FullMetalx117
Member
To all the people who are celebrating the rise of EVs - you all do know that a vast majority of electric power is hydrocarbon based right?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Confirmed: ExxonMobil knew about climate change in the 70s
- Thread starter Hackworth
- Start date
- Status
AstroNut325
Member
Even switching to coal powered EVs is better than a continuation of ICE powered cars. The efficiency gains of centralized power generation far outweigh the most efficient ICEs. As a result of the increased efficiency we will still produce considerably less greenhouse gases.
And you need to take into account that as solar becomes more widespread in residential use the EV truly becomes carbon neutral or close to it.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Just thinking about all this and, surely this is a golden opportunity to try and convince the general public once and for all about climate change and use Exxon as the sacrificial lamb to move the power away from businesses?
I know public opinion is easily swayed but maybe in these times or dramatised news you could play up to it and make Exxon the public figurehead of movie style bad guy and be forced to defeat them to try and sweep in some real change with regards to our use of non renewable energy. Sounds silly I know but people pay attention when things are exciting and easy to understand.
I know public opinion is easily swayed but maybe in these times or dramatised news you could play up to it and make Exxon the public figurehead of movie style bad guy and be forced to defeat them to try and sweep in some real change with regards to our use of non renewable energy. Sounds silly I know but people pay attention when things are exciting and easy to understand.
dehydratedbabies
Member
I think that's exactly what Bernie Sanders wants to do.
Insane Metal
Member
Goddamn this is sad and disgusting.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Money is an abstraction to make trade more convenient, and trade is necessary for society and human interaction to function. It's not like we wouldn't have the same issues if we didn't have money.
We are in this together, so I guess you are probably missing this word.
In addition to oil, farming also contributes to climate change since cows are major contributors to greenhouse gases.
Too bad humans won't give them up because they're so tasty and profitable.
Always easy to blame problems on one industry when there's also another part of the problem.
AstroNut325
Member
Yup. I've brought this up before. Even on Neogaf people simply refuse to make any lifestyle changes to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
Can't eat less meat.
Can't get hybrid or EV because they're not fun cars or I can't be bothered to rent a car for my 2 road trips a year.
Can't be bothered to consider more sustainable housing.
Can't be bothered to shut off the AC when you leave for work.
You know what's worse than climate change deniers? People that acknowledge it and still do nothing. Like most of GAF.
WTF? Have you done a poll or something? Or just throwing out bullshit to make yourself feel better?
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I don't think you have to single out gaf. Otherwise I'm with you - our civilization dies the death of a billion dont-cares.
Reducing our standard in life-style is always very difficult, though there are some examples of success, mostly state-sanctioned reduction efforts.
More promising are these two directions:
1) Better alternatives. We are already nearly there with affordable solar panel and with affordable E-cars - given that Tesla is successful with the 40k car. What the government can do is to give the companies a fair chance to succeed, which means to stop the subvention given to the old industry.
2) Capturing carbondioxyd is possible, but not cheap! Not only we have to invest more, we also need more tax money for it. If we ever introduce a tax for rich (again), it should be for this purpose.
On par? LOL
Is this a joke?
China's emissions are nearly doubled the U.S. It's just that the U.S. emits more per capita than China does. China, by far, is the world's LARGEST polluter.
Well that's a start,
Find every last one of those who tried to obscure this, try them for crimes against humanity, expropriate every single penny and throw their ass in jail.
Seriously, there's no punishment harsh enough.
Those people knowingly withheld and opposed information that may be vital for humanity's survival as a species.
Seriously, there's no punishment harsh enough.
Those people knowingly withheld and opposed information that may be vital for humanity's survival as a species.
But the benefit to EVs is we can switch out how we generate the electricity to some other method without having to convince a majority of the populace to buy a new vehicle type.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
First I've heard of this... are the accusations true?
If it really is so, a new category of punishment needs to be invented for the people who knowingly covered it up while continuing to destroy our atmosphere...
If this is true it's a fundamental failure of our systems of government worldwide, not of the scientists.
If it really is so, a new category of punishment needs to be invented for the people who knowingly covered it up while continuing to destroy our atmosphere...
If this is true it's a fundamental failure of our systems of government worldwide, not of the scientists.
Mistake
Member
Can anyone please give a quick summary on what exactly the Martin Act would do? I don't have time right now to look through that giant pdf I found of it.
AuthenticM
Member
I'd give them the capital punishment, and I'm normally against it. This is how reprehensible their actions are.
jeff_rigby
Banned
And many are still saying we are going into a mini Ice age with the next two years key to determining if this is true.
FYI we have had Ice ages and lower Seas with CO2 levels 10 times what we have now. CO2 is a minor player as a greenhouse gas with water vapor the major player. Turns out water vapor can be a green house gas and as clouds is a reflector of sunlight and acts to cool the earth. Cosmic Rays ionize and create the seeds to create clouds. Large amount of Cosmic Rays and we go into a major Ice age. This has been confirmed over the last few billion years as the Solar Systems position in the spiral arms of the Milky way where Cosmic ray density is greater. Cloud cover does track Cosmic ray levels.
Climate models were wrong and citing Exon listening those scientists means Exon would have lost tons of money. CO2 does impact temperature in a small way and climate models were counting on increases in water vapor to amplify. They did not count on that water vapor also being a reflector.
So back to why solar Physicists think we are going into a minor 30 year Ice age. The Sun is supposed to be at a solar Max with the most sunspots in a 11 year cycle but there are fewer sunspots in this cycle equivalent to the last 205 year Dalton minimum where we had another mini-ice-age.
As an interesting side bit of knowledge, some are worried about the large Ozone hole in the Antarctic. Ozone is created by Ultraviolet from the Sun and Sunspots increase the amount of Ultraviolet emitted from the Sun. I leave it to the reader to put this together.
The slope of temperature increase from just after 1850 to 15 or so years ago was nearly the same. The predicted hockey stick did not happen. This indicates that CO2 was not the cause of most of that temperature increase. There was a temperature increase!!! A Lot of that heat has been absorbed by the oceans and when the oceans heat they release CO2. The last 15 or so years if there is a temperature increase it's so small as to be undetectable against normal short term variations except for perhaps 2012.
The Greenland Ice shelf is still increasing at about 3 feet a year and WWII planes are under hundreds of feet of Ice. Coastal Glaciers accelerated calving because of lack of Sea Ice at the mouths of bays where those glaciers empty. Sea Ice at certain latitudes melts first as I think everyone knows salt water freezes last and melts first and is very sensitive to temperature increases. The interior Ice is still stable as Summer temperatures are 14 degrees below the temperature water freezes.
Another bit of information: The CO2 level in 1850 was at an all time low historically and halving that would result in the extermination of life on earth, personally I'd like to have a little more buffer in CO2 levels against extermination.
Yes, but EV engines are more energy efficient. Over 75% of the energy in a gasoline-powered car engine is lost as heat.
What the fuck? Are you seriously telling me that we are doing good for the planet by burning all these fossil fuels? So, what happens when we run out of it in the next 100 years or so?
Here's hoping..I doubt much will come out of that subpeona.
afternoon delight
Member
jeff_rigby
Banned
We are certainly not doing the harm the Global Warming now climate change proponents tell us we are doing. Non sustainable energy was the mantra when I was in College and we worried, still worry about that. I remember solar cell arrays in space beaming microwave energy to antenna farms as one proposal. I also remember the push back from environmentalists about Wind farms killing birds and Hydroelectric dams keeping fish from migrating.
Obama lied to us about the reasons to not authorize the Keystone pipeline. It's a self evident lie. If the pipeline wouldn't decrease energy costs for us then it would not be viable as we buy our oil on the world market and if there was no price advantage then it wouldn't sell on the world market. The pipeline would also carry natural gas and oil from fracking in the north western states. That Natural gas is driving down energy prices and lowering our carbon footprint to 1990 levels. Who does not want that pipeline to go through? Oil companies in the rest of the world and ignorant environmentalists. Which camp does Obama belong in?
Shades of Clinton accepting a 1.5 million dollar donation to the democratic party from the owner of the second largest clean coal deposits for making the largest deposits of clean coal a national park.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Jeff, this is no place for logic and critical thinking. Burn people at the stake now, do minor fact-based research later!
jeff_rigby
Banned
Kids.....age does give perspective and exposure to enough politician's lies and you develop a tendency to fact check.
Discussions on GAF do on occasion cause me to change my world view when statements I make are challenged and I fact check.
Shake Appeal
Member
This is almost complete gibberish.
jeff_rigby
Banned
Check the facts and prove it, point out the errors and try to not post distorted facts like graphics that leave out every year from 2000 on and squash the horizontal axis (years) to ramp the temperature change to try to prove the Hockey stick. Look at the slope before the dip and after the dip, it's nearly the same. Slope = rate of change = no indication that CO2 is causing global warming as with a doubling of CO2 the slope should increase.
This is accepted fact and it's acknowledged the models were wrong. Everyone is scrambling to determine why the models were wrong. The best fits all of earth history reason is due to cosmic rays causing clouds. Nothing else fits as well. As I said the next two years should determine if this is accurate and if it is then we need to prepare. Canada and polar vortex affected areas of the US will be impacted the hardest with Alaska not suffering much change.
The start of a mass extinction event isn't enough to justify that proponents say this will fuck the planet? We now know it is, and what we've done with global warming has now produced the sixth mass extinction event in recorded history.
It will take decades for it to accelerate, but the fact is it: climate change started it. Get the fuck out of here if you think people are blowing any of this out of proportion when that reality is a pill we're swallowing. Can it literally be any worse? Most proponents have argued less for what the scientists are now saying...
The planet is becoming uninhabitable really fast, and we're the problem. How is it "less worse" than that?
Done about what?
jeff_rigby
Banned
I'm gonna need on a source for how and why this correlation is wrong.
1) Notice the chart stops at the year 2000, it doesn't show the decrease in temperature change with increased CO2 after 2000
2) Notice the temperature is increasing from 1910 to 1940 at a greater rate than after 1950 to 2000 when our CO2 consumption drastically increases and as you move to the right the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. This chart shows that as CO2 increases the effect decreases.
3) from 1940 to 1975 the temperature decreases and this is the industrial boom after and during WWII where CO2 going into the atmosphere drastically increases.
The slope of the temperature line tells all. The following is a better chart showing the slope doesn't change which means CO2 is not having an impact in global warming. The first and second slopes are before Man made CO2 could have an impact on global temperature. Something else is causing that warming and the rate is the same as attributed to man made CO2 in the third red sloping line. .
Read the chart, before man made CO2 the temperature increased .9 degrees from 1910 to 1940 and .7 degrees from 1940 to 2000. Do the math and there is less global warming after man made CO2; in 30 years .9 degree vs 60 years and .7 degrees.Foffy said:
Chill guy, it's natural processes not man made. A longer chart shows the medieval warming period was withing the margin of error the same as today. That's what the chart on the top shows. The bottom chart was fudged and leaves out the medieval warming period and squashed the chart so that you can't see the slope is the same as before man made global warming could have had an impact.
I've got too much homework to do, but the main problem with that chart is that the pink arrows are ignoring the overall increasing trend in air temperature along with the fact that it is using air temperature instead of surface temperature. The other problem and that it is trying to compare emissions to temperature change. Only atmospheric CO2 concentration, not emission, has a direct effect on energy retention.
Edit: Now you've added more? In the second set, the figure 7c is schematic since it has no labels and I can find no evidence that the medieval warm period was warmer than the mid 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Edit: Now you've added more? In the second set, the figure 7c is schematic since it has no labels and I can find no evidence that the medieval warm period was warmer than the mid 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Muppet of a Man
Member
1) Notice the chart stops at the year 2000, it doesn't show the decrease in temperature change with increased CO2 after 2000
2) Notice the temperature is increasing from 1910 to 1940 at a greater rate than after 1950 to 2000 when our CO2 consumption drastically increases and as you move to the right the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. This chart shows that as CO2 increases the effect decreases.
3) from 1940 to 1975 the temperature decreases and this is the industrial boom after and during WWII where CO2 going into the atmosphere drastically increases.
The slope of the temperature line tells all. The following is a better chart showing the slope doesn't change which means CO2 is not having an impact in global warming. The first and second slopes are before Man made CO2 could have an impact on global temperature. Something else is causing that warming and the rate is the same as attributed to man made CO2 in the third red sloping line. .
You do realize that there are many other greenhouse gasses that man contributes to the atmosphere through his industry, in addition to those of natural origins: "Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic. Those that are man-made include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)." Many of those synthetic greenhouse gases, as well as methane, are many times more powerful than CO2 in terms of their warming effect. Through technological progression, we've made great strides in mitigating the release of all of the synthetic greenhouse gases listed above post mid 1900s.
So, while we are emitting higher levels of carbon and methane, emissions of synthetic greenhouse gases (which are the worst in terms of warming effects) have been drastically reduced.
jeff_rigby
Banned
The graph you are referring to is identical to the one above it as far as temperature increases, it just covers a longer period left out because it's inconvenient. You can use either graph and both show no temperature correlation to either CO2 concentration or CO2 rate of release into the atmosphere.
The impact of water as a greenhouse gas; Clouds as reflector (negative feedback) and water vapor as blanket is net 60% This depends on cosmic rays and is NOT a constant. This is possibly where the climate models are wrong. There are other charts that state water vapor is 85% of the green house gasses. That did not take into account clouds at all.
The graphs show a direct correlation between the mean increase in temperature and the increase in CO2 concentration, adding some arrows to exaggerate deviations from the mean does not change that fact.
I'm sorry, but your graphs and analsysis resulting from said graphs is lacking in everything. You can't linearly compare CO2 and temperature and call it a day. You haven't adjusted for the fact that it's not about the levels of CO2 in the air, it's the amount of forcing that CO2 contributes that is more important.
obtained from: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing
False.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Jesus Fucking Christ, natural factors that produce greenhouse gas are usually constant over a large period of time. CO2 emissions are an extra effect that will increase temperature.
We would be at 32/0 (F/C) without any greenhouse effects, we just don't want an amplified greenhouse effect (caused by human CO2 emissions) that raises natural temperatures by 7/4 (F/C) degrees.
We would be at 32/0 (F/C) without any greenhouse effects, we just don't want an amplified greenhouse effect (caused by human CO2 emissions) that raises natural temperatures by 7/4 (F/C) degrees.
Actually, the biggest problem with the CO2 is not the warming itself. If we stop all emissions now, atmospheric levels would go down back to normal in 10~20 years due to the ocean surface absorbing excess atmospheric CO2... which is a major problem because that CO2 will linger on the top 400m layer of the ocean and increase acidity for a thousand years (which is around how long it takes for water from the bottom to switch places with the water on the surface).
jeff_rigby
Banned
I'm skeptical because parts of Greenland were green and settled during the medieval warming period while many of those same areas are under ice now with temperatures that are supposed to be higher today resulting in glaciers melting at unheard of rates. .
Why does localized warming in the past make you doubt global warming now? It makes no sense and is always a clear indicator of ignorance.
Gentleman Jack
Member
ExxonMobil will get fined the equivalent of 30 seconds of operating revenue and then we'll ignore it until the next supertanker leak.
jeff_rigby
Banned
A theory was put forth that cosmic rays sun interaction is the major climate driving force not CO2. Removing all clouds would increase the earths temperature 10 degrees while increasing low cloud cover would chill it significantly.
- Status