxide we were putting into the atmosphere.

No one was seriously doing anything about global warming in the 1970s. To expect oil companies to have done something seems like an unfair standard.

I think our expectations have been warped over time. We think it is unfair to expect a business to prioritize the well being of society above their own profits. That seems to be our immediate reaction. How messed up is that?

I also think there are some ideologically based politicians that oppose government regulation on purely ideological grounds. I'm not sure that they are in it for the money but that their motives are rather pure ideological passion. They will oppose and oppose and oppose any regulation whether scientifically-supported or not. Some don't even want public schools...

I have my own opinions about that, but we that would probably drag us way off topic.

But, in some random googling, it is depressing to learn about the actions of groups like Energy and Environment Legal Institute. How do those lawyers live with themselves? Seems so wrong....

The psychology of sleazy lawyers would be a fascinating study.

Also, reading about the Koch Brothers is like reading about a caricature of an evil villain.

Starting to wish I could start a Koch Bros. meets Dr. Evil internet meme.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I hear where you are coming from, but I just see it differently. When you have a really good theory warning you that your current actions are going to raise global temps, should you really be surprised when you finally see warming temps?

A really good theory only becomes good when it is validated by observation. You should always be excited and somewhat surprised when theory matches observations. If you go in expecting the theory to be validated, that's when you get into trouble with confirmation bias.

We knew how many tons of fossil fuels we were burning, what the carbon content of those fossil fuels are, and we could do the math to figure out how many tons of carbon dioxide we were putting into the atmosphere.

Its not quite that simple because it was not entirely clear how much CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean. There were a few theories which offered different estimates. But it was Keeling et al 1976 which firmly showed that about half of what we emit remains in the atmosphere.

It is also not quite that simple because the theories from the 1950s and 60s generally calculated how much the temperature would change by increasing the CO2 under the assumption that all other heat sources/sinks/forcings remained constant. In other words, "all other things being equal", if CO2 increased by X amount, how much would the temperature go up? Throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s there were more and more precise measurements to take into account all heat sources/sinks/forcings and by the mid-90s it was abundantly clear that all other culprits for the observed temperature increase had been ruled out.

I think our expectations have been warped over time. We think it is unfair to expect a business to prioritize the well being of society above their own profits. That seems to be our immediate reaction. How messed up is that?

No, it is unfair to expect a company to have known something that was not well-known and/or well-established at that time. And it is even more unfair to expect a company to have responded to a problem long ago and before it was well-established that it was, in fact, a problem at all.


Anywho, I've enjoyed our discussion here. It is one of the rare cases of a rational discussion about global warming and it has not been hijacked by the usual culprits.

 

[[serious]]

I agree.

The only way the free market would address the problem is if the cost is very small and the social pressure to do something was large. So if $2000 would buy a large red ball you could put on your exhaust and nullify the CO2 coming out of the car, people might install the red ball for the social prestige of everyone seeing they are doing something. But all that is just science fiction at this point.

Now if only somebody would invent a machine to turn carbon dioxide into diamonds and oxygen.

They probably can now, but the energy required would require burning more fossil fuels.

 

[[serious]]

Sure, but plants like this warmth too, like in a greenhouse.
Deforestation may be more of a problem than CO2 production.

But who knows, right?
"They" would have us believe all sorts of things to push their agendas.
"They" even have Christians believe in evolution.

Plants like heat, water, and co2. Easy solution, light the plants on fire since that produces all three!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I thought about making a new thread about this, but I figured this was still pertinent enough to belong in this thread.


It is important as scientists to notice where and when value judgements enter the equation in this taxonomy. I think it can be argued that the first 5 options involve no value judgements. They are purely observational and empirical scientific questions which are testable and falsifiable.

However, at Option 6, we see the first value judgement. The question is whether or not global warming will be beneficial or not. But, of course, one person's benefit is another person's loss. SkepticalScience published a nice list of the academic results of positives vs. negatives of global warming. But I can't help but notice the bias in this list. The website simply puts more items in the negative column to give the impression that the negative outweighs the positive. but does not quantify in any way if the negatives outweigh the positives.

Often other organizations try to put a number on it by saying that climate change will cost X dollars. Like this one from the NRDC which calculates that the cost of climate change will be nearly a trillion dollars by 2100. This sounds like a lot, but there are some problems. First, that trillion dollar number is cumulative from 2006 to 2100 which is about 10 billion per year. Sounds big, except that this is a tiny fraction of the GDP, a tiny fraction of the debt and a tiny fraction of the budget deficit. Secondly, the report doesn't seem to seriously take into account any potentially economic benefits which would nullify certain climate change costs. Thirdly, the report does not take into account the cost of radically investing in new technologies and the economic effects of a carbon tax. The Paris climate deal is expected to cost about 12.1 trillion over 25 years or nearly 484 billion per year. Some estimate that the "clean power plan" of the Obama administration is going to cost 39 billion by 2030. I have not yet found a good resource which puts a monetary number on the cost of inaction on climate change vs. the cost of fighting it with government action.

Another issue with value judgements is that it depends on the reader to decide if something is bad or not. For example, lets say you are given two articles: one says that we will cut transportation costs significantly by a ice-free Arctic while the other says that polar bear numbers are dwindling because of a ice-free Arctic. How you decide which beats which is a value judgement unique to the individual.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A couple of small points, leftrightleftrightleft.
The NRDC PDF is the economic cost of 4 climate change impacts in the USA estimated in 2008. The values are annual and are lower bounds.

In the business-as-usual scenario, the annual costs of these four effects alone add up to almost $1.9 trillion in 2100, or 1.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), as summarized in Table 1 below.
The total cost of these four types of damages, however, represents only a lower bound of the total cost of the business-as-usual scenario; many other kinds of damages, while also likely to have important effects on the U.S. economy, are more difficult to estimate.

That "2006" number is the baseline of the dollar amounts - "in billions of 2006 dollars".

Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years

If the world is serious about halting the worst effects of global warming, the renewable energy industry will require $12.1 trillion of investment over the next quarter century, or about 75 percent more than current projections show for its growth.

is global and not a big increase in projected growth.

 

[Loudmouth]

A really good theory only becomes good when it is validated by observation.

There were already observations from lab experiments that verified it.

Its not quite that simple because it was not entirely clear how much CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean.

But we knew the risk if the oceans didn't absorb it.

It is also not quite that simple because the theories from the 1950s and 60s generally calculated how much the temperature would change by increasing the CO2 under the assumption that all other heat sources/sinks/forcings remained constant.

Therefore, we knew there was a very real risk.

No, it is unfair to expect a company to have known something that was not well-known and/or well-established at that time. And it is even more unfair to expect a company to have responded to a problem long ago and before it was well-established that it was, in fact, a problem at all.

When you have no idea if natural processes are going to swoop in and clean up your pollution, that doesn't seem like a very good plan.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A couple of small points, leftrightleftrightleft.
The NRDC PDF is the economic cost of 4 climate change impacts in the USA estimated in 2008. The values are annual and are lower bounds.

I already linked to the NRDC PDF. Why did you re-link it as if I hadn't read it?

But yes, I stand corrected. Those are annual numbers. Still... fractions of the GDP.

And my main point still stands: this report doesn't seem to adequately take into account the positives of climate change when coming up with these numbers. Its like looking at your household expenses and concluding that you're going way into debt without considering your income.

Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years

is global and not a big increase in projected growth.

What do you mean by "not a big increase in projected growth"?

12.1 trillion is a very large number.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There were already observations from lab experiments that verified it.

Citation for when they used a lab to examine the complex atmospheric system?

They had lab experiments to show how much heat CO2 absorbed using spectroscopic analysis. But they did not have large scale lab experiments to examine and test the global atmospheric system. Such a laboratory experiment is impossible as far as I can tell. The best we have is climate models using massively-parallel computing which didn't really get going until the 1990s.

But we knew the risk if the oceans didn't absorb it.

Citation?

Did you take a look at the Keeling et al, 1976 and Hansen et al., 1981 papers?

Therefore, we knew there was a very real risk.

No we didn't because we hadn't taken all factors into account. For example, lets say that you have a fireplace with a log burning in it. Your spouse has said that they strictly want the thermostat to be between 19 C and 25 C. You calculate the size of the room and the heat output of the log (well-understood physics) and conclude that the log, if left burning will make the temperature of the room go up to 27 C. Bad news when your spouse gets home. By your theory and calculations, you recognize there is a very real risk of your spouse being angry, so you act pre-emptively and put the fire out. But, you failed to check other heat sources and sinks in the house and failed to realize that the window was open and moderating the effects of the log. With the fire now out, you watch as the thermostat drops to 17 C. If you had just left the log on with the window open to moderate it, the temperature would have remained at a comfortable 21 C.

To make the analogy clear: in the 1970s scientists had not checked all the heat sources and sinks of the Earth's energy budget. It would have been potentially foolish to take action so early prior to other things being ruled out. This was especially pertinent because the observed global temperatures had remained relatively constant from 1940 to 1970. A scientist in 1970 may have wondered if the heating effects of CO2 were being moderated by some other heat sink.

Furthermore, in the 1970s, it wasn't abundantly clear whether a warmer world was going to be bad or good. Today, there is a lot more evidence that a warmer world will likely be worse (especially given the rapid changes). (But keep in mind that "badness" or "goodness" are ultimately subjective value judgements, not empirical science).

When you have no idea if natural processes are going to swoop in and clean up your pollution, that doesn't seem like a very good plan.

First, you have to establish that whatever you're producing is a pollutant with measurable and observed harmful effects. You're still judging these companies through hindsight vision where it is now so abundantly clear that CO2 is responsible for warming etc etc. Hindsight is 20/20.

Can the company that mined the uraninite that killed Marie Curie be blamed for her death retroactively?

 

[Loudmouth]

Citation for when they used a lab to examine the complex atmospheric system?

You don't need to create a complex atmospheric system to understand that CO2 will trap outgoing heat.

They had lab experiments to show how much heat CO2 absorbed using spectroscopic analysis. But they did not have large scale lab experiments to examine and test the global atmospheric system. Such a laboratory experiment is impossible as far as I can tell. The best we have is climate models using massively-parallel computing which didn't really get going until the 1990s.

In what models does increasing CO2 not trap more heat?

Citation?

Arrhenius' 1896 paper, for starters.

Let me use an analogy. Let's say you are standing at the top of the Empire State building. You turn your back to the ledge of the building, and then fling a 16 lb bowling ball over your head. The bowling ball hurtles towards the ground and lands on someone's head, killing them instantly.

Could you claim you have no liability for that person's death because you had no idea where the bowling ball would land, and there was no way for you to know that a person would be hit by the bowling ball? Most people would think you were guilty because you unnecessarily risked someone's life, right?

The same thing with CO2. We knew that CO2 absorbed heat. You can't come back and say that there could be some process that perhaps scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is like the excuse discussed above, not having any way of knowing that the bowling ball would hit someone. They knew there was a risk.

No we didn't because we hadn't taken all factors into account. For example, lets say that you have a fireplace with a log burning in it. Your spouse has said that they strictly want the thermostat to be between 19 C and 25 C. You calculate the size of the room and the heat output of the log (well-understood physics) and conclude that the log, if left burning will make the temperature of the room go up to 27 C. Bad news when your spouse gets home. By your theory and calculations, you recognize there is a very real risk of your spouse being angry, so you act pre-emptively and put the fire out. But, you failed to check other heat sources and sinks in the house and failed to realize that the window was open and moderating the effects of the log. With the fire now out, you watch as the thermostat drops to 17 C. If you had just left the log on with the window open to moderate it, the temperature would have remained at a comfortable 21 C.

Let's say the entire house will catch on fire if the temperature goes up another 2 degrees. Could you claim that there are all of these unknown factors, so throwing more wood on the fire poses no risk?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You don't need to create a complex atmospheric system to understand that CO2 will trap outgoing heat.

Can I add an addendum to your quote: "and increase the temperature in a closed system".

Since the atmosphere has both sources and sinks and is not necessarily in equilibrium, then it is not for certain that CO2 will increase the temperature. Also, if the carbon system has sources and sinks, then it is not for certain that the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere are increasing.

In what models does increasing CO2 not trap more heat?

None. But stop introducing these red herrings. The question is not if CO2 traps heat, we are both in agreement that this was established in the 1950s.

What was not established in the 1970s is two things:

1) Is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increasing or are there carbon sinks which are absorbing the additional carbon (this was first established by Keeley et al., 1976)

2) Is the temperature increasing, or are there certain heat sinks which are nullifying any carbon-induced warming? (this question was answered satisfactorily by Hansen et al., 1981)

Just because lab tests show that CO2 traps heat does not mean the atmosphere behaves like these controlled lab settings. The lab experiments have well controlled and well-understood heat sinks, well-controlled and well-understood measurement methods and no carbon sinks. The labs prove one thing: CO2 traps heat all else being equal.

And for fear of repeating myself: "In other words, "all other things being equal", if CO2 increased by X amount, how much would the temperature go up?"

Arrhenius' 1896 paper, for starters.

Recall that Arrhenius had this to say about global warming: "By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind" (Arrhenius 1908, pg 63)

I asked for a citation that says we knew there was a "risk". You suggest Arrhenius, who believed the exact opposite. There was no risk, but more benefit!

Let me use an analogy. Let's say you are standing at the top of the Empire State building. You turn your back to the ledge of the building, and then fling a 16 lb bowling ball over your head. The bowling ball hurtles towards the ground and lands on someone's head, killing them instantly.

Could you claim you have no liability for that person's death because you had no idea where the bowling ball would land, and there was no way for you to know that a person would be hit by the bowling ball? Most people would think you were guilty because you unnecessarily risked someone's life, right?

This is a poor analogy because:
1) How objects behave under Earth's gravity is incredibly well understood; the way the climate system responds to heat exchanges is very complex and not as well understood (especially in the 1970s!)
2) The impact of throwing a bowling ball off the Empire State building has almost no conceivable benefits and only the potential to harm; a warmer world could have multiple drawbacks and benefits, both of which are often nebulous and difficult to quantify.
3) There is no concept of gravity sources and sinks in this example. There is no way for the bowling ball to change course, accelerate or decelerate, once being thrown. The addition of CO2 into our atmosphere has various ways of changing course via absorption into carbon sinks; the heat also has a variety of control knobs such as changing cloud cover patterns, ocean absorption, natural orbital changes, changes to solar irradiance, etc.


Here's a better analogy:

Let's say you're throwing darts at a dartboard outside on a windy day. You know how the dart will fly on a windless day (because you've tested it in a lab), but in the wind, it is harder to apply your theory directly because of external effects. Your dartboard has some numbers on it; some are positive and some are negative. But some are covered up as well and it is unknown whether those points are positive or negative. When you throw the dart, you don't know if it is going to land on a positive or negative. Should you be liable if it hits a negative? Is it a serious risk to throw the dart? What if you throw the dart and your "windless dart" theory predicts it will hit the negative but then the wind buffets the dart midflight and it ends up hitting a positive?

There are so many variables, its really hard to figure it out...

The same thing with CO2. We knew that CO2 absorbed heat.

So what? You keep thinking that "CO2 absorbing heat" = "observed man-made global warming with serious negative effects which needs immediate action".

No! CO2 absorbing heat in a controlled lab experiment tells you very little about how the atmosphere-Earth system is going to respond to an influx in CO2. You need more than just "CO2 absorbs heat". You need an understanding of atmospheric circulation, ocean circulation, ocean absorption of heat, ocean absorption of CO2, vegetation sinks, the effects of weathering, changes to solar irradiance, albedo effects of clouds, albedo effects of ice caps, latitudinal variations in heat distribution, effects of orbital variations, observed CO2 increases to validate your theory, observed temperature increases to validate your theory, a solid understanding of heat sources and sinks, a solid understanding of carbon sources and sinks etc.

And after you've done all that, then you still need to show that a warmer world is bad for humanity. And you still need to show that this requires action because of some risk of negative outcomes.

Very little of this had been accomplished by 1980. Very little.

You can't come back and say that there could be some process that perhaps scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. That is like the excuse discussed above, not having any way of knowing that the bowling ball would hit someone.

No, it is not at all like the bowling ball analogy because there were already some possible natural mechanisms for how CO2 could be scrubbed from the atmosphere. Since there were no consistent, longitudinal measurements of how CO2 concentrations were increasing (until Keeley et al., 1976), then it was unclear how important those mechanisms were at scrubbing the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Such natural mechanisms included oceanic absorption, vegetation sinks, weathering, etc.

The bowling ball analogy doesn't work because, once the bowling ball is thrown, there aren't really any plausible natural mechanisms to change the bowling ball's course.

They knew there was a risk.

Remind me who "they" is again? Oil companies in the 1970s? Scientists didn't even know if there was a serious risk!

Let's say the entire house will catch on fire if the temperature goes up another 2 degrees. Could you claim that there are all of these unknown factors, so throwing more wood on the fire poses no risk?

If you calculate that the open window will remove the excess heat from additional logs, then there is no risk.

Imagine an alternate universe where Keeley et al., 1976 found that CO2 concentrations had flat-lined or were dropping after examining the Mauna Loa and South Pole records. Imagine for a moment that this was the case. Now imagine that, based on this observation, scientists needed to explain how this excess CO2 was being scrubbed from the atmosphere and lets say they discovered that a combination of increased vegetation, oceanic absorption and weathering were removing 95% of man-made carbon. Just imagine that for a moment.

Would all those controlled lab experiments that showed that CO2 traps outgoing heat matter?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can I add an addendum to your quote: "and increase the temperature in a closed system".

What you are then doing is hoping that some unknown natural processes, through random luck, will counteract the warming caused by CO2.

Since the atmosphere has both sources and sinks and is not necessarily in equilibrium, then it is not for certain that CO2 will increase the temperature. Also, if the carbon system has sources and sinks, then it is not for certain that the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere are increasing.

It is far from certain that added CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere. That's the point. If you don't know either way, then you assume the worst. That's how risk assessment works.

Recall that Arrhenius had this to say about global warming: "By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind" (Arrhenius 1908, pg 63)

I asked for a citation that says we knew there was a "risk". You suggest Arrhenius, who believed the exact opposite. There was no risk, but more benefit!

So are you arguing that no one suspected that CO2 would increase temperatures, or that they knew temperature would go up but it wouldn't be a problem?

This is a poor analogy because:
1) How objects behave under Earth's gravity is incredibly well understood; the way the climate system responds to heat exchanges is very complex and not as well understood (especially in the 1970s!)

But you can't predict from how objects behave on Earth if they will hit someone at the bottom of the Empire State Building. You can't know if someone is just happening along at just the wrong spot, right?

2) The impact of throwing a bowling ball off the Empire State building has almost no conceivable benefits and only the potential to harm; a warmer world could have multiple drawbacks and benefits, both of which are often nebulous and difficult to quantify.

The act of hurling 16 lb balls has the added benefit of important exercise for the thrower.

3) There is no concept of gravity sources and sinks in this example. There is no way for the bowling ball to change course, accelerate or decelerate, once being thrown. The addition of CO2 into our atmosphere has various ways of changing course via absorption into carbon sinks; the heat also has a variety of control knobs such as changing cloud cover patterns, ocean absorption, natural orbital changes, changes to solar irradiance, etc.

I don't see what that has to do with the analogy. The whole point is that you can't know if someone is going to be standing where the bowling ball will land. Since you don't know this, can you be held liable for hitting someone?

Here's a better analogy:

Let's say you're throwing darts at a dartboard outside on a windy day. You know how the dart will fly on a windless day (because you've tested it in a lab), but in the wind, it is harder to apply your theory directly because of external effects. Your dartboard has some numbers on it; some are positive and some are negative. But some are covered up as well and it is unknown whether those points are positive or negative. When you throw the dart, you don't know if it is going to land on a positive or negative. Should you be liable if it hits a negative? Is it a serious risk to throw the dart? What if you throw the dart and your "windless dart" theory predicts it will hit the negative but then the wind buffets the dart midflight and it ends up hitting a positive?

Yes, you should be held liable. You knew there was a risk of hitting a negative, so the best course of action was not to throw the dart until you were sure.

So what?

You keep thinking that "CO2 absorbing heat" = "observed man-made global warming with serious negative effects which needs immediate action".

No, I don't. I keep thinking "CO2 absorbing heat" = "RISK of causing a rise in global temps".

No, it is not at all like the bowling ball analogy because there were already some possible natural mechanisms for how CO2 could be scrubbed from the atmosphere.

As you have said, they lacked the science to determine if this was actually the case. Therefore, the risk was still there.

The bowling ball analogy doesn't work because, once the bowling ball is thrown, there aren't really any plausible natural mechanisms to change the bowling ball's course.

It could travel a straight path and not hit anyone.

Scientists didn't even know if there was a serious risk!

You have said yourself that they didn't know if the CO2 would stay in the atmosphere or be scrubbed out. How is that not a serious risk?

If you calculate that the open window will remove the excess heat from additional logs, then there is no risk.

And you have said that they didn't have those calculations, so it is a risk to throw more logs on the fire.

Imagine an alternate universe where Keeley et al., 1976 found that CO2 concentrations had flat-lined or were dropping after examining the Mauna Loa and South Pole records. Imagine for a moment that this was the case. Now imagine that, based on this observation, scientists needed to explain how this excess CO2 was being scrubbed from the atmosphere and lets say they discovered that a combination of increased vegetation, oceanic absorption and weathering were removing 95% of man-made carbon. Just imagine that for a moment.

Would all those controlled lab experiments that showed that CO2 traps outgoing heat matter?

Yes, they would matter. Just because a potential risk turns out not to be a risk does not reduce the importance of the initial experiments.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What you are then doing is hoping that some unknown natural processes, through random luck, will counteract the warming caused by CO2.

It is far from certain that added CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere. That's the point. If you don't know either way, then you assume the worst. That's how risk assessment works.

Mmm, I think I am understanding your point. Which I guess takes us back to the question of "How much evidence of a phenomenon is required before action is required?"

In the 1970s you have a theory which suggests some risks of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. You have no firm observational verification of this theory. The costs of action were great and the costs of inaction were ill-defined and poorly quantified. There were possible benefits of both action and inaction. The cost-benefit analysis of climate change policy was in its infancy if even conceived.

Essentially, the risk of putting more CO2 into the atmosphere was very poorly quantified with many unknowns.

So are you arguing that no one suspected that CO2 would increase temperatures, or that they knew temperature would go up but it wouldn't be a problem?

Neither.

I am saying that there was no solid observational evidence that atmospheric CO2 was increasing or that temperatures were increasing, so at that point, it was completely reasonable to argue that the theory needed observational validation before action was taken. Add to this that the available temperature data of the time indicated that temperatures were basically flat-lining from 1940 to 1970. This did not negate the lab experiments that showed CO2 traps heat, but it did call into question whether there were more complex things occurring in the atmospheric-oceanic system which lab experiments could not imitate.

Furthermore, there were almost no studies published about the benefits or drawbacks of a warmer world, so even if temperature was observed to be going up (thus validating the theory), it was still not clear if this was something that needed action. So the "risk" of putting more CO2 in the air was completely ill-defined because it wasn't even clear if it was a bad thing or not.

Many "suspected that CO2 would increase temperature", but their suspicions had not yet been confirmed. And no one "knew" the temperature would go up.

No, I don't. I keep thinking "CO2 absorbing heat" = "RISK of causing a rise in global temps".

There are many risks we face. Not all risks require action.

As you have said, they lacked the science to determine if this was actually the case. Therefore, the risk was still there.

Does this imply they needed to act on it?

[You have said yourself that they didn't know if the CO2 would stay in the atmosphere or be scrubbed out. How is that not a serious risk?[/quote]

Risk of what?

And you have said that they didn't have those calculations, so it is a risk to throw more logs on the fire.

Throwing more logs on doesn't mean the house is going to burn down. For all you know, it might make the house a more comfortable temperature to live in.

Yes, they would matter. Just because a potential risk turns out not to be a risk does not reduce the importance of the initial experiments.

True, it doesn't reduce the importance, but it does highlight that we shouldn't necessarily act until more information is available. Especially when dealing with highly complex systems like the atmosphere where it was already known to scientists, that they weren't accounting for all variables in their models. They make that admission.