Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

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

Incidentally, in post #70 I was referring to #7, above. I have to say, the young warrior can write! I might not always agree with her, but she impresses, nevertheless.

Incidentally, in post #70 I was referring to #7, above. I have to say, the young warrior can write! I might not always agree with her, but she impresses, nevertheless.

"A hurricane in New Orleans is not a rise in global sea levels" * Some islands are disappearing in the Pacific: Kiribati, Tuvalu. New Orleans was a hurricane caused by global warming. Likewise the flooding around Mississippi: excessive rainfall caused by global warming. Likewise the wildfires in Canada, draughts in Africa, landslides, and avalanches in the mountains.

"the sun doesn't shine at night (in the regions of darkness, of course) and the wind doesn't always blow" * But nuclear power is available.

"taxing other people -- as fun and righteous as that might seem to some -- won't influence the sun or the wind" * But it may drive people to reduce their carbon footprint: drive less, fly less, eat less meat and dairy products. A tax of 100% would drive up the price and thus reduce consumption. The tax can go into a fund for remediation and reforestation. Trees capture CO2.

"renewables are great, sincerely -- but at the moment they do NOT seem to be enough" * Nuclear is available

"Thank goodness for natural gas" * Tell that to the victims of hurricanes, floods, wildfires, landslides, avalanches, draughts.

"Nuclear fusion will eventually get the job done" * That is a phantasy. Nuclear fission is available.

"we'll still need petroleum of other purposes" * No. It is possible to do anything done with fossil fuels with alternatives.

"new taxes won't much change the technical and logistical realities" * It will change behavior: when gasoline, jet fuel, meat and dairy cost double with a 100% tax, less of it will be consumed.

"It's just more tax." * It is a tax shift. Who pays now for the hurricanes, floods, draughts, wildfires, landslides, avalanches? In part the government i.e. all tax payers, in part insurance companies i.e. all that pay insurance. It is only fair that those who cause problems pay for it.

"A hurricane in New Orleans is not a rise in global sea levels" * Some islands are disappearing in the Pacific: Kiribati, Tuvalu. New Orleans was a hurricane caused by global warming. Likewise the flooding around Mississippi: excessive rainfall caused by global warming. Likewise the wildfires in Canada, draughts in Africa, landslides, and avalanches in the mountains. "the sun doesn't shine at night (in the regions of darkness, of course) and the wind doesn't always blow" * But nuclear power is available. "taxing other people -- as fun and righteous as that might seem to some -- won't influence the sun or the wind" * But it may drive people to reduce their carbon footprint: drive less, fly less, eat less meat and dairy products. A tax of 100% would drive up the price and thus reduce consumption. The tax can go into a fund for remediation and reforestation. Trees capture CO2. "renewables are great, sincerely -- but at the moment they do NOT seem to be enough" * Nuclear is available "Thank goodness for natural gas" * Tell that to the victims of hurricanes, floods, wildfires, landslides, avalanches, draughts. "Nuclear fusion will eventually get the job done" * That is a phantasy. Nuclear fission is available. "we'll still need petroleum of other purposes" * No. It is possible to do anything done with fossil fuels with alternatives. "new taxes won't much change the technical and logistical realities" * It will change behavior: when gasoline, jet fuel, meat and dairy cost double with a 100% tax, less of it will be consumed. "It's just more tax." * It is a tax shift. Who pays now for the hurricanes, floods, draughts, wildfires, landslides, avalanches? In part the government i.e. all tax payers, in part insurance companies i.e. all that pay insurance. It is only fair that those who cause problems pay for it.

@tpr, you categorically and dismissively write: "It is possible to do anything done with fossil fuels with alternatives." Well, please note that I did not just say "fossil fuels." I said "petroleum." (To wit: "we'll still need petroleum of other purposes)"

Petroleum has MANY important uses -- many of which are not commonly understood or appreciated.

For example, you might wish to research the building materials used in the production of windmill components. I think you'll find that petroleum products play a part! Do you propose substituting bees' wax?

And when done with that, you might make the same inquiry with regard to artificial heart valves.

Hurricanes predate petroleum, by the way. And they destroyed towns long before our highways were filled with nearly countless automobiles or natural gas heated tens of millions of homes.

Should we blame horse flatulence for those earlier disasters?

Next up: have you ever tried to get a fission plant approved and built in the United States? It's not as easy as it sounds. And it doesn't sound too easy! You might wish to research how many have actually been built over the last forty years. One? Two?

@tpr, you categorically and dismissively write: "It is possible to do anything done with fossil fuels with alternatives." Well, please note that I did not just say "fossil fuels." I said "petroleum." (To wit: "we'll still need petroleum of other purposes)" Petroleum has MANY important uses -- many of which are not commonly understood or appreciated. For example, you might wish to research the building materials used in the production of windmill components. I think you'll find that petroleum products play a part! Do you propose substituting bees' wax? And when done with that, you might make the same inquiry with regard to artificial heart valves. Hurricanes predate petroleum, by the way. And they destroyed towns long before our highways were filled with nearly countless automobiles or natural gas heated tens of millions of homes. Should we blame horse flatulence for those earlier disasters? Next up: have you ever tried to get a fission plant approved and built in the United States? It's not as easy as it sounds. And it doesn't sound too easy! You might wish to research how many have actually been built over the last forty years. One? Two?

"Hurricanes predate petroleum, by the way. And destroyed towns long before our highways were filled with automobiles or natural gas heated tens of millions of homes." * The hurricanes, floods, wildfires, draughts, landslides, and avalanches have been much more frequent in recent years and it is to be feared it will become worse in the next years.

"how many have actually been built lately" * I heard they want to re-open Three Mile Island to power data centers.

"Hurricanes predate petroleum, by the way. And destroyed towns long before our highways were filled with automobiles or natural gas heated tens of millions of homes." * The hurricanes, floods, wildfires, draughts, landslides, and avalanches have been much more frequent in recent years and it is to be feared it will become worse in the next years. "how many have actually been built lately" * I heard they want to re-open Three Mile Island to power data centers.

@tpr, based on your writings here you seem like a good person and I respect your efforts to respond; I do not doubt that you write in good faith.

But when you indicate in #74 above that hurricanes (among other things) have become "much more frequent in recent years" you might wish to go back and research that belief carefully.

The same subject came up almost a year ago. I went to what I believe was an official government website and carefully perused the data I found.

As we ended up discussing ad nauseum here in the off-topic forum, it appears to me that hurricane frequency actually may have DECREASED somewhat -- although the percentage of hurricanes that are "major" might have increased * slightly * -- although in the past determining hurricane severity was more difficult in the region monitored, due to fewer folks living in the region!

With respect to that last observation, (as noted as a footnote to the data I examined) there were fewer observers in the affected areas back when the earliest numbers were being recorded -- so fewer people were available to tell how powerful a storm was or was not. Nevertheless, they knew when a hurricane simply * occurred * (which would be easier to judge). Keep in mind, though, that if storms in the past were STRONGER than recorded, that would cut in favor of my own impression -- not against it.

I just now cut and pasted the following from my earlier post (which was #57 in a long string), and the following pertain (I believe) to the large region of the United States dealt with in the data:

1851 to 1890 produced 76 hurricanes, of which 18 were "major."

1981 to 2020 produced 66 hurricanes, of which 21 were "major."

(Material quoted from my post of almost a year ago is what appears between the two lines, above)

From that data (to the extent it is accurate) we seem to get a mixed assessment.

Apparently, there were 10 MORE storms in the past period (which seems fairly significant) but 3 more "major" storms in the more recent period of equivalent length.

From that data, it seems to me that the frequency of hurricanes has NOT increased but seems to have actually DECLINED (at least through 2020) to an extent that might be statistically significant.

Also from that data, it seems to me that the fraction of hurricanes that are designated "major" has slightly increased, to an extent that might be statistically significant.

So, at the very least, it does not seem unreasonable that I question whether hurricanes actually "are getting much more frequent" even though I've heard that opinion expressed again and again. Indeed, it appears to me that hurricanes may actually have become slightly LESS frequent!

As usual, do not rely on my writing or on the data I present. I write in good faith but am of course capable of error. I believe the pertinent government data that I tried to use correctly would not be hard to find by anyone interested -- who can then look, check and decide without my help.

But I'm forced to ask: on what raw data do YOU rely when deciding that hurricanes have become "much more frequent" ? Is it based on data you've seen, or instead based upon opinions that you've heard or read.

I ask politely and in good faith. As I said, I respect you-- and we're all interested in finding truth, I believe.

@tpr, based on your writings here you seem like a good person and I respect your efforts to respond; I do not doubt that you write in good faith. But when you indicate in #74 above that hurricanes (among other things) have become "much more frequent in recent years" you might wish to go back and research that belief carefully. The same subject came up almost a year ago. I went to what I believe was an official government website and carefully perused the data I found. As we ended up discussing ad nauseum here in the off-topic forum, it appears to me that hurricane frequency actually may have DECREASED somewhat -- although the percentage of hurricanes that are "major" might have increased * slightly * -- although in the past determining hurricane severity was more difficult in the region monitored, due to fewer folks living in the region! With respect to that last observation, (as noted as a footnote to the data I examined) there were fewer observers in the affected areas back when the earliest numbers were being recorded -- so fewer people were available to tell how powerful a storm was or was not. Nevertheless, they knew when a hurricane simply * occurred * (which would be easier to judge). Keep in mind, though, that if storms in the past were STRONGER than recorded, that would cut in favor of my own impression -- not against it. I just now cut and pasted the following from my earlier post (which was #57 in a long string), and the following pertain (I believe) to the large region of the United States dealt with in the data: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1851 to 1890 produced 76 hurricanes, of which 18 were "major." 1981 to 2020 produced 66 hurricanes, of which 21 were "major." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Material quoted from my post of almost a year ago is what appears between the two lines, above) From that data (to the extent it is accurate) we seem to get a mixed assessment. Apparently, there were 10 MORE storms in the past period (which seems fairly significant) but 3 more "major" storms in the more recent period of equivalent length. From that data, it seems to me that the frequency of hurricanes has NOT increased but seems to have actually DECLINED (at least through 2020) to an extent that might be statistically significant. Also from that data, it seems to me that the fraction of hurricanes that are designated "major" has slightly increased, to an extent that might be statistically significant. So, at the very least, it does not seem unreasonable that I question whether hurricanes actually "are getting much more frequent" even though I've heard that opinion expressed again and again. Indeed, it appears to me that hurricanes may actually have become slightly LESS frequent! As usual, do not rely on my writing or on the data I present. I write in good faith but am of course capable of error. I believe the pertinent government data that I tried to use correctly would not be hard to find by anyone interested -- who can then look, check and decide without my help. But I'm forced to ask: on what raw data do YOU rely when deciding that hurricanes have become "much more frequent" ? Is it based on data you've seen, or instead based upon opinions that you've heard or read. I ask politely and in good faith. As I said, I respect you-- and we're all interested in finding truth, I believe.

"what raw data"
Hurricanes get names starting each year with A, then B, then C etc. That allows to count them by year.
Hurricane Katrina was the 11th hurricane in 2005.

Also:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

'A.2 Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have
occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate
extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and
related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence).'

'Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical
cyclones'

"what raw data" Hurricanes get names starting each year with A, then B, then C etc. That allows to count them by year. Hurricane Katrina was the 11th hurricane in 2005. Also: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf 'A.2 Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence).' 'Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones'

@tpr said in #76:

"what raw data"
Hurricanes get names starting each year with A, then B, then C etc. That allows to count them by year.
Hurricane Katrina was the 11th hurricane in 2005.

Also:
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

'A.2 Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have
occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate
extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and
related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence).'

'Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical
cyclones'

That is really vague. Could you post the actual numbers?

@tpr said in #76: > "what raw data" > Hurricanes get names starting each year with A, then B, then C etc. That allows to count them by year. > Hurricane Katrina was the 11th hurricane in 2005. > > Also: > www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf > > 'A.2 Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have > occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate > extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and > related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence).' > > 'Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical > cyclones' That is really vague. Could you post the actual numbers?

@Noflaps

1851 to 1890 produced 76 hurricanes, of which 18 were "major."

1981 to 2020 produced 66 hurricanes, of which 21 were "major."

Where are you getting your data?!

Look here, the amount of increase of Hurricanes: https://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

Went from 4-5 per year to always above 10, with a record break exactly on 2020, the year that you stopped counting.
This data is updated, and until 2025.

@Noflaps > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1851 to 1890 produced 76 hurricanes, of which 18 were "major." > > 1981 to 2020 produced 66 hurricanes, of which 21 were "major." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Where are you getting your data?! Look here, the amount of increase of Hurricanes: https://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm Went from 4-5 per year to always above 10, with a record break exactly on 2020, the year that you stopped counting. This data is updated, and until 2025.

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