3 ms·

I am 100% sure that the Exxon model from 1982 was not what Exxon wanted. It also has been and continues to be tremendously accurate and predictive. https://xk

by freen 5y ago

I am 100% sure that the Exxon model from 1982 was not what Exxon wanted. It also has been and continues to be tremendously accurate and predictive. https://xkcd.com/2500 https://xkcd.com/2500

sampo 5y ago
> https://xkcd.com/2500 https://xkcd.com/2500 I am unable to find any 1982 Exxon prediction that would meander like the line in that graph. The only plot I was able to find is this [1] from this 1982 Exxon report [2], which is just a slightly curved upward rising sketch, not nearly as detailed as in the xkcd graph. > the Exxon model from 1982 I also failed to find any signs of there having been any "1982 Exxon model". What [2] is, is a 39-page report, a synthesis and review of publicly available climate research. The list of references is quite extensive: 10 pages. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fbaqdWwAEPg5Z.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fbaqdWwAEPg5Z.png [2] https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/ https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-m...
- sampo 5y ago
  Oh right, I misinterpreted the xkcd plot. It's only the single (x)-marked dot in the top right of the graph, that is the Exxon prediction. Not the graph itself.
  - freen 5y ago
    Perhaps a bit more epistemically humility is in order. For all of us, myself included. That said, even highly adversarial climate models greated almost half a century ago have tremendous predictive power. Large systems are modelable. Not with any degree of precision, of course, but a high degree of accuracy. Otherwise insurance companies wouldn’t exist.
    - sampo 5y ago
      > That said, even highly adversarial climate models greated almost half a century ago have tremendous predictive power. Yes. About the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity): Manabe and Wetherald 1967, said 2.3°C. The Charney Report 1979, said 3.0 ± 1.5°C. IPCC AR6 2021, says 3.0°C (2.5 to 4.0). https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf#page=118 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

by freen 5y ago

I am 100% sure that the Exxon model from 1982 was not what Exxon wanted. It also has been and continues to be tremendously accurate and predictive. https://xkcd.com/2500 https://xkcd.com/2500

sampo 5y ago

> https://xkcd.com/2500 https://xkcd.com/2500 I am unable to find any 1982 Exxon prediction that would meander like the line in that graph. The only plot I was able to find is this [1] from this 1982 Exxon report [2], which is just a slightly curved upward rising sketch, not nearly as detailed as in the xkcd graph. > the Exxon model from 1982 I also failed to find any signs of there having been any "1982 Exxon model". What [2] is, is a 39-page report, a synthesis and review of publicly available climate research. The list of references is quite extensive: 10 pages. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fbaqdWwAEPg5Z.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fbaqdWwAEPg5Z.png [2] https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/ https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-m...

sampo 5y ago
Oh right, I misinterpreted the xkcd plot. It's only the single (x)-marked dot in the top right of the graph, that is the Exxon prediction. Not the graph itself.
- freen 5y ago
  Perhaps a bit more epistemically humility is in order. For all of us, myself included. That said, even highly adversarial climate models greated almost half a century ago have tremendous predictive power. Large systems are modelable. Not with any degree of precision, of course, but a high degree of accuracy. Otherwise insurance companies wouldn’t exist.
  - sampo 5y ago
    > That said, even highly adversarial climate models greated almost half a century ago have tremendous predictive power. Yes. About the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity): Manabe and Wetherald 1967, said 2.3°C. The Charney Report 1979, said 3.0 ± 1.5°C. IPCC AR6 2021, says 3.0°C (2.5 to 4.0). https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf#page=118 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...