EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Brackite]

From exxonmobil.com:

At ExxonMobil, we are dedicated to reducing emissions from our own operations. This is one of the most important elements in the shared effort to mitigate the risks of climate change.

For more than a century, our company has shown that it is possible to produce and use energy in ways that are increasingly safe, secure, and environmentally responsible.

To achieve these shared goals for our society, we continue to invest in opportunities that can contribute to economic growth and unlock integrated solutions to manage climate change risks. We have a robust set of processes, technologies, and best practices designed to improve efficiency and reduce emissions across our global operations. Here are just a few.

Investing in natural gas

ExxonMobil projects that by 2040, global electricity demand will increase by about 85 percent as living standards rise and economies expand around the world. Moreover, we see natural gas as an abundant, reliable, and clean source of energy that can meet growing power-generation needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions levels. These two fundamental facts about energy needs and natural gas have helped shape ExxonMobil’s investments in recent years – helping the company become the leading natural gas producer in the United States.

Natural gas emits up to 60 percent less CO2 than coal when used for electricity. For this reason, the abundant supplies of natural gas unearthed by the shale revolution in the United States have contributed to a reduction in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions to levels not seen since the 1990s as electric utilities have switched from coal to natural gas for power generation. Remarkably, the country has achieved these environmental gains even as the economy has grown by 60 percent. The abundant supplies of natural gas coming from America’s shale fields are positioning the U.S. to be a net exporter of natural gas, which can mean lower emissions worldwide.

Converting power generation from coal to natural gas is the most rapid and most cost-effective step society can take today to reduce greenhouse emissions. And by providing backup power, which intermittent sources cannot, natural gas is also helping to support alternative low-carbon sources of energy like wind and solar. By leading in natural gas, we are paving the way toward a brighter energy future.

This all sounds good to me. And U.S. Coal Production ended up dropping to a 30-Year Low last year, which is good news.

U.S. Coal Production Dropped to 30-Year Low in 2015

[_The CCC]

The solar panels on my roof emit zero CO2, and have reduced my mains electricity bill by 95%.

[_Gunnar]

The big problem I see is not that Tobin hasn't been provided with ample evidence. It is simply his stubborn refusal to admit the evidence provided is really evidence. He is another prime example of the backfire effect.

[_Tobin]

The big problem I see is not that Tobin hasn't been provided with ample evidence. It is simply his stubborn refusal to admit the evidence provided is really evidence. He is another prime example of the backfire effect.

Again, you are welcome to present and highlight whatever crucial evidence you believe I'm ignoring and I'll be happy to consider it. Provided it is legitimate. I'm not going to accept spurious claims and the resulting unsubstantiated conclusions. I have yet to see anything compelling at all that states that we can't continue as we are and be just fine. If you can prove that is mistaken, I'd be the first to acknowledge it.

[_canpakes]

Here's something else that has me puzzled. You've argued something along the lines that we shouldn't do anything to reduce CO2 emissions because "the earth will be fine." What does that mean? Under what conditions will the earth be "fine"?

I have a few relatives that use this statement all of the time. It's such a silly diversion. The real concern isn't that the earth will be fine, rather, how will the folks living on it be affected? ; )

They usually move on to another silly diversion once that difference is pointed out.

[_The CCC]

The big problem I see is not that Tobin hasn't been provided with ample evidence. It is simply his stubborn refusal to admit the evidence provided is really evidence. He is another prime example of the backfire effect.

Again, you are welcome to present and highlight whatever crucial evidence you believe I'm ignoring and I'll be happy to consider it. Provided it is legitimate. I'm not going to accept spurious claims and the resulting unsubstantiated conclusions. I have yet to see anything compelling at all that states that we can't continue as we are and be just fine. If you can prove that is mistaken, I'd be the first to acknowledge it.

CO2 traps heat. More heat less snow and ice. Less snow and ice less water to drink. More water goes into oceans, oceans rise. Oceans rise cities flood. Floods not good for people, plants, and animals.
SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=miami+s ... J_NfURw%3D

[_Tobin]

CO2 traps heat. More heat less snow and ice. Less snow and ice less water to drink. More water goes into oceans, oceans rise. Oceans rise cities flood. Floods not good for people, plants, and animals.

That's simplistic and as we've already discussed, CO2 levels is a lagging indicator, not necessarily a primary cause of global warming. Also, based on past data, the sea level rises just a few centimeters per century. So what if in 300 years the sea is 10 cms higher than it is now? People can build dikes and sea walls to deal with slightly higher seas and will have plenty of time to do so. Or they can move to higher ground. As I've already said, people aren't plants and can move.

[_The CCC]

CO2 traps heat. More heat less snow and ice. Less snow and ice less water to drink. More water goes into oceans, oceans rise. Oceans rise cities flood. Floods not good for people, plants, and animals.

That's simplistic and as we've already discussed, CO2 levels is a lagging indicator, not necessarily a primary cause of global warming. Also, based on past data, the sea level rises just a few centimeters per century. So what if in 300 years the sea is 10 cms higher than it is now? People can build dikes and sea walls to deal with slightly higher seas and will have plenty of time to do so. Or they can move to higher ground. As I've already said, people aren't plants and can move.

CO2 is not a lagging indicator. CO2 has a multiplier effect. Slight changes in earth tilt and orbit effect the the Albedo Effect which increase water temperature. Hot water is less dense than cold water so it expands rising sea levels. Sea level rising has already threaten Miami; Florida. Yes people can move. But moving millions of people is expensive, and cities don't move.
SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea- ... feet-19211

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, before we get into the details of what evidence I think you are ignoring, I really think we need to clarify what you mean when you say that the earth will be fine. I really have no idea what you mean when you say that. I asked you a series of questions upthread to try and understand, but you did not answer them. You seem to have read that list as suggesting they were proposed consequences of global warming -- they weren't. They are simply hypotheticals to help me understand where you are drawing the line between "the earth is fine" and "the earth is not fine" So, please answer:

Billions of years in the future, when sun expands to engulf (or almost engulf) the earth, will it be fine?
If the earth were to lose its atmosphere, would it be fine?
If all the water boiled away, would it be fine?
If all life on earth became extinct, would it be fine?
If all humans became extinct, would it be fine?
If immigrants from other countries took every single job away from every single american, would it be fine?
If Syrian refugees kill every single American, would it be fine?
If Iran developed nuclear weapons, would it be fine?
If we instituted a carbon tax, would it be fine?
If we reduced subsidies for fossil fuels and increased them for non-carbon burning sources of energy, would it be fine?
If every country that is party to the recent Paris agreement reduced CO2 emissions in accordance with their agreement, would it be fine?

[_Res Ipsa]

CO2 is not a lagging indicator. CO2 has a multiplier effect. Slight changes in earth tilt and orbit effect the the Albedo Effect which increase water temperature. Hot water is less dense than cold water so it expands rising sea levels. Sea level rising has already threaten Miami; Florida. Yes people can move. But moving millions of people is expensive, and cities don't move.
SEE http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea- ... feet-19211

More precisely, over the past 800,000 years or so, we've had cycles of CO2 and temperature that track each other almost exactly. Changes in cycles of earth's orbit were the main driver of these cycles. Starting from the end of the colder portion of the cycle, the sun would begin to warm the planet. The warming caused sequestered CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. That added CO2 also warmed the planet. That's called "feedback." Warming caused an increase in CO2, which in turn caused more warming.

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/f ... ecords.jpg

However, ice core records don't work for the recent past because it takes a while for the surface snow to compact down into ice that we can take a sample and read. Take a look again at the right-hand end of the graph. Someone has added the recent growth in CO2 to the ice core graph using data from actual measurement. The CO2 rate of increase becomes almost vertical. That's us adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's why the "CO2 is a lagging indicator" argument is nonsense. In the past, the main driver of CO2 increase was the changes in the sun. We weren't dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Today, the main driver of warming is us. Tobin's continued reference to CO2 as a lagging indicator, even after having this explained to him, is one example of the evidence he is ignoring.