4 ms·

That's astounding, because the IPCC did not accurately predict 2019's climate change or CO2 in 1982. In fact, Exxon scientists must be time travelers to have fo

by panny 7y ago

That's astounding, because the IPCC did not accurately predict 2019's climate change or CO2 in 1982. In fact, Exxon scientists must be time travelers to have foreseen the rise of China at a time when all of the USA was afraid of losing to the Japanese.

luc4sdreyer 7y ago
One reason the IPCC might have missed that prediction in 1982 is that the organisation didn't exist. It was founded in 1988 [1]. If you meant the scientific community as a whole, a majority was predicting anthropogenic global warming since the 1970's, but consensus only started in the 1980's [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...
- panny 7y ago
  I meant, show me where Exxon scientists predicted this, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/fossil_emissions_co2_v2.jpg https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/fossil_emissions_... I'll wait.
  - luc4sdreyer 7y ago
    You're implying that climate scientists had to have known the relative emissions per country into the far future. This is wrong for several reasons: * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. * Climate models don't predict human carbon emissions. They predict how the climate will respond. * The climate has a lot of momentum, so a sudden increase in carbon doesn't immediately cause a change in temperature. For example, if we completely stop releasing carbon, the climate will still warm another 0.6C [1] [1] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...
    - naasking 7y ago
      > * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. This is the key point. The global economy grows at its own rate, and so we would have produced roughly the same amount of carbon even without China, the distribution would have just been different because similar amounts of manufacturing would have just happened elsewhere. So even without being able to predict the rise of China, the scientists could have roughly predicted the carbon concentration.
    - panny 7y ago
      The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though.
      - luc4sdreyer 7y ago
        >The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. I don't see how this relates to anything. >Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though. You seem to be immune to logic, so I can imagine how you arrived at that conclusion.
        panny 7y ago
        >doesn't understand how the source of CO2 relates to discussion >"you seem to be immune to logic" The jokes write themselves.
  - smt1 7y ago
    This is kind of cherry picking evidence because it also doesn't show the rest of the world, especially the developing world, where the quickest path to GDP growth is, at least historically, to build a lot of coal plants. Arguably, if India, which is currently the world's fastest develop major economy, goes the way of China, we are all screwed. Doubtful they will however, because they are at the ground zero of climate change and other pollution problems due to the fragility of the himalayan glaciers (which cause the monsoons), low latitude climate, and a large portion of the eastern side of country being at/near sea level, particularly at the delta of the Ganges River (not to mention neighboring extremely low lying Bangladesh, which may be the source of one of the largest sources of displaced people in human history since it's basically one big river delta).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jfnixon 7y ago
Hell, the IPCC did not accurately predict 2019 climate change back in 1998 when they had far better models with far more computing resources.
- chmod775 7y ago
  It's pretty hard to predict since you need to guess how much more C02 humanity will emit in that time period among other things. Your models could be mathematically perfect and you'd still be off.
- baq 7y ago
  If they were able to predict the amount co2 precisely by country they’d be very rich people by gaming the stock market.
MLR 7y ago
The most likely scenario is that their predictions at the time have been surprisingly neatly counterbalanced by what actually happened, some big factors off the top of my head: 1. The industrial/economic/demographic collapse in the (former) USSR and Eastern Europe 2. Huge per capita emissions reductions in Western Europe and the USA 3. Stagnation in Japan 3. Slower global population growth than predicted

by panny 7y ago

luc4sdreyer 7y ago

One reason the IPCC might have missed that prediction in 1982 is that the organisation didn't exist. It was founded in 1988 [1]. If you meant the scientific community as a whole, a majority was predicting anthropogenic global warming since the 1970's, but consensus only started in the 1980's [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...

panny 7y ago
I meant, show me where Exxon scientists predicted this, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/fossil_emissions_co2_v2.jpg https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/fossil_emissions_... I'll wait.
- luc4sdreyer 7y ago
  You're implying that climate scientists had to have known the relative emissions per country into the far future. This is wrong for several reasons: * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. * Climate models don't predict human carbon emissions. They predict how the climate will respond. * The climate has a lot of momentum, so a sudden increase in carbon doesn't immediately cause a change in temperature. For example, if we completely stop releasing carbon, the climate will still warm another 0.6C [1] [1] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...
  - naasking 7y ago
    > * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. This is the key point. The global economy grows at its own rate, and so we would have produced roughly the same amount of carbon even without China, the distribution would have just been different because similar amounts of manufacturing would have just happened elsewhere. So even without being able to predict the rise of China, the scientists could have roughly predicted the carbon concentration.
  - panny 7y ago
    The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though.
    - luc4sdreyer 7y ago
      >The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. I don't see how this relates to anything. >Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though. You seem to be immune to logic, so I can imagine how you arrived at that conclusion.
      - panny 7y ago
        >doesn't understand how the source of CO2 relates to discussion >"you seem to be immune to logic" The jokes write themselves.
- smt1 7y ago
  This is kind of cherry picking evidence because it also doesn't show the rest of the world, especially the developing world, where the quickest path to GDP growth is, at least historically, to build a lot of coal plants. Arguably, if India, which is currently the world's fastest develop major economy, goes the way of China, we are all screwed. Doubtful they will however, because they are at the ground zero of climate change and other pollution problems due to the fragility of the himalayan glaciers (which cause the monsoons), low latitude climate, and a large portion of the eastern side of country being at/near sea level, particularly at the delta of the Ganges River (not to mention neighboring extremely low lying Bangladesh, which may be the source of one of the largest sources of displaced people in human history since it's basically one big river delta).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jfnixon 7y ago

Hell, the IPCC did not accurately predict 2019 climate change back in 1998 when they had far better models with far more computing resources.

chmod775 7y ago
It's pretty hard to predict since you need to guess how much more C02 humanity will emit in that time period among other things. Your models could be mathematically perfect and you'd still be off.
baq 7y ago
If they were able to predict the amount co2 precisely by country they’d be very rich people by gaming the stock market.

MLR 7y ago

The most likely scenario is that their predictions at the time have been surprisingly neatly counterbalanced by what actually happened, some big factors off the top of my head: 1. The industrial/economic/demographic collapse in the (former) USSR and Eastern Europe 2. Huge per capita emissions reductions in Western Europe and the USA 3. Stagnation in Japan 3. Slower global population growth than predicted