Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

A fully implemented CO2 global tax could reduce human emissions to ZERO.

@celinofj did you misunderstand what I wrote? Your post #87 puzzles me a bit.

In this thread I have written (in response) about the continued importance of petroleum (which, the more one knows about its usefulness AND about some difficulties with solar and wind), the more obvious this becomes), about hurricanes and about supposedly rapidly rising sea levels -- I have NOT written about global temperature increases.

I do NOT deny that there is evidence that global temperatures have slowly risen. Your last post above made it sound, to me at least, like you think I am trying to deny any temperature rise -- but I'm NOT doing that and I haven't ever done so, so far as I recall. Are you confusing me with somebody else?

What I DID point out is that hurricanes do NOT seem to me to ACTUALLY have become more frequent -- to the contrary, the unsimulated hard data seems to me to show, if anything, that hurricanes have become slightly LESS frequent, although their average severity may (may!) have slightly increased. I showed the hard numbers upon which I have relied. They are pretty easy to read.

Furthermore, it does not seem to me that anybody currently alive will ever see Time Square under water because of rising sea levels. I could be wrong, of course --- but I've been waiting for more than 20 years to see ANY change that could even be detected with our eyeballs merely by standing by the seashore.

There seems to me to be too much fearful, at least accidental, exaggeration -- most of it commonly accepted and almost automatically repeated -- telling us that catastrophe quickly looms! I don't deny that switching to renewables (to the extent it's currently PRACTICAL) is a good thing. But we have to make decisions with a clear head and not in any unnecessary panic. So, even good-faith, accidental exaggeration of our plight -- if and when it occurs -- does us no favors, in my opinion.

That's all I'm trying to get across. Unnecessary panic can lead to bad decision making and bad law, and it can be used, cynically, for political purposes, too, I fear.

Those who feel, in all good faith, unnecessary fear are people with whom I sympathize -- I don't want to see anybody worry unnecessarily or excessively. So, I think we all need to stick to the data and listen to those with real expertise and experience but no particular axe to grind. Admittedly, that's not always easy to accomplish.

@celinofj did you misunderstand what I wrote? Your post #87 puzzles me a bit. In this thread I have written (in response) about the continued importance of petroleum (which, the more one knows about its usefulness AND about some difficulties with solar and wind), the more obvious this becomes), about hurricanes and about supposedly rapidly rising sea levels -- I have NOT written about global temperature increases. I do NOT deny that there is evidence that global temperatures have slowly risen. Your last post above made it sound, to me at least, like you think I am trying to deny any temperature rise -- but I'm NOT doing that and I haven't ever done so, so far as I recall. Are you confusing me with somebody else? What I DID point out is that hurricanes do NOT seem to me to ACTUALLY have become more frequent -- to the contrary, the unsimulated hard data seems to me to show, if anything, that hurricanes have become slightly LESS frequent, although their average severity may (may!) have slightly increased. I showed the hard numbers upon which I have relied. They are pretty easy to read. Furthermore, it does not seem to me that anybody currently alive will ever see Time Square under water because of rising sea levels. I could be wrong, of course --- but I've been waiting for more than 20 years to see ANY change that could even be detected with our eyeballs merely by standing by the seashore. There seems to me to be too much fearful, at least accidental, exaggeration -- most of it commonly accepted and almost automatically repeated -- telling us that catastrophe quickly looms! I don't deny that switching to renewables (to the extent it's currently PRACTICAL) is a good thing. But we have to make decisions with a clear head and not in any unnecessary panic. So, even good-faith, accidental exaggeration of our plight -- if and when it occurs -- does us no favors, in my opinion. That's all I'm trying to get across. Unnecessary panic can lead to bad decision making and bad law, and it can be used, cynically, for political purposes, too, I fear. Those who feel, in all good faith, unnecessary fear are people with whom I sympathize -- I don't want to see anybody worry unnecessarily or excessively. So, I think we all need to stick to the data and listen to those with real expertise and experience but no particular axe to grind. Admittedly, that's not always easy to accomplish.

"I do NOT deny that there is evidence that global temperatures have slowly risen"

  • There are 3 kinds of denial: 1) deny temperature rise, 2) deny it is caused by humans, 3) deny the severity of consequences

"it does not seem to me that anybody currently alive will ever see Time Square under water because of rising sea levels"

  • Time Square is not the center of the world. The people of Kiribati and Tuvalu already see that. Time Square will follow.

"not in any unnecessary panic" * Yes, we have to reduce our individual carbon footprints: drive less, fly less, turn the thermostat lower, eat less meat and dairy... and build nuclear power plants.

"I do NOT deny that there is evidence that global temperatures have slowly risen" * There are 3 kinds of denial: 1) deny temperature rise, 2) deny it is caused by humans, 3) deny the severity of consequences "it does not seem to me that anybody currently alive will ever see Time Square under water because of rising sea levels" * Time Square is not the center of the world. The people of Kiribati and Tuvalu already see that. Time Square will follow. "not in any unnecessary panic" * Yes, we have to reduce our individual carbon footprints: drive less, fly less, turn the thermostat lower, eat less meat and dairy... and build nuclear power plants.

@tpr -- I have NOT denied temperature increases. I have NOT denied that humans can and have contributed to them.

And as far as Time Square -- I hope you get the wonderful chance to stand in Time Square 40 years from now and think back about any utter certainty that you now feel. I won't be there, unfortunately, so I envy you that possibility. I can only imagine the marvels of the future that awaits us. I truly wish you and your friends all the best.

Al Gore's movie came out a long time ago. Have you stood on a New York beach lately? Have you stood in Time Square? If so, did you fear you might get your feet wet? If so, was it raining?

@tpr -- I have NOT denied temperature increases. I have NOT denied that humans can and have contributed to them. And as far as Time Square -- I hope you get the wonderful chance to stand in Time Square 40 years from now and think back about any utter certainty that you now feel. I won't be there, unfortunately, so I envy you that possibility. I can only imagine the marvels of the future that awaits us. I truly wish you and your friends all the best. Al Gore's movie came out a long time ago. Have you stood on a New York beach lately? Have you stood in Time Square? If so, did you fear you might get your feet wet? If so, was it raining?

"I have NOT denied temperature increases." * No, you did not, but others did.
" I have NOT denied that humans can and have contributed to them." * No, you did not, but others did. However, you do deny the severity of consequences and the urge to act.

"I hope you get the wonderful chance to stand in Time Square 40 years from now" * No, I will not.

"Al Gore's movie came out a long time ago." * Yes, it is not something that happens overnight.

"Have you stood on a New York beach lately?" * No, I have not stood on Kiribati or Tuvalu either.

"I have NOT denied temperature increases." * No, you did not, but others did. " I have NOT denied that humans can and have contributed to them." * No, you did not, but others did. However, you do deny the severity of consequences and the urge to act. "I hope you get the wonderful chance to stand in Time Square 40 years from now" * No, I will not. "Al Gore's movie came out a long time ago." * Yes, it is not something that happens overnight. "Have you stood on a New York beach lately?" * No, I have not stood on Kiribati or Tuvalu either.

I might point out -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that Manhattan is not a small, structurally dynamic coral atoll. I think things are generally a bit more complicated than popular narratives inform. But, as I often repeat (each time with genuine sincerity), I could be wrong.

In any event, perhaps we can check back here -- God willing, of course -- in 2030 and see what has actually taken place. The World remains an interesting place!

Furthermore, no matter what the United States does, it seems likely that some other countries will keep burning coal at a perhaps increasing rate. And absent city-scale battery technology, and even with rapidly accelerated but realistic nuclear plant production, I don't personally see how the United States and most other places can get by, as a realistic, practical matter, and for a long time to come, without natural gas -- which is has been rather a blessing to civilization and of which there are massive reserves.

I wish some of those determined to "save the planet" -- and apparently certain of their position at the time -- had not been quite so successful with their wish to see nuclear power production be hampered in the United States over the last decades (although, of course, I do not claim that they are solely responsible for that hampering).

Sometimes excessive fear and worry can, as I said, accidentally produce bad results.

I might point out -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that Manhattan is not a small, structurally dynamic coral atoll. I think things are generally a bit more complicated than popular narratives inform. But, as I often repeat (each time with genuine sincerity), I could be wrong. In any event, perhaps we can check back here -- God willing, of course -- in 2030 and see what has actually taken place. The World remains an interesting place! Furthermore, no matter what the United States does, it seems likely that some other countries will keep burning coal at a perhaps increasing rate. And absent city-scale battery technology, and even with rapidly accelerated but realistic nuclear plant production, I don't personally see how the United States and most other places can get by, as a realistic, practical matter, and for a long time to come, without natural gas -- which is has been rather a blessing to civilization and of which there are massive reserves. I wish some of those determined to "save the planet" -- and apparently certain of their position at the time -- had not been quite so successful with their wish to see nuclear power production be hampered in the United States over the last decades (although, of course, I do not claim that they are solely responsible for that hampering). Sometimes excessive fear and worry can, as I said, accidentally produce bad results.

"see what has actually taken place"

  • It is not only the rising sea level, which is a steady process.
    As we speak massive wildfires are raging in several countries around the Mediterranean. Hot temperatures, no rain, strong winds make there hard to contain.
    Several mountainous areas have been plagued by avalanches and landslides, causing loss of life and massive evacuations.
    Several countries in Africa suffer famine because of drought.
    In New York and New Jersey a state of emergency has been declared on August 1 because heavy rainfall of 76 millimeter and in Maryland a child drowned.
"see what has actually taken place" * It is not only the rising sea level, which is a steady process. As we speak massive wildfires are raging in several countries around the Mediterranean. Hot temperatures, no rain, strong winds make there hard to contain. Several mountainous areas have been plagued by avalanches and landslides, causing loss of life and massive evacuations. Several countries in Africa suffer famine because of drought. In New York and New Jersey a state of emergency has been declared on August 1 because heavy rainfall of 76 millimeter and in Maryland a child drowned.

Thanks for responding!

But I must, in turn, reply: I just don't think that we can ascribe every famine, avalanche, landslide, wildfire or heavy rainstorm to global warming.

Unfortunately, though, I sense in some media a growing trend to try to make every significant weather event into a knowing, gloomy head nod.

Yet, as noted earlier, it looks to me like the hard data shows a long-term slight DECLINE, if anything, in the frequency of hurricanes in the United States. And I didn't use numbers put out by some climate denier, to say the least.

Furthermore, according to one internet site that doesn't remotely look like a climate-denier site (to the contrary), it appears that with regard to famine, "from 1970 to 2022, both the absolute and per-capita mortality sharply decreased, with fewer than 9 million famine-related deaths recorded globally, representing only 6 percent of the pre-1970 total."

That brief blurb was copied-and-pasted from an article entitled "Historical Trends in Famine Mortality" apparently put out by the "World Peace Foundation."

So, if global warming causes famine -- why has the mortality rate, per capita (and even the absolute number of deaths) from famine apparently DECLINED over the last 5 decades -- or do you think that's a mistaken assertion or that I am somehow misinterpreting the quotation?

There is, I believe, a growing and perhaps contagious tendency in society for many, especially some in the media, to ascribe much too much to "climate change." I do not deny that the climate is changing, and I do not deny that humans are at least partially responsible; but I think that we should all take care not to leap reflexively to conclusions that fit our own preconceptions.

I agree that I should take care not to do that, too, of course, and I try NOT to do so. That's why, for example, I just took some time to actually research famine frequency online, before writing this post. If it had caused me to doubt my initial impression, I would have noted that. I'm trying to be objective, not doctrinaire.

Thanks for responding! But I must, in turn, reply: I just don't think that we can ascribe every famine, avalanche, landslide, wildfire or heavy rainstorm to global warming. Unfortunately, though, I sense in some media a growing trend to try to make every significant weather event into a knowing, gloomy head nod. Yet, as noted earlier, it looks to me like the hard data shows a long-term slight DECLINE, if anything, in the frequency of hurricanes in the United States. And I didn't use numbers put out by some climate denier, to say the least. Furthermore, according to one internet site that doesn't remotely look like a climate-denier site (to the contrary), it appears that with regard to famine, "from 1970 to 2022, both the absolute and per-capita mortality sharply decreased, with fewer than 9 million famine-related deaths recorded globally, representing only 6 percent of the pre-1970 total." That brief blurb was copied-and-pasted from an article entitled "Historical Trends in Famine Mortality" apparently put out by the "World Peace Foundation." So, if global warming causes famine -- why has the mortality rate, per capita (and even the absolute number of deaths) from famine apparently DECLINED over the last 5 decades -- or do you think that's a mistaken assertion or that I am somehow misinterpreting the quotation? There is, I believe, a growing and perhaps contagious tendency in society for many, especially some in the media, to ascribe much too much to "climate change." I do not deny that the climate is changing, and I do not deny that humans are at least partially responsible; but I think that we should all take care not to leap reflexively to conclusions that fit our own preconceptions. I agree that I should take care not to do that, too, of course, and I try NOT to do so. That's why, for example, I just took some time to actually research famine frequency online, before writing this post. If it had caused me to doubt my initial impression, I would have noted that. I'm trying to be objective, not doctrinaire.

"I just don't think that we can ascribe every famine, avalanche, landslide, wildfire or heavy rainstorm to global warming."

  • There have been hurricanes, wildfires, avalanches, landslides, droughts, floods before, but now they are more frequent and more severe. There is also a direct causal link.
    Warmer ocean water -> more and more severe hurricanes.
    Melting mountain ice -> avalanches and landslides
    High temperature, no rain, strong wind -> wildfire
    Heavy rain in one area -> flood; no rain in other area -> drought

"why has the mortality rate from famine apparently DECLINED over the last 5 decades" * Because of food aid

"I just don't think that we can ascribe every famine, avalanche, landslide, wildfire or heavy rainstorm to global warming." * There have been hurricanes, wildfires, avalanches, landslides, droughts, floods before, but now they are more frequent and more severe. There is also a direct causal link. Warmer ocean water -> more and more severe hurricanes. Melting mountain ice -> avalanches and landslides High temperature, no rain, strong wind -> wildfire Heavy rain in one area -> flood; no rain in other area -> drought "why has the mortality rate from famine apparently DECLINED over the last 5 decades" * Because of food aid

There's a causal link to a DECLINE in hurricane frequency? Really?

Assertions of causality need careful examination and cannot, of course, simply be assumed. Wildfires -- including massive wildfires -- are hardly new. Droughts are hardly new. Floods are hardly new.

But do wildfires break out equally across the world's forests? Or does forest management, for example, which varies from place to place, make any difference? I believe that it can be argued that good forest management is, indeed, a significant factor in avoiding or at least minimizing wildfires.

In short, the matter of "causal linkage" seems to me far more complicated than what can be asserted with any justifiable certainty. That question is merely illustrative of the difficulty of ascribing any particular event to some unobvious cause.

Frankly, if society simply starts asserting that every new wildfire, draught or flood is the result of "climate change" it begins to feel a bit like a religion to me.

Sorry. I guess we'll disagree, but that's okay. Everybody should make up their own mind.

I don't question your intelligence or your good faith -- indeed, you seem like an impressive individual. But I tend to be pretty skeptical, generally.

There's a causal link to a DECLINE in hurricane frequency? Really? Assertions of causality need careful examination and cannot, of course, simply be assumed. Wildfires -- including massive wildfires -- are hardly new. Droughts are hardly new. Floods are hardly new. But do wildfires break out equally across the world's forests? Or does forest management, for example, which varies from place to place, make any difference? I believe that it can be argued that good forest management is, indeed, a significant factor in avoiding or at least minimizing wildfires. In short, the matter of "causal linkage" seems to me far more complicated than what can be asserted with any justifiable certainty. That question is merely illustrative of the difficulty of ascribing any particular event to some unobvious cause. Frankly, if society simply starts asserting that every new wildfire, draught or flood is the result of "climate change" it begins to feel a bit like a religion to me. Sorry. I guess we'll disagree, but that's okay. Everybody should make up their own mind. I don't question your intelligence or your good faith -- indeed, you seem like an impressive individual. But I tend to be pretty skeptical, generally.

"There's a causal link to a DECLINE in hurricane frequency?" * There is a rise in hurricane frequency. See the graph above, read the IPCC report.

"Wildfires -- including massive wildfires -- are hardly new. Droughts are hardly new. Floods are hardly new.

  • True, but now there are more of them and more severe of them.

"But do wildfires break out equally across the world's forests?" * No: wildfires rage when there is no rain, high temperature, and strong wind. U.S.A., Canada, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey...

"does forest management, for example, which varies from place to place, make any difference?" * Probably

"ascribing any particular event to some unobvious cause" * It is not about any particular event, but about a trend of many similar events.

"every new wildfire, draught or flood is the result of "climate change" * It is not about an individual new event, but about a trend of many similar events.

"I guess we'll disagree" * that's okay.

"Everybody should make up their own mind." * That is right, but preferably based on facts.

"I tend to be pretty skeptical" * That is your right and not bad at all. Being skeptical is even a scientific attitude.

"There's a causal link to a DECLINE in hurricane frequency?" * There is a rise in hurricane frequency. See the graph above, read the IPCC report. "Wildfires -- including massive wildfires -- are hardly new. Droughts are hardly new. Floods are hardly new. * True, but now there are more of them and more severe of them. "But do wildfires break out equally across the world's forests?" * No: wildfires rage when there is no rain, high temperature, and strong wind. U.S.A., Canada, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey... "does forest management, for example, which varies from place to place, make any difference?" * Probably "ascribing any particular event to some unobvious cause" * It is not about any particular event, but about a trend of many similar events. "every new wildfire, draught or flood is the result of "climate change" * It is not about an individual new event, but about a trend of many similar events. "I guess we'll disagree" * that's okay. "Everybody should make up their own mind." * That is right, but preferably based on facts. "I tend to be pretty skeptical" * That is your right and not bad at all. Being skeptical is even a scientific attitude.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.