mhaze

Rex Tillerson, the current CEO of ExxonMobil says man created climate science has been shown to be true.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/534ec657e4b03c887dde2641/575b069a01dbaec33dd004a9/575ec31de707eb86c44f7a4e/1465828227986/WSJ-Fenton-Adsv3_1.jpg?format=300w.

Please show where Rex Tillerson is wrong

Max, has provided an experiment showing: a flame, a burst of CO2 and the impact it has.

What explanation do you have, for what has occurred, mhaze?

Max Green,

Just a couple of points to consider.
You seem to think that proof that CO2 traps heat is significant and revelatory. But it isn't. That it traps heat is beyond dispute. None of what you'd call deniers dispute it. Its an easily demonstrable fact known for 150 yrs. But the real issue is two-fold:
1) how much heat gets trapped by increased CO2 levels
2) what other factors come into play and what effect do they have on the level of heat trapped. The candle experiment involves changing one element. But climate involves 10's of 1000's of elements. Changing one changes others. These are the so-called feedback mechanisms. A doubling of CO2 levels from 1850 levels is calculated to cause an increase of temperatures by 1- 1.5c if nothing else changed. The issue is whether the feedbacks will enhance this warming or offset it. The last IPCC report basically admitted that they (and we) don't know the answer to that.

As to the models, your link is from 2009. At that time, it was still possible (barely) to claim that the models were accurate. But even then there were murmurs, even among so-called consensus climate scientists that the difference between the models and reality was growing too large to ignore. (eg Trenberth to Mann "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment").

Since 2009, the models and reality have become more disconnected.

As von Storch said in 2013 "we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations."

Massive efforts are being made to improve models and they may get it right. But each time they 'fix' a problem, it ends up with a lowering in the expected climate catastrophe.

ant wrote "Please show where Rex Tillerson is wrong"

Tillerson isn't wrong and I agree with most of what he said.

Now, ant, as we've seen previously, you are loath to look too deeply into issues, lest you find things that might not suit your prejudices. So you see a carefully selected quote from an activist group and pretend that that's the end of it. I on the other hand prefer to get my information unfiltered by partisans.

So I went to the actual words of Tillerson here ...
http://www.cfr.org/world/ceo-speaker-series-conversation-rex-w-tillerson/p35286

If (and I know that for you that's a big 'if') you read it you'll see why I agree with Tillerson..in the main.

eg "how large it[the warming] is is what is very hard for anyone to predict." and "we believe those consequences are manageable. They do require us to begin to exert -- or spend more policy effort on adaptation."

The risk is way off in the future and we are quite capable of managing that risk when the time comes.

Read the article. It might help your understanding.

PS. last time you graced these pages you asserted that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." Since that was patently wrong, I (1) showed you 10 or papers which showed the opposite and (2) invited you to support your claims with evidence. Whereupon you did a runner. Care to revisit that or recant?

Mhaze,
you quoted this out of context.

(eg Trenberth to Mann "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment").

Why don't you just quote the 'Hide the decline?' meme so we all know you're one of *those?*

Dude, Trenberth never doubted that the planet is heating. He was lamenting the need to more accurately track where that heat goes, the various heat journeys through the ocean, etc.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming-intermediate.htm

mhaze
Rex Tillerson's advert relates to 2016 not 2012.

ExxonMobil have been smoked out through the current investigations.

Rex Tillerson acknowledges climate change is happening in a recent advert.

Max Green,

"you quoted this out of context"

Actually Max, you took me out of context when saying I took Trenberth out of context :). Despite you saying "Trenberth never doubted that the planet is heating" I never claimed he did. I know that Trenberth is wedded to the CAGW theory and among the Hockey Team is the one most likely to go to his grave still believing the forecast warming will eventuate.

I quoted Trenberth to show that, even in 2009, even the most committed of the warming fraternity were acknowledging, in private, that there was something wrong with the models. The reason behind the failure is by-the-by. They didn't predict the pause and they couldn't explain it. QED. The models are about surface temperatures and, even if Trenberth is right that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans, the models didn't include or predict that. QED.

ant,

For God sake. Your preparedness to embarrass yourself is endless. The advert that you're so fond of uses a quote from a 2012 interview. Therefore you have to read or listen to that interview to understand the context. Well actually you don't have to, but someone truly interested in the truth should (read it).

By the way, are you aware that, over the past 11000 years, temperatures have been hotter than now approximately 25% of the time. I wonder how that happened?