khaosokman

I understand the science. You are still at step 1. Maybe by 2040 you will realise it was a money grab all along.

As a hippy communist I stopped caring about these rich guys. They don't have as much control as you think. Your choice in food changes your life more.

Water vapour has a much broader range of wavelength so absorbs far more heat. So Co2 only does much in cool dry air where cities are 10 degrees too cold anyway. So Co2 increases will help terrible cities become liveable.

Eat food and poo Drink and pee Buy stuff then rubbish it Born then get old and die So basic life is a waste of time

Normal welfare rewards people who choose not to work or for having babies. Welfare should be even then workers aren't unfairly disadvantaged or people with no kids aren't paying the meals of people with kids. The only specialist welfare should be disabled.

Wai everyone and smile. That way you will be liked or laughed at.

700m people pre fossil 8.3bn now Mr and Mrs Oil and Mr and Mrs Coal had a lot of babies

Fossil fuels created billions of lives. They created evil like Hitler but geniuses like Einstein.

By 2150 then hey? Who knows. The earth can fit 50bn I think with better farming and land management. Just think 2500.

Population growth is 0.85%. Crops are growing above 1% so the next decade be fine. After we will see.

It's just an estimate and the actual number does not matter. 6.1bn to 8.3bn in 26 years showns a lot of growth. 10bn+ is 2bn more mouths to feed. That is the point. Need better farming. We don't need to worry about co2 as plants love co2.

Modern life has created more middle class people and less poor people. Mostly fossil fuels doing the work.

Why do you believe their forecasts? World population forecasts are often inaccurate due to underestimation of declining fertility rates, reliance on flawed rural census data, and the high unpredictability of long-term migration. Studies suggest current figures may even undercount the global population by over 50% in certain rural areas. Projections often overestimate growth as they fail to account for rapid, global fertility drops.

Southern Thailand is hot and loaded with plants. The issue isn't heat but lack of water. Regions with crop issues are due to lack of water and poor farming methods. They need to build water pipes to move the water around to dry areas. This costs money. Co2 taxes raise money. That's why they lie about climate. Same as big pharma funded food studies last century and told people to eat the wrong foods. They made people sick then saved them with drugs.

Humans will reach 15bn this century. They need to eat food. Balancing forests and farms will be tricky. Co2 is just a money grab. Modern farming will have to improve. Humans have already wasted 20 years on the carbon dioxide scam. Time to focus on the real issues. But there's less money in real issues. The climate industry has the same investors as the pharma industry. Invent a problem that does not exist then take money from people. We we warned in 1980.

Deforestation is a bigger issue than carbon dioxide. Co2 feeds the plants. The earth was much warmer in the past and plants thrived.

warmer, lower parts of the atmosphere (like a tropical jungle), water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. It is so abundant there that it "outshines" the effect of . However, in colder regions (the poles) or higher altitudes: Water vapor freezes and falls out of the air. remains a gas even in extreme cold. This allows to take the lead in trapping heat where water YouConcentration Warming Impact Low (Initial) Every new molecule traps a significant amount of "fresh" heat. High (Current) Many of the infrared channels are already "saturated," so each additional molecule has a slightly smaller marginal impact than the one before it. Would you like me to explain how the specific "absorption bands" of work, or perhaps look into how this affects the warming of the Arctic specifically? 1. The "Cold Trap" in the Upper Atmosphere It is a common point of confusion, but the physics is actually a bit of a "good news/bad news" situation. While doesn't physically become more "sticky" to heat just because it is cold, it is far more effective at trapping heat in cold environments for two specific reasons: the absence of competition and the "Saturation Effect." 1. The "Water Vapor" Factor In warm areas (like the tropics), water vapor is the heavyweight champion of greenhouse gases. It is everywhere and absorbs many of the same frequencies of heat that does. In Warm Air: Water vapor "masks" the effect of . Adding more in a humid jungle doesn't change much because the water vapor is already catching that heat. In Cold Air: Cold air is very dry. In places like the Arctic, Antarctic, or the high upper atmosphere, water vapor vanishes. This leaves the "windows" open for heat to escape, and moves in to shut them. This is why we see the most dramatic warming at the Earth's poles rather than the equator—it's where has the most "work" to do. 2. The Logarithmic Nature of If you are thinking that was "better" at trapping heat in the past (when the Earth was cooler or levels were lower), you are technically correct regarding marginal utility. Greenhouse gases follow a logarithmic relationship. This means: The first 100 ppm of added to a cold, empty atmosphere has a massive warming effect. The next 100 ppm has a slightly smaller effect because the specific "wavelengths" of heat that likes to catch are already becoming "saturated." 3. The "Top of the Atmosphere" Effect The most important part of the story happens about 10km up, in the Troposphere, where it is incredibly cold (roughly °C). Heat tries to escape to space from this high, cold layer. Because it is so cold there, molecules are very efficient at absorbing the specific type of long-wave infrared radiation Earth emits. As we add more , we push the "point of escape" even higher into even colder air. The colder the "point of escape" is, the less heat the Earth can vent into space. Summary Table Feature Warm/Humid Environment Cold/Dry Environment Main Greenhouse Gas Water Vapor ( ) Carbon Dioxide ( ) Impact Moderate (Overlapped by ) High (Dominant gas) Heat Escape Blocked by clouds/humidity Controlled by levels Would you like me to dive deeper into why the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet (Polar Amplification), or would you prefer to look at the specific infrared "absorption bands" uses? You are touching on a very sophisticated part of climate physics. While a single molecule of always vibrates and absorbs energy the same way, you are correct that is significantly more "potent" as a greenhouse gas in colder, drier conditions. Here is the breakdown of why performs "better" at trapping heat when the temperature drops. 1. The "Dry Window" Effect In warm environments, water This is why is more effective in the cold: It doesn't have to compete with water vapor for the same heat energy. 2. The Planck Feedback (The "Cold Radiator" Problem) This is a bit counter-intuitive, but it’s a law of physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). Hot objects radiate energy away very quickly ( ). Cold objects radiate energy away very slowly. When traps heat in a cold region (like the Arctic or the upper atmosphere), it prevents the Earth from shedding heat from a place that was already struggling to radiate energy away. Because the "exhaust pipe" for heat is already restricted by the cold, the added insulation of has a much larger relative impact on the local temperature than it does in the tropics. 3. Vertical Temperature Gradient (Lapse Rate) The greenhouse effect actually depends on the temperature difference between the ground and the top of the atmosphere. traps heat at high, cold altitudes. Because those altitudes are so cold, they don't "want" to radiate heat out to space. By making the layer thicker in these cold zones, we force the Earth to warm up significantly more at the surface to "push" enough energy through that cold block to maintain equilibrium. Why this matters right now: Polar Amplification This is exactly why the Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the planet. The Arctic is cold and dry. There is no water vapor to mask the . Therefore, every new molecule of added to the atmosphere has its "maximum" heat-trapping power in that specific environment. Would you like to see a comparison of how much more warming happens at the Poles versus the Equator due to this effect? It does trap heat. If it did not their would be no greenhouse effect from co2.

It traps heat more effectively at lower temperatures which is why Thailand has not been warming for 20 years.

Three reasons being women, money and climate.

Your understanding of carbon dioxide is wrong. It is only good at trapping heat at low temperatures. This is why Thai cities have shown very little warming for 20 to 30 years. The climate models produced 20 years ago were based on straight line increases so are wrong.

I know what data looks like and people vote with their feet. Thai cities are 5 to 20 degrees warmer than most world cities. If you did not like warming and were concerned you would not be living in Thailand. So your lifestyle is pro hot but you preach carbon dioxide theories. Do as I say not what I do. A concerned world citizen would never move to Thailand.

AI is cut and paste from google. It shows the most easy to access data which comes from alarmists. Korat was hotter in 1979 than 2022. The co2 theory is obviously <deleted>.

https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/ws-484550.html Phuket Airport was much warmer for several years in the 90s than 2023. 96 to 2004 were all warmer than 2020 to 2023. Clear cooling trend. When are the climate scientists going to address this issue? You can't lie to the public for 20 years and not get called on it.

AI is not science. I posted a link that shows cooling in many Thai cities. Some even show cooling since 1980. You did not even know warming is not uniform around the globe. That's how much you have investigated the data. AI picks up on the most easy to find sites on google which are all alarmist and not factual.

What is wrong with warming? Sweden is freezing cold.