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

I think that graph has already been discussed above. I favor the data that I presented and tend to view with some of that cautious skepticism I mentioned any "simulated" data or any reliance upon modeling. Especially when I can make reference to data that appears to me to be pretty carefully aggregated, over many decades, by an apparently objective source.

I truly don't see the matter as settled, even if we be taught by some that it is.

;

"I mentioned any simulated data"

• the simulated data are a correction for the early period.
  An obvious retort to such data over time is that we now record more hurricanes, because records were not as complete in older years. That is why the numbers for the older years have been upped by simulated data derived from other sources.

The full IPCC report explains the facts and the causal relationship.

I think you might be surprised how much skewing can be done to statistics when we start using them to predict the future. Trends over a few years can be extended to look like anything you want to. This happens most with periodic motion being mistaken for exponential or parabolic curves. So far we have seen 2 degrees general temperature change and relatively minor change in natural disasters. So what? Most likely it will correct itself like it has in the past. Taking short-term trend lines decades into the future produces fantastic results. Now of course such an issue such as climate change should be observed, but bumping humanity into the stone age because of what could be random noise is not good policy.

@tpr, in #102 you write, in pertinent part:

"* the simulated data are a correction for the early period.
An obvious retort to such data over time is that we now record more hurricanes, because records were not as complete in older years. That is why the numbers for the older years have been upped by simulated data...."

But that seems to me to actually work AGAINST the position you seem to be taking.

Using "simulation" to make up for hurricanes unobserved from "earlier" time periods -- if that is what was actually done -- would seem to create a hurricane frequency that would have DECLINED even more clearly, NOT increased.

Why?

Well, look at the numbers I already noted in my previous #75. WITHOUT adding any "unobserved" hurricanes for older periods, those numbers ALREADY seem to show a decline (from 76 to 66) from older periods to newer periods of equivalent, significant length -- over a long period of time. In other words, there are ALREADY more hurricanes shown from equivalent many-decade OLDER periods of time.

So if "simulation" ADDS more hurricanes to older periods, as you seem to suggest (because THAT'S when, if ever, hurricanes might have gone unobserved somehow), then OLDER periods would have EVEN MORE hurricanes and therefore create an EVEN GREATER DECLINE compared to modern periods when hurricanes are no doubt observed.

And, surely, "simulation" would not SUBTRACT hurricanes from older periods in order to correct a lack of observation.

So -- it appears that we must think very carefully before leaping to a conclusion that doesn't really seem to fit what we are seeing, but that merely aligns more with what we have simply been taught, somehow, to expect.

The numbers I provided -- apparently from an official source -- do not seem to include any "simulation" -- they're just historical counts, I believe. And those numbers ALREADY seem to show a slight decline. Adding MORE hurricanes to older periods, to account for any supposed lack of observation in older periods, would seem to make the decline even more pronounced -- not somehow turn it around into an increase!

By the way, I don't use caps to "shout." I use them only to provide the same sort of slight emphasis I would provide with my voice, if speaking normally. I am not upset or angry with you or with anybody else -- I'm merely trying to make sure what I am saying is understood and thereby properly given a chance at real consideration.

Incidentally (and I don't mean to leap to conclusions here) I sense in @TheCaptain7777 a person who seems quite comfortable in the presence of mathematics and science.

So, I hope he (or perhaps she, since there are female captains in the world, too, fortunately) will look at this post and tell me if I may be missing something. But it seems to me that any ADDING of hurricanes (by simulation) to OLDER periods would make a still GREATER indicated decline -- not to the contrary. I hope the @TheCaptain7777 will agree, having already indicated an understanding that sometimes fluctuation is just statistical "noise," which suggests a possible technical background and its resulting understanding.

Indeed, in my writing above I deliberately took numbers for LARGE periods of time that are widely separated, in order to try to avoid the possibility of being fooled by brief, few-year fluctuations that could just be statistical "noise."

@Noflaps

Ok. It's great that you acknowledge temperature rises. I believe in that too. It would be so crazy, that all companies are lying at the same time, from multiple contries...

Anyways, no, we shouldn't have developed an economy based on fossil fuels, it should have been kept underground, since the beginning. Yes, oil is important, just because we made it important.

If we told ourselves that we shouldn't use fossil fuels, huamn creativity would have created already several innovations that would never, ever, require filling our atmosphere with CO2.

It was a mistake, it has always been a mistake.

Petroleum extraction has kept us alive and growing. It wasn't at all a mistake. When mankind gratefully turned to petroleum, it wasn't because everybody concerned was foolish. Far from it.

Indeed, petroleum STILL keeps us alive and growing to a much greater extent than many seem to realize. Thank the heavens for flexible, abundant, relatively clean, inexpensive natural gas. When the wind temporarily stops, do we think we'll just quickly ramp up a nuclear or fuel oil or coal plant to quickly fill the gap, and then quickly shut it down again when the wind resumes? Over and over -- and without a great deal of predictability? Lots of luck.

If petroleum disappeared tomorrow, I think people would be HORRIFIED by the huge resulting number of deaths from cold and famine and other causes and by the catastrophe that would result. And our need for power, heat and fertilizer seems to be steadily increasing, not declining.

Petroleum and policemen share this in common: in some no-doubt-well-meaning quarters it has become fashionable to want to dispense with them. But doing so would quickly turn out to be among mankind's biggest mistakes. They both deserve FAR more appreciation than some political segments seem to give them.

Let's not learn everything the hard way -- that's not a bad motto, I think.

@celinofj, My point is that I don't think it is scientific to expect that temperatures will continue to rise. So I think oil is amazing and ought to be used and drilled more.

"But that seems to me to actually work AGAINST the position you seem to be taking."

• There are much more recorded hurricanes in 2025 than in 1925.
  There are also more weather stations in 2025 than in 1925.
  To correct for that some simulated hurricanes were added to the early years extrapolated from other available data.
  After this correction there are still much more hurricanes in 2025 than in 1925.
  See the graph.

"Petroleum extraction has kept us alive and growing." * So did coal.

"It wasn't at all a mistake." * But an exaggeration that causes disasters.

"Thank the heavens for flexible, abundant, relatively clean, inexpensive natural gas." * There is more oil than gas and even more coal. The problem is not the availability or the price, the problem are the consequences. The price for prospection, drilling, and distribution does not cover the cost for the disasters it causes. Now the tax payers and the insurance companies and the victims affected pay for the disasters. It would be fair to let the consumers of coal, oil, natural gas, meat, and dairy pay for the hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts, avalanches, and landslides they cause in the form of a tax.

"our need for power, heat and fertilizer seems to be steadily increasing" * Some countries use far more per capita than other countries.

"Let's not learn everything the hard way" * Learn from the hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, floods, avalanches, and landslides and reduce coal, oil, gas, meat, and dairy.

@TheCaptain7777 of course they will continue to rise!