Your reply varies from grossly misleading to outright falshood. I stand by my previous statement.

@Flyingsaucesir You are merely repeating the talking points of leftist greenies. If you actually looked at the data (like I have) you will see that most of what you are spouting is pure propaganda.

@BD66
I have looked at the data too.

Sea level rise is accelerating right along with the acceleration of terrestrial glacier melt occurring world wide. For example, in the summer of 2019, the rate of glacial melt running off of Greenland was roughly equal to the mass of twenty thousand elephants jumping into the sea every second. Nothing resembling this had ever been observed before. Over the last century, sea levels have increased by about a foot. They are projected to be be between one and four feet higher than they are today by the end of this century. This will be catastrophic for many of the world's major cities which are located at or near sea level. But four feet is still a conservative estimate. Some scientists see a potential for an increase of ten feet or more. It all depends on what happens in Antarctica. The rapid disappearance of sea ice we are seeing today could allow the land-based glaciers behind them to flow rapidly into the sea. If that happens, strap on your water wings kids!

For the moment, per-capita calorie intake has nothing to do with crop failures. Grain stores are big enough to get us through short-term shortfalls in production. But as failures become more frequent, eventually we will reach a point where stocks are not enough to get us over the hump. People will go hungry. In the meantime, food prices will continue to rise. As if they are not high enough already.

It's true that the post World War II period has been relatively peaceful. But, as the current conflict in Ukraine illustrates, when war breaks out, civilians are often caught in the crossfire. Climate change is a threat multiplier, increasing competition for critical resources like food and fresh water as these become more scarce. Many analysts agree that the peace dividend is over. Expect more war in the future.

If it's true that the timber industry is thriving, that is indeed good news. But how long can it last if the forests are dying from drought, insect pests, and fires brought about by a new and inhospitable climate? I have always been an alpinist at heart. From a young age I learned to love the forests of the San Gabriel Mountains, and in my 20s I briefly lived in Washington state. So I know what a healthy forest looks like. I have recently visited forests from Colorado to California, Montana to Monterrey. I have never seen so many dead trees. It's quite alarming, actually.

Over the last century, the incidence of category 5 hurricanes has almost doubled. The 2020 hurricane season had so many named storms that, for the first time in recorded history, meteorologists needed every letter in both the English and Greek alphabets. Due to higher atmospheric and ocean temperatures, storms are carrying much more water vapor now than in the historic past. When a storm stalls over land the precipitation and flooding are record-breaking. It's a similar story with typhoons in the west Pacific: monster storms that break all records wind speeds, storm surges, precipitation, and losses of life and property. The flooding in Europe in recent years is also unprecedented.

Enough about water for now. Let's talk about fire. Yes it's true that there has been mismanagement of forests, but under the relatively stable climate regime of the past, this did not translate into anywhere near the number and size of forest fires we are seeing today. Things have fundamentally changed. Average temperatures have increased, and precipitation in the western US has decreased. Vast numbers of trees are dead or dying. When a fire gets going now, it exploded into a megafire. In my home state of California, the annual acreage burned doubled, then doubled again, and again in the space of three years. We see a similar scenario playing out in Australia: unprecedented destruction of forests and wildlife.

It's true that fishing, overfishing, and wasteful killing of bycatch is driving down fish stocks around the world. But climate change is hitting fisheries from another angle: the food web. Most of the CO2 that has been emitted through the burning of fossil fuels has been absorbed by the oceans. This has led to acidification of sea water through a chemical reaction where CO2 combines with water to form carbonic acid (CO2 + H20 →H2CO3). The higher pH of sea water interferes with the ability of animals like mollusks and corals to build their shells or reefs. To date, over half the Great Barrier Reef has died off due to high water temperatures. Reefs serve as important nurseries for many fish species. Killing off corals is also killing off fish. There is also a large group of microscopic organisms, called foraminifera, that likewise build their skeletons out of shelly material, known as calcium carbonate. Foraminifera that are unsuccessful in building their skeletons (the technical term is "tests" ) due to ocean acidification die before they can reproduce, thus depriving animals farther up the food web of an important food source.

If it's true that deaths from flooding have steadily decreased over the last century-and-a-half, that would be welcome news. Frankly, I doubt that it is true, but I'm willing to set that aside for the moment. Whatever the death rate, there is NO DOUBT that the cost of climate change is steadily increasing. Twenty years ago, damages from global warming in the USA were running about 17 billion dollars per year. This year they will be closer to 99 billion dollars. That's a five-fold increase in only two decades. Subtract a little due to inflation, and it's still over 400% increase. This is clearly unsustainable.

With respect to tornadoes, the picture is mixed. It is clear that twister frequency in the Great Plains has decreased, but it has also increased in the Southeast. So there has been a spatial shift. We should note here that long-term data is not available.

"Tornado records date back only to the 1950s in the United States, and vary significantly from year to year, making it difficult to identify long-term trends. The assessment of tornado wind speeds from associated damage may also have been less consistent before the 2007 implementation of the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale for tornado damage intensity. In addition, measuring the presence of tornadoes relies on eyewitness accounts and aftermath damage assessments rather than quantitative data. As the population in many areas affected by tornadoes has grown, we have seen an increase in eyewitness reports and property in harm’s way, leading to a larger number of recorded tornadoes, especially weaker ones. Additionally, improved radar technology helps us identify severe storms that may produce tornadoes that may not have been detected decades ago."

"Despite these challenges, studies have found a few trends in the United States by using portions of the record that are more reliable, like data for very strong tornadoes. Although the number of days with tornadoes has fallen, other trends are increasing, including outbreaks with 30 or more tornados in one day, the density of tornado clusters (i.e., tornadoes are closer geographically), and the strength of tornadoes."

It's true that glacial melt has been going on for some time; bit do has global warming. However, the rate of melt has increased drastically over the last few decades. This trend is well documented. I gave the example of the massive current Greenland melt rate above. It is mirrored in mountains around the world.

Biologists predicted decades ago that global warming would result in expanded ranges of pathogen-carrying insects. At that time I had never seen an Aedes egypti mosquito in California, and never even heard of Zika virus. Now they are both here. Oh boy! A. egypti can also carry West Nile virus, malaria, and the viruses that cause yellow Fever, and Dengue fever. The fact that global malaria deaths have recently decreased is due mainly to the full-court press that the Gates foundation and others are prosecuting against the deadly disease (over 400 thousand people succumb to malaria in Africa every year). Most of the success is due to the low-tech strategy of providing mosquito netting, but new therapies have also been introduced. In short, the decrease in malaria deaths has occurred IN SPITE OF the increased range of mosquitos caused by climate change.

Thanks for the challenges you provided. I probably would not have written these lengthy explanations otherwise. I will now post them to the entire site. In fact, I will post them to other sites as well.

They don't call the Green Revolution a revolution for nothing. Obviously many things will have to change. First of all, the wealthy and super-rich will have to start paying their fair share. Secondly, we will have to subsidize the purchase of green cars and trucks (and places to charge them, and green power plants to serve them). But the really good news is that the green technologies will more than pay for themselves. A hundred bucks IS a lot to pay to go 350 miles. Imagine NOT paying it. Imagine having the sun fill up your battery for a fraction of the cost. The only thing holding us back is entrenched fossil fuel industry interests manipulating public opinion through a right-wing propaganda machine. Rage against that machine!

@Flyingsaucesir Where and when do you expect anybody to charge there vehicle? Not everybody has a garage and a driveway. Not everybody has solar panels. Not everybody has $50K to buy an EV. Tesla are for rich people. I don't know anybody who has one. I personally don't want one even if I could afford it. I'm not going to worry about what some people think we need to do. I'll be dead by then.

@barjoe I already answered your question. See above.

@Flyingsaucesir I'll be dead by the time any of that transpires.. Those were rhetorical questions. There's 100 cars in my block. Not one of them are an EV . How many trillions of dollars to subsidize everybody to get an EV? You gonna get me a free car? I'll spend all day finding a charging station but I'll take it.

@barjoe Rome was not built in a day.

Again, the Green Revolution is not business as usual. It represents a radical change in the way we operate, on many levels. But it is not an engineering problem; it's a political problem. It requires vision and cooperation. I know that's a big ask...

@Flyingsaucesir Tell that to the average guy living in the real world, trying to get by. "Green Revolution" doesn't exist. It's the logic that sky high fuel prices are a good thing. Force everybody to buy EVs or better yet, run around on bicycles like people do in Netherlands. None of that will happen.

Of course the fossil fuel-fired power plants have got to be replaced with wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, fusion (maybe someday in the not-too distant future), and tidal energy. That goes without saying. When I (we) say "electric cars," I (we) mean the whole package, including the clean generating plants. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

You see how every move you make to support the old, tired, dirty status quo only strengthens the movement for change?

@Flyingsaucesir Not supporting the old, tired, dirty status is why gasoline costs $4.50 right now. The intelligent thing to do is to keep fossil fuel prices low while all the sources of clean energy mature, then once the infrastructure is in place, to fade out using fossil fuels. However intelligence is something in short supply among Democratic politicians.

@BD66 Green technologies will continue to improve, but they are already "mature" enough to be implemented now. And if we wait, it may be too late. A clock it clanging as we approach tipping points that spell catastrophe if we blow past them.

@Flyingsaucesir You have substituted they irrational Christian fear of Armageddon with the irrational fear of the Earth's destruction due to climate change. It's not your fault, it's in the genetic makeup for humans to be wary of something. For millions of years, it was a leopard dropping down out of a tree and biting us in the back of the neck. When that danger is gone, humans look for something to fill the void. For Christians, it's the Last Days. For you, it's climate change, for me it's probably hyperinflation and a sovereign debt default. However I'll bet you the USA sees hyperinflation and a sovereign debt default before humans succumb to climate change.

@BD66
Sorry pal, you cannot equate my concern over global warming with religious fear of Armageddon. Even if I didn't have a degree in Earth science (I do), or hadn't taught Earth science and biology for 20 years (I did), I would still be able to discern the fingerprint of climate change. In my home state of California, we have seen fire season extended by over three months per year. And the annual acreage burned has doubled, then doubled again, then quadrupled. And as I follow national and international news I see both storm intensity and drought increasing beyond all historical levels. We have already seen crop failures in the USA. What will it take for you to wake up to this new reality? Do people have to be dropping dead in the street from starvation? If we wait 'til then to act it will be too late. The kind of shit that climate change has in store for us will make hyperinflation or sovereign debt default look like a walk in the park.

@Flyingsaucesir OK. I get it. I'm not going to convince a priest that the stories from the Bible are nonsense, because those stories are his meal ticket. I'm not going to convince you that the stories of climate change disaster are nonsense, because those are your meal ticket. I won't waste any more time trying.

@BD66 Nonsense? Where have you been bra? Climate change disaster is here now. Norfolk, Virginia and Miami Beach, Florida are going under water. Oh, but you don't live there, so it isn't happening.

I have (and had) absolutely nothing to gain by knowing about or talking about global warming. In my career as a science educator, there was always more than enough material to discuss every day without the climate change topic. The idea that climate change is something cooked up to sell textbooks or fill lecture halls is truly laughable. Really! Wow!

You are right about the big corporations and the elites who own them: they are all about privatizing profits and leaving the liabilities to the public. The US tax structure and environmental policy is wildly unfair, benefitting mainly the rich. And history shows that higher tax rates on the rich do not harm economic growth or innovation. If anything, they help spur productivity. Yet Trump's single legislative accomplishment was to hand a big tax break to the rich. (His rollbacks of environmental protections were achieved by executive order.) And the really crazy thing is that his support base are, by and large, the people most harmed by his policies! Isn't it amazing how pushing it a few hot-button cultural issues you can get people to vote against their own interests?

@Garban I don't care about the price of gas in UK. I care about what I have to pay.