of Teacherresource
By Randal Utech — September 19, 2024
“The sense of accomplishment created in historical matching is a false correlation for a very small period of time. Using Exxon’s internal analysis of CO2 climate forcing is little more than a propaganda tool.
“Exxon Knew” is a political advocacy campaign that focuses on certain internal company documents to make the case that the oil company knows that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a threat to human improvement.
Smoking gun? hardly.
Half a century later, the IPCC is still trying to update and understand physical climate science. Exxon has not done any studies on CO2 benefits or offsetting sulfur dioxide emissions. The methods of concern at the time were Global Cooling, Peak Oil, and Peak Gas. And as companies know, fossil fuels have no viable substitutes, just like wind and solar.
This historical correction has been documented in several posts on MasterResource, including:
Big Oil, Exxon Not Guilty Alleged: Six-Part Rebuttal (September 22, 2022)
‘ExxonKnew’: Another Fix (September 18, 2023)
Shell know? No (July 19, 2023)
Climate Alarmist as ExxonMobil Whistleblower (March 27, 2024)
In Search of “Greenhouse Signals” in the 1990s (June 21, 2023)
Unsettled Science, IPCC style (February 18, 2020)
So it was my turn when I came across this argument by Mark Burger on social media, He said:
Unlike the fossil fuel industry fighting to hide its influence for decades? One example: “Exxon scientists predicted global warming with ‘frightening skill and accuracy,’ says Harvard researcher”
My objection
My response (added from my reply on social media):
To say that Exxon knew the truth in the early 80s is a laughable fallacy. Effectively, they created the same primitive models as modern climate models that are wrong today.
Fundamentally, their work is based on unknown climate sensitivities (ECS) derived from radiative convective models and GCM models. To his credit, he does acknowledge the high degree of uncertainty in these estimates. Now, even Hausfather (2022 vs 2019) is starting to realize that climate sensitivity (ECS) is very high. CMIP6 runs still warmer than CMIP5 and uses an ECS of 3 to 5°C instead of ~1.2°C as highlighted in the Nick Lewis 2022 study.CMIP6 is supposed to be better because it incorporates solar particles (Matthes et. another underlying problem with the model.
However, Exxon investigators fell into the same trap as climate modelers today where they build a model for the history of temperature matching and then wow, because they can create a model that looks at the history of temperature matching, they think it tells someone something. The truth? Anyone can make a model to do this, but that doesn’t mean the model is correct. While current models are more complex, they are based on a complex set of non-linear equations, and understanding of the various sources of nonlinearity is lacking. This opens up a degree of uncertainty, but plenty of opportunity to adjust. Furthermore, forcing nature lacks character and is considered unimportant.
The notion of achievement in history is relevant as a false correlation for an infinite period of time. Using Exxon’s internal analysis of CO2 climate forcing is little more than a propaganda tool. Today’s climate models, more sophisticated, face the same problem of unknown, false causes.
————-
Randall Utech, former Advisor Geoscientist at Schlumberger, has researched climate science for nearly 30 years with an emphasis on geology, paleoclimate, and glacial cycles. An interview with him by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists can be found here. Utech is the author of On the Benefits of CO2 (April 11, 2023).
Related
