4 ms·

No one knew about climate change in 1957. It was a theoretical possibility that required decades of research, development, and infrastructure to prove. You're t

No one knew about climate change in 1957. It was a theoretical possibility that required decades of research, development, and infrastructure to prove. You're talking about literal terraforming - no one was sure that such a thing was actually possible. And even today we are still discovering novel mechanisms which obscure, regulate, or amplify temperature fluctuations. The case against 195X oil companies is overstated - though it makes for a convenient scapegoat.

willis936 5y ago
What you're saying is directly contradictory to the 1957 article authored by Humble Oil scientists. It's linked above. Also, your points are echoes of (wildly successful) fossil fuel disinformation campaigns. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf
runnerup 5y ago
In response to: >"No one knew about climate change in 1957." Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has been known and published in mainstream news articles since at least 110 years ago.[0][1] It's been known and discussed in public by professional scientists for over 140 years[2]. The great inaugural Nobel Prize winner, Arrhenius, wrote a paper on the topic in 1896[3] which cited Fourier's publication from 1827[4]. More generally, global greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for at least 185 years[4], a decade before the last founding father of the United States died. ---------- 0: The Rodney and Otamatea Times (Aug 1912) https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... 1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341 https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=... 2: Nature (1882): https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896) https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 4: M ́emoire sur les Temp ́eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan ́etaires, M ́emoires d l’Acad ́emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 (1827): https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pd... (English Translation)
- twofornone 5y ago
  [0] >the effect may be considerable in a few centuries [1] >and whether there any important ways in which it [CO2] is being removed from the atmosphere [2] Even more interesting, the doomsday predictions are more than a hundred years old as well: >THERE was a letter in NATURE some time since, calling attention to the pollution of the atmosphere by the burning of coal; and it was calculated that in the year 1900, all animal life would cease, from the amount of carbonic dioxide Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, now, after decades of study and billions of dollars in measurement and modeling infrastructure, this particular theory appears to be panning out. But to pretend that we knew with any certainty 100 or even 60 years ago that this was a likely outcome drastically oversimplifies the complex and chaotic global climate system. It is effectively revisionist history and even more importantly the warming necessary to confirm such theories did not really take off until the last few decades, ignoring that 60 years ago we did not have the spatial coverage to measure it with sufficient density and precision to verify a phenomenon on the scale of global climate change. And on top of all that, we are measuring a chaotic, periodic, oscillating system, and it is impractical to draw any conclusions about differences in future trends about without at an absolute minimum decades of quality sampling. So, again, people who claim that the petroleum industry knew about climate change and irresponsibly and continued to put the future of the planet in peril in the name of profits are dramatically underestimating the scope and scale of the theory and the degree of infrastructure and analysis necessary to prove it with any certainty.
mistrial9 5y ago
my own particular PDF copy of Big Oil research showing climate change from carbon burning, is dated in the 1970s. It is a clear research result at the time. They even predict a two percent rise in temps, around now.. there is no question at all. I read it from time to time.

willis936 5y ago

What you're saying is directly contradictory to the 1957 article authored by Humble Oil scientists. It's linked above. Also, your points are echoes of (wildly successful) fossil fuel disinformation campaigns. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf

runnerup 5y ago

In response to: >"No one knew about climate change in 1957." Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has been known and published in mainstream news articles since at least 110 years ago.[0][1] It's been known and discussed in public by professional scientists for over 140 years[2]. The great inaugural Nobel Prize winner, Arrhenius, wrote a paper on the topic in 1896[3] which cited Fourier's publication from 1827[4]. More generally, global greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for at least 185 years[4], a decade before the last founding father of the United States died. ---------- 0: The Rodney and Otamatea Times (Aug 1912) https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... 1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341 https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=... 2: Nature (1882): https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0 3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896) https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846 4: M ́emoire sur les Temp ́eratures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Plan ́etaires, M ́emoires d l’Acad ́emie Royale des Sciences de l’Institute de France VII 570-604 (1827): https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pd... (English Translation)

twofornone 5y ago
[0] >the effect may be considerable in a few centuries [1] >and whether there any important ways in which it [CO2] is being removed from the atmosphere [2] Even more interesting, the doomsday predictions are more than a hundred years old as well: >THERE was a letter in NATURE some time since, calling attention to the pollution of the atmosphere by the burning of coal; and it was calculated that in the year 1900, all animal life would cease, from the amount of carbonic dioxide Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, now, after decades of study and billions of dollars in measurement and modeling infrastructure, this particular theory appears to be panning out. But to pretend that we knew with any certainty 100 or even 60 years ago that this was a likely outcome drastically oversimplifies the complex and chaotic global climate system. It is effectively revisionist history and even more importantly the warming necessary to confirm such theories did not really take off until the last few decades, ignoring that 60 years ago we did not have the spatial coverage to measure it with sufficient density and precision to verify a phenomenon on the scale of global climate change. And on top of all that, we are measuring a chaotic, periodic, oscillating system, and it is impractical to draw any conclusions about differences in future trends about without at an absolute minimum decades of quality sampling. So, again, people who claim that the petroleum industry knew about climate change and irresponsibly and continued to put the future of the planet in peril in the name of profits are dramatically underestimating the scope and scale of the theory and the degree of infrastructure and analysis necessary to prove it with any certainty.

mistrial9 5y ago

my own particular PDF copy of Big Oil research showing climate change from carbon burning, is dated in the 1970s. It is a clear research result at the time. They even predict a two percent rise in temps, around now.. there is no question at all. I read it from time to time.