GIVE EXXON A NOBEL PRIZE!
I’m sure Russell Cook will have lots to say about this study. I can’t wait. I’m sure their blatant attempt at sophistry was not meant to reach the conclusion in my title. Emphasis mine below.~cr
New Harvard study puts a number on what ‘Exxon knew’ decades ago about climate science
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Cambridge, MA — Climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists between 1977 and 2003 were accurate and skillful in predicting subsequent global warming and contradicted the company’s public claims, a new Harvard study shows.
In the first ever systematic assessment of the fossil fuel industry’s climate projections, researchers at Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have put a number on what ‘Exxon knew’ decades ago about climate science: that fossil fuel burning would lead to 0.20 ± 0.04 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science and summarized by a single chart displaying every global warming projection reported by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003, are based on statistical analyses of never-previously reported data buried in the company’s own documents.
Although it has been widely reported that Exxon has known about the threat of global warming since the 1970s, this study is the first quantitative review of the company’s early climate science. Previous research focused on Exxon’s inconsistent internal and external rhetoric on climate change. This report dives into company data revealing that the company knew how much warming would occur with startling accuracy.
“We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming consistent with subsequent observations,” the report concludes. “Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models.”
Using established IPCC statistical techniques, the study finds that 63-83% of global warming projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were consistent with subsequently observed temperatures. Moreover, projections modeled by ExxonMobil scientists had an average ‘skill score’ of 72 ± 6 %, with the highest scoring 99%. For comparison, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen’s global warming predictions presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988 had skill scores ranging from 38% to 66%. (When we account for differences between forecast and observed atmospheric CO2 levels, the ‘skill score’ of projections modeled by ExxonMobil scientists was 75 ± 5%, with seven projections scoring 85% or above. Again, for comparison, Hansen’s 1988 projections had corresponding skill scores of 28 to 81%.)
The study finds that “Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the ‘carbon budget’ for holding warming below 2°C. On each of these points, however, the company’s public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data.”
The study adds weight to ongoing legal and political investigations into ExxonMobil.
“These findings corroborate and add quantitative precision,” the authors write, “to assertions by scholars, journalists, lawyers, politicians, and others that ExxonMobil accurately foresaw the threat of human-caused global warming, both prior and parallel to orchestrating lobbying and propaganda campaigns to delay climate action, and refute claims by ExxonMobil Corp and its defenders that these assertions are incorrect.”
“This is the nail-in-the-coffin of ExxonMobil’s claims that it has been falsely accused of climate malfeasance,” commented lead author and Harvard University Research Associate Geoffrey Supran (Supran began as an Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science Jan 2023). “Our analysis shows that ExxonMobil’s own data contradicted its public statements, which included exaggerating uncertainties, criticizing climate models, mythologizing global cooling, and feigning ignorance about when — or if — human-caused global warming would be measurable, all while staying silent on the threat of stranded fossil fuel assets.”
The paper’s Acknowledgments state that this research was supported by Harvard University Faculty Development Funds and by the Rockefeller Family Fund.
JOURNAL
Science
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Data/statistical analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
12-Jan-2023
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s because the IPCC are only interested in predicting climate that fits their corrupt narrative, not accurate, factual, truthful climate
Exxon scientists are paid to be right. IPCC and James Hansen are paid to tell a story.
Extending a warming trend into the future is none of the following:
Actually, we should be thanking ExxonMobil and other drilling companies for operating such extraordinarily expensive and risky businesses which benefit all of humanity. Not castigating them. Remember, John D. Rockefeller saved the whales while bringing us light, heat, and cheap transportation.
We’re at 440ppm now. The Exxon model had us hitting that 440ppm level in the year 2030 with 1.2C since 1980 of warming. But instead, we are only 0.4C warmer than 1980 levels, and they expected us to be at 1C warmer than 1980 by now.
There is no crisis, and the “Exxon smoking gun” proves it.
The 2022 seasonal peak got to about 421ppm. However, it is currently under 420ppm.
>> between 1977 and 2003 were accurate and skillful in predicting
That statement isso wildly wrong!
This was world before ARGO data, so they did not have the information for accurate simulations!
Just a reminder, the CMIP6 projections, which are the best out there changed the CO2 feedback by 25% with a better cloud parametrisation compared to just a few years back. 25%! that is an unbelievable big uncertainty, climate scientists only work with hot air!
And Exxon´s scientist in 90ties did not have the data nor the computation power to simulate the global climate with any precission, they would even know if they got it right by accident!.
They used widely incomplete estimates for clouds and most other parameters just like CMIP5 and all the other simulations.
>> accurate
Some projections accurately pointing in the right direction would happen if a bunch of 4 year olds were asked to continue a trend they were shown, depending on their artfulness
>> skillful
That is a laughable claim, given that models with 50 year more data are not.
Whoever wrote this up has absolutely no idea how models are working and what happens if the supporting data is lacking!
And whoever posted that here should be laughed out of town, WUWT readers know better!
The global climate models very are close to worthless now and they were not any better back then.
Isn’t that “prediction” just a simple matter of extending the line of the temperature increase that occurred since 1911? Not exactly earth-shattering, IMO.
1977?
FORTRAN IV?
COBOL?
BAL Assembler?
Alarmists expect 1977 scientists to spend untold amounts of money and time programming either FORTRAN or BAL Assembler to run on mainframes of that era?
Not a chance, back scientists with data could calculate resulting numbers quickly using a slide rule.
Or perhaps they had access to an early very expensive HP-35. Though all of their co-workers would have aged considerably, getting frustrated waiting and already filling in a column by using their slide rules.
2003? Or the decade before 2003?
Since when have alarmists accused relatively modern era scientists to “model temperature increases caused by CO₂?
This research stinks right from the get-go. Just for the study’s researchers gimmick of assuming calculations from 1977 are/were models and can be honestly compared/contrasted with 2003 alarmist nonsense..