Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> https://xkcd.com/2500

I am unable to find any 1982 Exxon prediction that would meander like the line in that graph. The only plot I was able to find is this [1] from this 1982 Exxon report [2], which is just a slightly curved upward rising sketch, not nearly as detailed as in the xkcd graph.

> the Exxon model from 1982

I also failed to find any signs of there having been any "1982 Exxon model". What [2] is, is a 39-page report, a synthesis and review of publicly available climate research. The list of references is quite extensive: 10 pages.

[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6fbaqdWwAEPg5Z.png

[2] https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-m...



Oh right, I misinterpreted the xkcd plot. It's only the single (x)-marked dot in the top right of the graph, that is the Exxon prediction. Not the graph itself.


Perhaps a bit more epistemically humility is in order.

For all of us, myself included.

That said, even highly adversarial climate models greated almost half a century ago have tremendous predictive power.

Large systems are modelable. Not with any degree of precision, of course, but a high degree of accuracy.

Otherwise insurance companies wouldn’t exist.


> That said, even highly adversarial climate models greated almost half a century ago have tremendous predictive power.

Yes. About the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity):

Manabe and Wetherald 1967, said 2.3°C.

The Charney Report 1979, said 3.0 ± 1.5°C.

IPCC AR6 2021, says 3.0°C (2.5 to 4.0).

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...

https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/charney_report1979.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: