Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

It is not a hypothesis. You may be confusing the ocean acting as a carbon sink (established science for decades) with the ocean acting as a heat sink (this is the "pause" in warming for much of the oughts, though we were still warming just not at the same rate as the 90's). The ocean is a huge part of the carbon cycle, and measurably absorbs CO2. You are conflating two separate things.

Ocean acidification is actually a separate environmental issue from global climate change due to global warming, but they are both caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

You didn't read the article did you?

 

[Mtntrout]

You didn't read the article did you?

I did. I am trying to correct an apparent misunderstanding regarding it.

Carbon cycle: Carbon Cycle

The oceans have always acted as a carbon sink, absorbing (and sometimes releasing) CO2. Ocean acidification is occurring due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

That is actually a separate happening than global climate change due to global warming, even though they share the same cause and interact with one another. They interact in the sense that the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. While this does remove a greenhouse has from the atmosphere, this isn't the cause of the "warming hiatus" of the oughts and the article didn't claim it did.

What is behind the hiatus was thought to be deeper heating of the ocean than had been modeled, but the evidence for that has been varied and not robust. Further, the steady decline of surface ice in the northern hemisphere as well as volume in both hemispheres may also account for some of the hiatus.


My original post you quoted stands. The two issues are being conflated here, when they are actually separate.

The fact that you got a "like" for such an empty, baseless, and mindless post is really saddening.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Guys guys guys! Just because we have record cold here in AMurica it doesnt mean that poor Eritrea and Djibouti aren't suffering from "climate change"! I mean they got sand and stuff blowing around.

 

[volinbham]

It is not a hypothesis. You may be confusing the ocean acting as a carbon sink (established science for decades) with the ocean acting as a heat sink (this is the "pause" in warming for much of the oughts, though we were still warming just not at the same rate as the 90's). The ocean is a huge part of the carbon cycle, and measurably absorbs CO2. You are conflating two separate things.

Ocean acidification is actually a separate environmental issue from global climate change due to global warming, but they are both caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

So just to be clear on the first point: I was commenting that the statement

This process has slowed the warming of the globe, as all of that carbon is locked up in the ocean's "carbon sink" rather than floating freely in the atmosphere

is stated as a proven fact - that because the ocean is a carbon sink it has slowed the warming. Is that a proven fact? I'm asking.

On the second point you are getting at my point. The new technique shows "x" amount of acidity using a new technique. The article suggests that this new technique shows increasing acidity and is evidence of global climate change.

My question is if this is a new form of measurement how can it show change in acidity if this is in effect the first data point collected with this new method?

Further, the distinction you make between acidification and climate change adds to my critique of the article conclusions since it begins with this statement

Ocean acidification can now be seen from space, highlighting an ongoing danger of climate change and revealing the regions most at risk.

To your point, acidification is an ongoing danger of CO2; not of climate change. (Likewise climate change is an ongoing danger of CO2 increases).

I'm not questioning the science - I'm questioning how the author took some science and drew conclusions that are presented as science fact.

 

[Sandvol]

I did. I am trying to correct an apparent misunderstanding regarding it.

Carbon cycle: Carbon Cycle

The oceans have always acted as a carbon sink, absorbing (and sometimes releasing) CO2. Ocean acidification is occurring due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

That is actually a separate happening than global climate change due to global warming, even though they share the same cause and interact with one another. They interact in the sense that the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. While this does remove a greenhouse has from the atmosphere, this isn't the cause of the "warming hiatus" of the oughts and the article didn't claim it did.

What is behind the hiatus was thought to be deeper heating of the ocean than had been modeled, but the evidence for that has been varied and not robust. Further, the steady decline of surface ice in the northern hemisphere as well as volume in both hemispheres may also account for some of the hiatus.


My original post you quoted stands. The two issues are being conflated here, when they are actually separate.

The fact that you got a "like" for such an empty, baseless, and mindless post is really saddening.

He was basing his question on the article. His thinking was perfectly clear.

 

[Mtntrout]

So just to be clear on the first point: I was commenting that the statement

is stated as a proven fact - that because the ocean is a carbon sink it has slowed the warming. Is that a proven fact? I'm asking.

On the second point you are getting at my point. The new technique shows "x" amount of acidity using a new technique. The article suggests that this new technique shows increasing acidity and is evidence of global climate change.

My question is if this is a new form of measurement how can it show change in acidity if this is in effect the first data point collected with this new method?

Further, the distinction you make between acidification and climate change adds to my critique of the article conclusions since it begins with this statement



To your point, acidification is an ongoing danger of CO2; not of climate change. (Likewise climate change is an ongoing danger of CO2 increases).

I'm not questioning the science - I'm questioning how the author took some science and drew conclusions that are presented as science fact.

It is a known and proven fact that the ocean absorbs CO2, which is removing a greenhouse gas and thus has retarded the warming that would have otherwise taken place. However, it is not necessarily for the hiatus and the article doesn't state that it is. It's been going on in the background all along. In other words, this isn't a new development, it is just part of what the ocean does.

We know about past acidity from air bubbles trapped in ice due to atmospheric CO2 levels being some equivalent amount of oceanic carbonic acid levels (there is an exchange back and forth between the two, see that carbon cycle illustration I linked), as well as coral and other organic proxies that are sensitive to the pH of the water and leave behind evidence.

On your second point: the article actually doesn't claim the new technique is showing more acidification. Previous techniques, which involved monitoring buoys, readings from ships, moorings, ports, etc. have shown decreasing pH (increasing acidity) over the last 2 or 3 decades. This new technique is able to use existing satellites to monitor pH from space globally, rather than using point data from instruments scattered about the Earth. This will allow more robust monitoring of ocean pH. Also, the satellite data confirms the surface point data. The article never states, so far as I can see, that the new technique alone is showing more acidification, but rather is improving the way we can monitor the already observed increasing acidification. The new data is more robust and accessible, but the trend and phenomenon was already known.

Here's a redundant article, that is perhaps more clear: Satellite images reveal ocean acidification from space | EurekAlert! Science News

To your other criticism, I agree to an extent. Just keep in mind the ability of sea water to absorb and dissolve CO2 is largely a function of temperature. Warming oceans and temperatures actually means LESS absorbing of CO2 in the future, meaning more remains in the atmosphere. Now, the oceans will be acidic enough at that point to be a major problem ecologically and economically (fisheries), and on top of that the rate of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere would be increasing even if the amount being released was steady. So yes, I agree that the author conflated the two when she called it an ongoing danger of climate change. But as you can see there is a relationship between these two things, even if it is actually environmental change (which is a broader category that climate change fits into).

This really comes down to a poorly worded sentence or two, which is understandable that this author has a background in psychology, not any sort of physical science. I have been thinking that I should try my hand at science writing for awhile now.

 

[volinbham]

This really comes down to a poorly worded sentence or two, which is understandable that this author has a background in psychology, not any sort of physical science. I have been thinking that I should try my hand at science writing for awhile now.

I appreciate the explanation.

I do differ on the "poorly worded sentence or two" as the opening statement of the article directly implies that more acid in the ocean is the result of climate change. It is not.

Maybe not a big deal but since I've seen so many articles (that question any aspect of climate change or its severity) attacked/ridiculed for misinterpreting or getting a few words wrong I'm just taking the same approach.

In the end, most of what the public sees is written by non-scientist or at least non-experts in this particular area and they do state conclusions that simply do not match the science yet are gobbled up as truth.

 

[Sandvol]

It is a known and proven fact that the ocean absorbs CO2, which is removing a greenhouse gas and thus has retarded the warming that would have otherwise taken place. However, it is not necessarily for the hiatus and the article doesn't state that it is. It's been going on in the background all along. In other words, this isn't a new development, it is just part of what the ocean does.

We know about past acidity from air bubbles trapped in ice due to atmospheric CO2 levels being some equivalent amount of oceanic carbonic acid levels (there is an exchange back and forth between the two, see that carbon cycle illustration I linked), as well as coral and other organic proxies that are sensitive to the pH of the water and leave behind evidence.

On your second point: the article actually doesn't claim the new technique is showing more acidification. Previous techniques, which involved monitoring buoys, readings from ships, moorings, ports, etc. have shown decreasing pH (increasing acidity) over the last 2 or 3 decades. This new technique is able to use existing satellites to monitor pH from space globally, rather than using point data from instruments scattered about the Earth. This will allow more robust monitoring of ocean pH. Also, the satellite data confirms the surface point data. The article never states, so far as I can see, that the new technique alone is showing more acidification, but rather is improving the way we can monitor the already observed increasing acidification. The new data is more robust and accessible, but the trend and phenomenon was already known.

Here's a redundant article, that is perhaps more clear: Satellite images reveal ocean acidification from space | EurekAlert! Science News

To your other criticism, I agree to an extent. Just keep in mind the ability of sea water to absorb and dissolve CO2 is largely a function of temperature. Warming oceans and temperatures actually means LESS absorbing of CO2 in the future, meaning more remains in the atmosphere. Now, the oceans will be acidic enough at that point to be a major problem ecologically and economically (fisheries), and on top of that the rate of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere would be increasing even if the amount being released was steady. So yes, I agree that the author conflated the two when she called it an ongoing danger of climate change. But as you can see there is a relationship between these two things, even if it is actually environmental change (which is a broader category that climate change fits into).

This really comes down to a poorly worded sentence or two, which is understandable that this author has a background in psychology, not any sort of physical science. I have been thinking that I should try my hand at science writing for awhile now.

So Bart links an article by a non scientist about ocean acidification whose explanation is wrong but that is OK because her intent was in the right direction? Also, your claim that "Now, the oceans will be acidic enough at that point to be a major problem ecologically and economically (fisheries), and on top of that the rate of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere would be increasing even if the amount being released was steady" is just an opinion. You nor anyone else knows what the pH of the oceans will be at that point and if it will be a problem. Also, the satellites do not directly measure ocean pH. They supposedly correlated satellite thermal imagery with pH data. Not very scientific is it?

 

[LouderVol]

So Bart links an article by a non scientist about ocean acidification whose explanation is wrong but that is OK because her intent was in the right direction? Also, your claim that "Now, the oceans will be acidic enough at that point to be a major problem ecologically and economically (fisheries), and on top of that the rate of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere would be increasing even if the amount being released was steady" is just an opinion. You nor anyone else knows what the pH of the oceans will be at that point and if it will be a problem. Also, the satellites do not directly measure ocean pH. They supposedly correlated satellite thermal imagery with pH data. Not very scientific is it?

as far as knowing if the acidity is increasing or decreasing and its affects on wildlife, look at the coral reefs, those not getting covered in too much water are dying. the coral growths are limited by the higher acidity combating the growth of their limestone shells. and where it does grow it is weaker and more easily damaged. you start killing of reefs and there will very quickly be a shock to the ecological system. thats not even going into how it is affecting the marine biology, which i know even less about. but from what i remember many people are saying the increase temp/acidity in the water is leading to the increased number of beached sea-goers. why isn't exactly understood to my knowledge.

 

[Mtntrout]

So Bart links an article by a non scientist about ocean acidification whose explanation is wrong but that is OK because her intent was in the right direction? Also, your claim that "Now, the oceans will be acidic enough at that point to be a major problem ecologically and economically (fisheries), and on top of that the rate of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere would be increasing even if the amount being released was steady" is just an opinion. You nor anyone else knows what the pH of the oceans will be at that point and if it will be a problem. Also, the satellites do not directly measure ocean pH. They supposedly correlated satellite thermal imagery with pH data. Not very scientific is it?

Here is an abstract from the early 80's referring to the negative affect of pH on fish:

The effect of pH and calcium on fish and fisheries - Springer
There are many like it from before and since.

Here is an article written for general consumption regarding the effects of pH on marine ecosystems:

Ocean acidification cruise explored effects pH on marine food web - Northwest Fisheries Science Center

It's not an opinion. Take a look at where the best fisheries in the world are, then look at the water temperature and pH. Ask yourself why a big part of owning an aquarium is monitoring and regulating the pH.

I don't want to delve off into a tangent of remote sensing, but satellites often are using proxies to measure various environmental phenomena. They are ground-tested to make sure they are accurate. You casually dismiss the satellite information because it is "only measuring temperature." Well, how does a satellite measure temperature of an object miles away through vacuum and atmosphere? Why don't you dismiss that notion? It does so by measuring variances in electromagnetic wavelengths of specific frequencies, depending on what is being examined. You apparently don't know this, but pH and water temperature have a relationship.

When pure water changes temperature, it also changes pH. "pH" is just a measure of the amount of free hydrogen ions within a collection of H20 (with the amount of OH ions being the "basic" side of the equation). Water molecules don't actually always stay together, they tend to disassociate into H and OH ions. When the ratio between the two is off, you get variances in pH. Obviously ocean water isn't pure water. Salinity factors into the pH chemistry for it. Temperature affects ocean pH, as well as salinity. So knowing this relationship, one can accurately measure pH based off of knowing the temperature and salinity of the water.

My friend, all because YOU don't know something or how one could even know something, doesn't mean NO ONE does. Arguments from ignorance may score points among the ignorant, and you seem to have misconstrued that as being "right." Here's a little science experiment you can do to demonstrate the relationship between temperature, salinity, and pH: Science Fair Projects - The effect of temperature on salinity and pH of seawater

"No one knows" should never be the finishing place for a scientific discussion.

 

[Sandvol]

Here is an abstract from the early 80's referring to the negative affect of pH on fish:

The effect of pH and calcium on fish and fisheries - Springer
There are many like it from before and since.

Here is an article written for general consumption regarding the effects of pH on marine ecosystems:

Ocean acidification cruise explored effects pH on marine food web - Northwest Fisheries Science Center

It's not an opinion. Take a look at where the best fisheries in the world are, then look at the water temperature and pH. Ask yourself why a big part of owning an aquarium is monitoring and regulating the pH.

I don't want to delve off into a tangent of remote sensing, but satellites often are using proxies to measure various environmental phenomena. They are ground-tested to make sure they are accurate. You casually dismiss the satellite information because it is "only measuring temperature." Well, how does a satellite measure temperature of an object miles away through vacuum and atmosphere? Why don't you dismiss that notion? It does so by measuring variances in electromagnetic wavelengths of specific frequencies, depending on what is being examined. You apparently don't know this, but pH and water temperature have a relationship.

When pure water changes temperature, it also changes pH. "pH" is just a measure of the amount of free hydrogen ions within a collection of H20 (with the amount of OH ions being the "basic" side of the equation). Water molecules don't actually always stay together, they tend to disassociate into H and OH ions. When the ratio between the two is off, you get variances in pH. Obviously ocean water isn't pure water. Salinity factors into the pH chemistry for it. Temperature affects ocean pH, as well as salinity. So knowing this relationship, one can accurately measure pH based off of knowing the temperature and salinity of the water.

My friend, all because YOU don't know something or how one could even know something, doesn't mean NO ONE does. Arguments from ignorance may score points among the ignorant, and you seem to have misconstrued that as being "right." Here's a little science experiment you can do to demonstrate the relationship between temperature, salinity, and pH: Science Fair Projects - The effect of temperature on salinity and pH of seawater

"No one knows" should never be the finishing place for a scientific discussion.

You are pretty funny with your condescending bent. I know what pH and temperature are and also what salinity is. Can you tell me what is wrong with the data of the little scientific experiment you linked? I try to not argue from ignorance but also try to avoid making unsubstantiated conclusions and infer something that can't be inferred. Correlating temperature with thermal imagery is one thing but correlating pH with thermal imagery is a whole other ball game. I'm not saying there could not be a correlation but if some environmental group submits a study wanting US policy change because the ocean is acidifying based on thermal imagery then I'm going to have a problem with that. Also, you submitted an abstract as proof based on pH studies of fresh water lakes. Are you saying you can correlate that to ocean water and if so show me your citation? Also, you linked another study about an organism that produces domoic acid and if sea lions eat this organism it can kill them. This study has just been started. There is no data that has been reported. This is a long way from being able to make the conclusions you seem to want to make.

 

[Sandvol]

as far as knowing if the acidity is increasing or decreasing and its affects on wildlife, look at the coral reefs, those not getting covered in too much water are dying. the coral growths are limited by the higher acidity combating the growth of their limestone shells. and where it does grow it is weaker and more easily damaged. you start killing of reefs and there will very quickly be a shock to the ecological system. thats not even going into how it is affecting the marine biology, which i know even less about. but from what i remember many people are saying the increase temp/acidity in the water is leading to the increased number of beached sea-goers. why isn't exactly understood to my knowledge.

I suspect coral reefs have come and gone for millennia. But, if you want to cite a particular study go ahead.

 

[Sandvol]

Love this article by Spencer:

The title of Justin Gillis’ recent NYT article is an excellent tip-off of how bad environmental reporting has gotten:

What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change?

Now, as a skeptical PhD climate scientist who has been working and publishing in the climate field for over a quarter century, I can tell you I don’t know of any other skeptics who even “doubt climate change”.

The mere existence of climate change says nothing about causation. The climate system is always changing, and always will change. Most skeptics believe humans have at least some small role in that change, but tend to believe it might well be more natural than SUV-caused.

So, the title of the NYT article immediately betrays a bias in reporting which has become all too common. “He who frames the question wins the debate.”

What we skeptics are skeptical about is that the science has demonstrated with any level of certainty: (1) how much of recent warming has been manmade versus natural, or (2) whether any observed change in storms/droughts/floods is outside the realm of natural variability, that is, whether it too can be blamed on human activities.

But reporters routinely try to reframe the debate, telling us skeptics what we believe. Actually reporting in an accurate manner what we really believe does not suit their purpose. So (for example) Mr. Gillis did not use any quotes from Dr. John Christy in the above article, even though he was interviewed.

Mr. Gillis instead seems intent on making a story out of whether skeptical climate scientists should be even afforded the dignity of being called a “skeptic”, when what we really should be called is “deniers”.

You know — as evil as those who deny the Holocaust. (Yeah, we get the implication.)

He then goes on to malign the scientific character of Dr. Richard Lindzen (a Jew who is not entirely pleased with misplaced Holocaust imagery) because the majority of scientific opinion runs contrary to Dr. Lindzen, who is also a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

Do I need to remind Mr. Gillis that the cause(s) of climate change are much more difficult to establish than, say, the cause of stomach ulcers? There is only one climate system (patient) to study, but many millions of ulcer sufferers walking around.

And yet the medical research community was almost unanimous in their years of condemnation of Marshall and Warren, two Australian researchers who finally received the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine for establishing the bacterial basis for peptic ulcers, one of the most common diseases in the world.

Does Mr. Gillis really want to be a journalist? Or just impress his NYC friends?

The idea that the causes of climate change are now just as well established as gravity or the non-flatness of the Earth (or that ulcers are caused by too much stress and spicy food, too?) is so ridiculous that only young school children could be indoctrinated with such silly tripe.

Which, I fear, is just what is happening.

 

[BartW]

Tyndall concluded the principle green house gas in the atmosphere controlling temperature is water vapor and that the other gases are fairly insignificant

From earlier, “The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 “

Here is the text from your beloved Wiki:
He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.

Yeah that’s not the same. You can read exactly what Tyndall had to say about climate on pp. 28-29 of his paper. We have much better spectrometers nowadays and the point remains, CO2 does contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. And back to the original point

Their template is there is positive feed back from this man made CO2 that will cause the Earth to heat up three times faster than it normally would. This appears not to be the case... Of course the most prevalent green house gas, water vapor at 40,000 ppm in the atmosphere is never mentioned and your IPCC forcing chart never includes. Why is that?

Atmospheric water vapor depends on temperature, which is why it’s considered a feedback (and not a forcing). Nobody forgot water vapor except you.

So Bart links an article by a non scientist about ocean acidification whose explanation is wrong but that is OK because her intent was in the right direction? Also, your claim that "Now, the oceans will be acidic enough at that point to be a major problem ecologically and economically (fisheries), and on top of that the rate of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere would be increasing even if the amount being released was steady" is just an opinion. You nor anyone else knows what the pH of the oceans will be at that point and if it will be a problem. Also, the satellites do not directly measure ocean pH. They supposedly correlated satellite thermal imagery with pH data. Not very scientific is it?

You’re splitting hairs on the ocean ocidification article. It’s funny that you poopoo this research because it uses remote sensing, yet tout Spencer and Christy and their satellite temperature records…

:question:

 

[BartW]

BP says CO2 emissions unsustainable, warns on global warming

BP has warned that carbon dioxide emission levels from burning fossil fuels are unsustainable unless the international community unilaterally introduces tougher binding regulations on atmospheric pollution.

Bob Dudley, BP chief executive, said: “The most likely path for carbon emissions, despite current government policies and intentions, does not appear sustainable. The projections highlight the scale of the challenge facing policy makers at this year’s UN-led discussions in Paris. No single change or policy is likely to be sufficient on its own.”

“Identifying in advance which changes are likely to be most effective is fraught with difficulty. This underpins the importance of policy-makers taking steps that lead to a global price for carbon, which provides the right incentives for everyone to play their part,” said Mr Dudley.

Mr Dudley's remarks follow a call last week from Ben van Beurden, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, for the oil industry to take a more active role in the climate change debate. Last month, the Anglo-Dutch company bowed to shareholder pressure to be more public about how it will address global warming. The company’s board agreed to support a motion proposed by the Church of England and 150 other shareholders calling on the company to explain more fully its policy on climate change.

 

[volinbham]

BP says CO2 emissions unsustainable, warns on global warming

I would imagine BP is in favor of this since it would hit coal harder and favor natural gas which I presume they provide.

A carbon tax and reduction in total carbon doesn't necessarily hurt BP; might even help them.

 

[Mtntrout]

You are pretty funny with your condescending bent. I know what pH and temperature are and also what salinity is. Can you tell me what is wrong with the data of the little scientific experiment you linked? I try to not argue from ignorance but also try to avoid making unsubstantiated conclusions and infer something that can't be inferred. Correlating temperature with thermal imagery is one thing but correlating pH with thermal imagery is a whole other ball game. I'm not saying there could not be a correlation but if some environmental group submits a study wanting US policy change because the ocean is acidifying based on thermal imagery then I'm going to have a problem with that. Also, you submitted an abstract as proof based on pH studies of fresh water lakes. Are you saying you can correlate that to ocean water and if so show me your citation? Also, you linked another study about an organism that produces domoic acid and if sea lions eat this organism it can kill them. This study has just been started. There is no data that has been reported. This is a long way from being able to make the conclusions you seem to want to make.

Don't ask how something is scientific to me if you aren't looking for an answer.

I told you, the satellite is looking at temperature and salinity to infer acidity. This is possible because of the known relationship between those variables. Further, this is ground-tested with data from ships, buoys, etc. This phenomenon isn't new, this method of data collection is. This isn't "based on thermal imagery" exclusively. Don't blame me for being condescending when you are refusing to accept the information.

You said you wanted information on pH affecting fisheries. I thought pH affecting fish was self-evident, and provided an example article from 30 years ago and reminded you that a big part of any home aquarium is managing the pH, which seems to indicate pH does in fact matter. Condescending? Maybe, but I assumed from what you said you just didn't know.

You want sources specifically for oceans? Okay. Somehow I doubt that is really going to make you say, "oh, I didn't know that. Thanks." I think perhaps you're just a contrarian who has no interest in knowing what the facts are if they don't jive with your world view. Only one way to find out:

Anticipating ocean acidification's economic consequences for commercial fisheries - IOPscience

Potential impacts of future ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and fisheries: current knowledge and recommendations for future research

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

This isn't me making conclusions. You've clearly never looked into this before.

 

[Mtntrout]

I would imagine BP is in favor of this since it would hit coal harder and favor natural gas which I presume they provide.

A carbon tax and reduction in total carbon doesn't necessarily hurt BP; might even help them.

That, and their North Sea reserves have peaked and they will be looking to diversify to more alternative energy areas.

 

[BartW]

I would imagine BP is in favor of this since it would hit coal harder and favor natural gas which I presume they provide.

A carbon tax and reduction in total carbon doesn't necessarily hurt BP; might even help them.

…or maybe these big oil CEOs understand the reality of climate change. Maybe they understand regulation is inevitable (where not already present) and simply desire the most efficient solution.

I can't imagine it helps them to have to abandon trillions of dollars of known fossil fuel reserves, even if they do gain an edge in the natural gas market. When we do take their advice and price carbon, the clock will start ticking on natural gas too.

BP's two-word fix for global climate change

 

[govols/cc]

…or maybe these big oil CEOs understand the reality of climate change. Maybe they understand regulation is inevitable (where not already present) and simply desire the most efficient solution.

I can't imagine it helps them to have to abandon trillions of dollars of known fossil fuel reserves, even if they do gain an edge in the natural gas market. When we do take their advice and price carbon, the clock will start ticking on natural gas too.

BP's two-word fix for global climate change

Or maybe they focus selling their product away from the bs bureaucracy.

 

[MG1968]

BP says CO2 emissions unsustainable, warns on global warming

big insurance companies were in favor of obamacare and big banks were in favor of Dodd/Frank

 

[golfballs]

Heatin up!

 

[joevol320]

the thing about debating leftis whackos concerning global warming (or anything for that matter) is they are always redefining the debate.

if you show them that temps have decreased or that there are record cold temp, they'll tell it's because of global warming. if we had the warmest winter this year in the last 20 or 30 years, they would have screamed global warming. they contribute the lack of hurricanes to global warming, but if we have a record # of hurricanes this coming season, they'll say that's it also global warming.

It's easy for the left whacko to scream global warming because there is no measurable standard or established reference on seasonal temperatures. So the left can continue moving the "1st down marker" to fits it's agenda.

you're going to have cold winters and hot summers just you'll have mild winters and mild summers. that's the way God designed it.

 

[508mikey]

libtards need to blow some global warming here it - 12 today

 

[volinbham]

…or maybe these big oil CEOs understand the reality of climate change. Maybe they understand regulation is inevitable (where not already present) and simply desire the most efficient solution.

I can't imagine it helps them to have to abandon trillions of dollars of known fossil fuel reserves, even if they do gain an edge in the natural gas market. When we do take their advice and price carbon, the clock will start ticking on natural gas too.

BP's two-word fix for global climate change

The see the regulatory writing on the wall just like Norway's fund did. The fiduciary duty of the company is to preserve and grow share holder wealth.

BP and Shell (others will follow) are trying to manage the transition so it favors them the most.

Coal will suffer before Nat. Gas. Greener eneregies will become even more incentivized and these companies will ride that wave. Also in their favor is that people still are nuke phobic.

Fossil fuel reserves will not be abandoned, the price of use will just go up but until there are real, meaningful alternatives the primary fuel will be fossil, the carbon pricing will be a post fuel producer cost and these energy companies will go merrily on their way.

This excerpt from your latest article shines the light. Each of those 3 reasons is in line with maximizing shareholder wealth which is what the company is legally obligated to do unless it's shareholders approve a change in mission.

It is likely that governments across the globe will continue to place limits on carbon emissions, and multinational companies like BP would prefer those limits to be as uniform and as transparent as possible. A widely agreed-upon global price on carbon would allow BP to continue operating in a variety of countries while minimizing the need to tailor each of its projects to local rules and restrictions. Carbon pricing is also generally regarded as a more economically efficient way to incentivize cleaner energy than subsidizing or mandating the construction of specific technologies.

It's like when your bank goes "green" by eliminating paper statements. You can go on the belief they suddenly have become environmentalists or you can realize that doing so results in substantial cost savings for them.