Wrong, Media and Climate Plaintiffs, Exxon Can’t Have Known What Is Still Being Studied and Debated

“The contrived sense of accomplishment in history matching is spurious correlation for an infinitesimally 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-lawyer campaign focusing on certain internal company documents to make a case that the oil major knew that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were a future threat to human betterment.

Smoking gun? Hardly.

A half century later, the IPCC is still trying to update and figure out physical climate science. Exxon did not do a study on the benefits of CO2 or the offset of sulfur dioxide emissions. The concern way back then was Global Cooling, Peak Oil, and Peak Gas. And as the company knew, fossil fuels had no viable substitute, as in wind and solar.

This historical correction has been documented in many posts here at MasterResource, including:

Big Oil, Exxon Not Guilty as Charged: Six-part Rebuttal (September 22, 2022)

‘ExxonKnew’: More Correction (September 18, 2023)

Shell Knew? No (July 19, 2023)

Climate Alarmist as ExxonMobil Whistleblower (March 27, 2024)

In Search of the “Greenhouse Signal” in the 1990s (June 21, 2023)

Unsettled Science, IPCC-style (February 18, 2020)

It became my turn when I encountered this argument by Mark Burger on social media, He stated:

As opposed to fossil fuel industries war on hiding their impacts for decades? One example: “Exxon scientists predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy,’ Harvard researchers say“

My Rebuttal

To which I respond (expanded from my reply on social media):

To say that Exxon knew the truth back in the early 80s is a laughable fallacy. Effectively they built a primitive model that is characteristically similar to the erroneous modern climate models of today.

Fundamentally their work is based on the poorly understood climate sensitivity (ECS) derived from radiative convective models and GCM models. To their credit, they actually acknowledged the high degree of uncertainty in these estimations. Today, even Hausfather (2022 vs 2019) is beginning to understand the climate sensitivity (ECS) is too high. CMIP6 is running still even hotter than CMIP5 and using ECS of 3 to 5° C rather than ~ 1.2° C as highlighted in Nick Lewis’s 2022 study.

CMIP6 should have been better because it incorporated solar particle forcing (Matthes et. al.) and as they incorporate more elements of natural forcing (an active area of research as we still do not have a predictive theory for climate), the effect is highlighting more underlying problems with the models.

However, Exxon investigators fell into the same trap that climate modelers of today where they build the models to history match temperatures and then wow, because they can create a model that appears to history match temperatures, they assume it is telling them something. Truth? Anyone can create a model to do this, but it would never mean the model is correct. While the models today are much more complex, they are based on a complex set of non-linear equations, and the understanding of the various sources of nonlineararity is poor. This opens up wide degrees of uncertainty yet wide opportunity for tuning. Furthermore, natural forcing is undercharacterized and deemed inconsequential.

The contrived sense of accomplishment in history matching is spurious correlation for an infinitesimally small period of time. Using Exxon’s internal analysis of CO2 climate forcing is little more than a propaganda tool. Current climate models, much more sophisticated, face the same problem of unknown, false causality.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/09/wrong-media-and-climate-plaintiffs-exxon-cant-have-known-what-is-still-being-studied-and-debated/

*********************************************************

Wrong, Time, Climate Change Did Not Cause Flooding in Europe

Time magazine recently posted an article, titled “Is Climate Change Causing the Deadly Floods in Europe?” that, while providing some balance, still asserts that the recent flooding in Poland and other parts of Europe reflects a broader worsening pattern caused by climate change. This is false. There is no indication in the data showing a “pattern” of increasing flood severity or incidence.

Time admits that it’s “difficult to draw a conclusive link between this event and climate change,” but then says “experts say the most severe floods to hit the region in at least two decades fit into a broader pattern of extreme weather events.”

Later, Time quotes a professor from the University of Bristol who recommends attribution studies to determine whether or not the flooding is caused by climate change:

“It’s really difficult to relate a single event to climate change impact,” says Paul Bates, a professor of hydrology at the University of Bristol who specializes in the science of flooding. Bates says that in order to definitively prove whether or not climate change contributed to the flooding in Europe, researchers will need to conduct an attribution study, which takes at least several weeks. “Every time we do an attribution study, we tend to find that the events we see have been exacerbated by climate change, and I’m pretty sure that will be the case here, but we don’t yet conclusively know,” says Bates.

Several weeks for a peer reviewed study, that would be amazingly rapid.

As Climate Realism has pointed out before many times, attribution studies are over-trusted by the media and scientists, and are often used more like propaganda than science. Attribution studies compare unverified, counterfactual models of the Earth’s climate and emissions, assuming ahead of time that any difference between the models is due to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. Neither model represents the world as it really is, and the modelers assume the conclusion before it is reached, using the models only to confirm their preexisting belief. As a result, the models never discover anything other than a human influence on weather events, and almost invariably suggest that human activities likely contributed to each event studied.

While it is true that warmer air holds more water, that does not translate directly to an increase in intense rainfall. Also, warming does not occur consistently even within a nation’s own borders, with some places (like cities) seeing more warming than the countryside, which in some places can even see cooling trends. Global average warming does not cause regional storms.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 6th Assessment Report indicates that there is no sign yet of any increase in heavy precipitation and pluvial (flash or rain-caused) flooding. And only under the most extreme, unrealistic scenario does the IPCC speculate with medium confidence that climate change might impact flooding after 2050.

The European flood discussed in the article was not unprecedented. The Danube River, which carried much of the flooding in Europe this year, had an even worse flood in 1997. Similar floods devastated Budapest in 1838, Vienna has always fought with the Danube, and there are many other longstanding historical records of major floods throughout history in the region.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/09/wong-time-climate-change-did-not-cause-flooding-in-europe/

********************************************************

Two Days of Fall Weather in Late Summer Demonstrates Industrial Wind’s Incredible Costs

Here in Ontario and elsewhere in North America we are heading for the fall and the weather it brings us, but waking up this morning  in Prince Edward County our outside thermometer noted it was only 8°C. Had fall arrived early was the question on my mind! That question led to a check on the temperature in Timmins, Ontario at 8 AM and the weather network noted it was a not so balmy 4°C! Hardly “summer weather”!

So does that mean we have solved climate change or did the fox take over the chicken coop when the IWT (industrial wind turbines), solar panels, and battery storage suddenly became de rigour?

It is humorous and somewhat frightening here in Ontario when one reads a recent article in the Financial Post about the plans to add 5,000 MW of new capacity as directed by the Minister of Energy and Electrification, Steven Lecce!  Some of that may be natural gas generation which has the ability to ramp up or down unlike renewable generation so actually available when it is needed and help to avoid blackouts.

The article contains quotes from lawyers and eco-warriors such as Keith Brooks, programs director at Environmental Defence, who blatantly claim solar and wind generation projects are more affordable then natural gas generation. It should be noted those two sources of generation can only be ramped down so when demand is heading higher, they are totally useless!

It appears those the media frequently contact, and quote, are those who dance around the truth and are members of the Church of the Climate Change Cult. Maybe those reporters should either spend some time examining what is actually happening or get quotes from those who understand  how the electricity grid operates!

The recent two days of cool fall weather while we are still in the summer season are great examples of what the media appear to ignore!

What Actually Happens:

September 6th and 7th were fall like days (no air-conditioners on and no furnaces running) resulting in Ontario’s peak demand only reaching 17,961MW at Hour 14 on the 6th (a workday) and 15,284 MW on the 7th at Hour 20! While the sun wasn’t shining as long as it does in the early summer the wind was blowing and those IWT were humming. The IWT generated 29% of their capacity on the 6th and 40% on the 7th!  It is worth mentioning that IESO forecast those IWT will only average 15% during the summer months but 45% during the Spring and Fall.

Despite those two low demand days IESO accepted most of the IWT generation only curtailing about 4,500 MWh on the 7th!  On September 6th IESO accepted 34,211 MWh and on the 7th forecast they would generate 55,211 MWh but only accepted 50,726 MWh.

Where Was that IWT Generation Used:

As noted above Ontario’s demand for generation on both days was low and as it turned out our baseload power (nuclear and most hydro) could have supplied what we needed for most hours but those “first-to-the-grid” rights enjoyed by the IWT owners takes precedent. As a result they were handed just over $12 million dollars for UNNEEDED surplus power!

IESO were busy on both days selling off our surplus power for cheap prices averaging only $27.30/MWh (2.7 cents/kWh) on the 6th and a piddly $20.34/MWh (2 cents/kWh) on the 7th!  The result is we recovered only about $1.9 Million of the IWT costs meaning we ratepayers and taxpayers coughed up over $10 million for just those two days for the unneeded power.

Over those two days IESO exported over 153,000 MWh or 68,000 MWh more then the 85,000 MWh those IWT generated suggesting some baseload power along with solar, hydro and gas plant were surplus generation and added more costs to the $10 million for those IWT! Needless to say Quebec, New York and Michigan were scooping up that cheap power paid for by us Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers.  That cheap power allows Hydro-Quebec to keep their hydro reservoirs full so they can continue to sell their power under those lucrative contracts they have with several US entities.

Conclusion:

Should we be confident that Minister Lecce and IESO are viewing future demand in the province in a sensible way or is the planned full “electrification” simply a “pie in the sky” outlook.  Driving costs of our electric generation up in the manner we Ontarians have become accustomed to will not attract the jobs the Federal or Provincial governments tell us and will instead increase our costs of living along with energy poverty.

The media and the politicians should stop believing we can change the climate by eliminating our use of fossil fuels as IWT and solar panels, along with battery storage are not the panacea the eco-warrior’s push!

Time to recognize the fox has indeed “taken over the chicken coop”!

https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/two-days-of-fall-weather-in-late-summer-demonstrates-industrial-winds-incredible-costs/

*******************************************

Political ambition may endanger Australia's energy costs for a long time

Robert Gottliebsen

The intense political pressure to win the renewables/climate debate is now creating great danger to Australia’s long term energy costs.

Both the ALP government and the Coalition are setting themselves on a path that, unless modified, could make us a high cost poorer nation unable to afford current social services.

To accuse both major political parties of getting it wrong is obviously a big call for a commentator, but when you’ve been around six decades, you get a sixth sense that tells you when politicians are aiming at elections.

My justification for these statements start with clear facts:

 * Both the ALP and the Coalition attempted to reduce emissions with major projects, which have failed. The Coalition’s attempt via Snowy hydro is plagued with exploding costs and delays.

The ALP’s equivalent disaster is massive wind and solar farms in rural areas where the farmers are white-hot with anger, and that anger is multiplied many times when the projects attempt to bring power to market through some of Australia’s best rural and tourist areas with ugly transmission towers. When projects don’t have community support, they normally fail and end in courts to enrich lawyers.

 * Given the above big project disasters, the target of reducing emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 is simply not achievable, and politicians who claim it can be done are either lying or ignoring the facts.

 * We now have more major project plans where have not learned either from the above two disasters or from the projects that have worked.

One idea is to connect Tasmanian power to the mainland. This was originally a pre-election, a Coalition plan. The costs are becoming monumental and it simply not feasible on present technology.

Victoria is planning an uneconomic Bass Strait wind farm, and NSW has a similar project offshore from the Hunter Region. Victoria is the most advanced, and it is being erected in the middle of a global wind farm boom with costs will saddle the state with uneconomic power for a generation. While there is debate about nuclear costs, there was no proper debate about the enormous cost of uneconomic offshore wind projects. This reflects very poorly on the media and on the opposition.

Subsidies of around $4bn and $5bn a year to generate big profits for the project investors are on the table.

The most promising technology is nuclear, and the world is now spending vast sums to adapt it to current conditions. In the UK, Rolls-Royce has joined nuclear development. We don’t have to commit at this stage, but we can undertake preliminary cost estimates that show that nuclear is far cheaper than offshore wind. But both technologies are likely to improve dramatically in the next two or three years.

It is completely ludicrous to ban any technology, as the ALP has done with nuclear.

While the world has decided that nuclear looks the best option, we don’t have to race in and commit to nuclear at this stage. After two disasters, it’s time to go for cheaper options that will be popular in the community.

 * Arguably, Daniel Andrews led one of the nation’s worst state governments since federation. But he won three elections because he was one of the best “one-liners” in the country, and he embarked on an infrastructure program – removing rail level crossings – that worked.

The politicians in both major parties can actually learn from Andrews. Embark on projects that have community support and work. If you don’t do that and saddle the country with uneconomic power generation, the whole process of emissions reductions will be put in jeopardy, which is happening in many parts of the world, including Europe.

Here are some simple ideas that will work and will have popular appeal among Australians.

We have large areas of factory/warehouse roof space in all our capital cities. We should embark on a program of incentives that puts solar panels on every available factory/warehouse roof. They can be linked to the established network which will require alterations that are a lot easier and, cheaper than those destroying our countryside

And the investment can be used to improve the economics of home rooftop generation. It will attract capital investment.

There are areas near transmission lines where wind farms can be erected if the farmers are happy to sell their land or rent the space. There are many such areas around our cities.

One of Australia’s biggest and lowest cost gas deposit sits on the national pipeline but is being blocked by one person – Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio.

The deposit does require six wells to determine permeability, but the deep water in which the gas is dissolved can be used to promote irrigation and carbon reducing plantings to make Victoria’s on shore non fracking gas the lowest net emitting gas in the world.

Gas was always seen as an interim stage and our unique gas cannot only help the nation but gas fired power stations can replace ageing brown coal station with enormous reductions in emissions especially when combined with the use of water for stored carbon plantings.

Naturally, the Palestine/Green movement will oppose it, but I think Australians will understand the benefits. Selected coal eliminating gas power than works well with renewables helps us buy time so that we can actually undertake a major project whether it be nuclear, technology improved offshore wind or other global developments without the sort of disasters that have so far plagued our carbon reduction efforts.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/political-madness-may-endanger-our-energy-costs-for-a-long-time/news-story/0a01fb8da8dbba9d08f7c22f011a4f36

***************************************