34 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

https://macaubusiness.com/sweden-sees-record-cold-as-temperatures-plunge-below-40-celsius/

“It is the lowest temperature that has been recorded in this specific spot since measurements began” at the site in 1888, he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sweden-ap-denmark-swedish-lapland-copenhagen-b2472544.html

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-coldest-temperature-in-50-years

you were saying ?

He prefers his 36 year Victorian Alps record which is half the age of people here.

2 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Phuket Airport temperatures have cooled since 2001. That is over 20 years of data. Most Thai cities have shown cooling since 2010 or 2001 as well.

You can't explain it and nor can anyone else. You even falsely claimed warming was universal but we knew decades ago it warms more at the poles.

AI disagrees with you: I asked Gemini if Phuket had cooled.

"In short: No, Phuket has not cooled. In fact, like most of Thailand, it has become notably warmer over the last 25 years".

I would much rather trust AI's intelligence than yours.

9 hours ago, khaosokman said:

The world population has increased 2.2bn in 26 years.

If carbon dioxide is so dangerous why aren't people dying in their millions?

because CO2 isn't toxic!!

1 hour ago, khaosokman said:

He prefers his 36 year Victorian Alps record which is half the age of people here.

Does that make you 72YO?

As Harrisfan you claimed to be 55YO!

2 hours ago, mordothailand said:

https://macaubusiness.com/sweden-sees-record-cold-as-temperatures-plunge-below-40-celsius/

“It is the lowest temperature that has been recorded in this specific spot since measurements began” at the site in 1888, he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sweden-ap-denmark-swedish-lapland-copenhagen-b2472544.html

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-coldest-temperature-in-50-years

you were saying ?

I am saying cherrypicking a one-off event against an overall warming trend is arrant stupidity.

Ask any AI, Sweden is getting warmer.

Quote: "Average Rise: Since the late 1980s, almost every year has been warmer than the historical average. The annual mean temperature in Sweden has risen by nearly 2∘C compared to the late 19th century, with a steep climb since 2000."

A few posters here demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect beautifully.

51 minutes ago, kwilco said:

because CO2 isn't toxic!!

So what seems to be the problem with it?

44 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am saying cherrypicking a one-off event against an overall warming trend is arrant stupidity.

Ask any AI, Sweden is getting warmer.

Quote: "Average Rise: Since the late 1980s, almost every year has been warmer than the historical average. The annual mean temperature in Sweden has risen by nearly 2∘C compared to the late 19th century, with a steep climb since 2000."

What is wrong with warming? Sweden is freezing cold.

56 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

AI disagrees with you: I asked Gemini if Phuket had cooled.

"In short: No, Phuket has not cooled. In fact, like most of Thailand, it has become notably warmer over the last 25 years".

I would much rather trust AI's intelligence than yours.

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.

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.

14 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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.

Ai is not science. AI is data. A lot more data than any stray conspiracy websites you may haunt.

I can't help it if you don't understand data, trends and basic thermodynamics.

Now run along, there's a good chap. Bore someone else.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Ai is not science. AI is data. A lot more data than any stray conspiracy websites you may haunt.

I can't help it if you don't understand data, trends and basic thermodynamics.

No run along, there's a good chap. Bore someone else.

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>.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Ai is not science. AI is data. A lot more data than any stray conspiracy websites you may haunt.

I can't help it if you don't understand data, trends and basic thermodynamics.

Now run along, there's a good chap. Bore someone else.

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.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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>.

Carbon dioxide is transparent to incoming short wave length radiation. As the Earth returns longer wave length radiation to space, specific infra-red wavelengths are absorbed by carbon dioxide. You have heard of infra-red ovens, right? That's what happens when carbon dioxide gets back to its ground state, shedding the energy it has absorbed as heat.

That's not theory, it is basic physics. Which you obviously never studied, along with statistics.

Just now, Lacessit said:

Carbon dioxide is transparent to incoming short wave length radiation. As the Earth returns longer wave length radiation to space, specific infra-red wavelengths are absorbed by carbon dioxide. You have heard of infra-red ovens, right? That's what happens when carbon dioxide gets back to its ground state, shedding the energy it has absorbed as heat.

That's not theory, it is basic physics. Which you obviously never studied, along with statistics.

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.

10 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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.

Most foreigners are here because of economic arbitrage. I will leave you to work out what that means.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Most foreigners are here because of economic arbitrage. I will leave you to work out what that means.

Three reasons being women, money and climate.

5 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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.

It actually does it at all temps as this explains...................https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

Just now, fredwiggy said:

It actually does it at all temps as this explains...................https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

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

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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.

Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. It emits it when it absorbs infra-red radiation, trying to get back to its ground state. Can't you read?

Let me know when you are finished re-writing the topics of chemistry and physics. Should be good for a chuckle.

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Most foreigners are here because of economic arbitrage. I will leave you to work out what that means.

It means that you are show off with no understanding of expats in Thailand!

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. It emits it when it absorbs infra-red radiation, trying to get back to its ground state. Can't you read?

Let me know when you are finished re-writing the topics of chemistry and physics. Should be good for a chuckle.

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

  6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

  Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. It emits it when it absorbs infra-red radiation, trying to get back to its ground state. Can't you read?

  Let me know when you are finished re-writing the topics of chemistry and physics. Should be good for a chuckle.

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.

---

Key Takeaway:

doesn't physically change its heat-trapping ability based on temperature, but it is most impactful in cold, dry environments where it doesn't have to compete with water vapor and where it dictates the "exit point" for Earth's heat.

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).

1. Heat tries to escape to space from this high, cold layer.

2. Because it is so cold there,

   molecules are very efficient at absorbing the specific type of long-wave infrared radiation Earth emits.

3. 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

Analogy: Adding

to a warm, humid atmosphere is like putting a second blanket on a bed that already has a thick duvet. Adding

to a cold, dry atmosphere is like putting a blanket on someone who was previously shivering in a t-shirt.

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.

1. The Arctic is cold and dry.

2. There is no water vapor to mask the

   .

3. Therefore, every new molecule of

   added to the atmosphere has its "maximum" heat-trapping power in that specific environment.

Summary:

doesn't change its physical nature in the cold, but it becomes the dominant controller of heat because its "competition" (water vapor) has disappeared.

Would you like to see a comparison of how much more warming happens at the Poles versus the Equator due to this effect?

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. It emits it when it absorbs infra-red radiation, trying to get back to its ground state. Can't you read?

Let me know when you are finished re-writing the topics of chemistry and physics. Should be good for a chuckle.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. It emits it when it absorbs infra-red radiation, trying to get back to its ground state. Can't you read?

Let me know when you are finished re-writing the topics of chemistry and physics. Should be good for a chuckle.

It does trap heat. If it did not their would be no greenhouse effect from co2.

This has always been a good website regarding this topic....................https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/carbon-dioxide/

5 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Would you like to see a comparison of how much more warming happens at the Poles versus the Equator due to this effect?

NO!

Why post all that meaningless AI verbiage (without any acknowledgment) when a simple pointless quote would have sufficed!

7 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The earth is showing effects of warming. It takes quite awhile to raise temps but just a couple of degrees.This is from the same website... Freezing temps in the usual areas doesn't mean the earth isn't showing effects of warming. I knew this would happen when they started to wipe out trees in the Amazon Basin. They are there for a reason, along with the cutting down of trees worldwide.............https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/..

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

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The earth is showing effects of warming. It takes quite awhile to raise temps but just a couple of degrees.This is from the same website... Freezing temps in the usual areas doesn't mean the earth isn't showing effects of warming. I knew this would happen when they started to wipe out trees in the Amazon Basin. They are there for a reason, along with the cutting down of trees worldwide.............https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/..

The Chinese have built 2000 dams on the Himalayan Plateau, with more coming into service every decade.

Snow melt from the Himalayas feeds the river systems of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Mekong. 1 billion people are dependent on those rivers.

If the world thinks economic migration is unprecedented, it is only the overture.

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

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

The earth was warmer many centuries ago but this will explain what is happening now, and what to expect. .......................This was mentioned many years ago also....................(1) Rapidity: Looking at maximum temperatures reached in the past that exceed where we are (or where we're going in the very near future) misses the point that the rate of change is remarkably different with modern anthropogenic climate change happening at an unprecedentedly fast rate The extent to which natural or human systems can adapt to change fundamentally depend on the rate. Focusing on the natural world for a moment, there are a myriad of results that indicate that the rate of environmental change (whether that be temperature, sea level, precipitation amounts, time of year of precipitation, etc) dramatically outpaces the ability for many species to adapt or move as just one of literally hundreds of papers discussing similar results). From a purely pragmatic "will humans survive" perspective, the extinction of a variety of organisms may seem unimportant, but it is crucial to remember that much of our food infrastructure and other systems critically depends on a variety of organisms that will be impacted. Ignoring that for a moment, humans are generally more efficient at / able to do some of these types of adaptations or responses, but that is not to say it will not be incredibly disruptive, i.e. populations of humans are more mobile than coral reefs, but mass migration , often across borders, is incredibly disruptive and complicated While it misses much of the subtlety, a simple analogy for this point is that looking at the maximum temperature of the past and the temperature today while ignoring the rate and arguing that the current situation is not problematic because it's been hotter in the past, is akin to arguing that being relatively gradually accelerated and decelerated up to and down from a few hundred of miles per hour in an airplane is the same as being shot out of a cannon into a brick wall. The starting and ending speeds are the same, but the rates are critically important for the survivability.

(2) Human History: If you look at the graph you linked to, it's also critical to remember that we as a species have experienced a laughably short portion of that temperature history (modern Homo Sapiens appeared ~300,000 years ago) and most importantly, the development of anything resembling a civilization (i.e. permanent settlements, agriculture, etc) didn't appear until ~10,000 years ago, which you'll notice is basically the super stable temperature history that defines the Holocene. In short, human civilization has never experienced the temperatures and variability in climate that we are entering and that last point is key, climate change is a lot more than an increase in temperature, it is wholesale shifts in the variability of a variety of climate variables. If we look to our past, moderately severe and extended climate disruptions that were regional (as opposed to the global ones we are starting to see and can expect more of in the future) and potentially not as extreme as some of the more dire projections for our future, led to extremely negative outcomes (e.g. famines, state collapses

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Chinese have built 2000 dams on the Himalayan Plateau, with more coming into service every decade.

Snow melt from the Himalayas feeds the river systems of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Mekong. 1 billion people are dependent on those rivers.

If the world thinks economic migration is unprecedented, it is only the overture.

Those dams are both a blessing and a curse. and more of a curse, especially the amount on the Mekong, as it effects the livelihood of the people downstream.

1 hour ago, khaosokman said:

an Alps record which is half the

34 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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).

1. Heat tries to escape to space from this high, cold layer.

2. Because it is so cold there,

   molecules are very efficient at absorbing the specific type of long-wave infrared radiation Earth emits.

3. 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.

1. The Arctic is cold and dry.

2. There is no water vapor to mask the

   .

3. 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.

Pages and pages. Water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, globally.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

The earth was warmer many centuries ago but this will explain what is happening now, and what to expect. .......................This was mentioned many years ago also....................(1) Rapidity: Looking at maximum temperatures reached in the past that exceed where we are (or where we're going in the very near future) misses the point that the rate of change is remarkably different with modern anthropogenic climate change happening at an unprecedentedly fast rate The extent to which natural or human systems can adapt to change fundamentally depend on the rate. Focusing on the natural world for a moment, there are a myriad of results that indicate that the rate of environmental change (whether that be temperature, sea level, precipitation amounts, time of year of precipitation, etc) dramatically outpaces the ability for many species to adapt or move as just one of literally hundreds of papers discussing similar results). From a purely pragmatic "will humans survive" perspective, the extinction of a variety of organisms may seem unimportant, but it is crucial to remember that much of our food infrastructure and other systems critically depends on a variety of organisms that will be impacted. Ignoring that for a moment, humans are generally more efficient at / able to do some of these types of adaptations or responses, but that is not to say it will not be incredibly disruptive, i.e. populations of humans are more mobile than coral reefs, but mass migration , often across borders, is incredibly disruptive and complicated While it misses much of the subtlety, a simple analogy for this point is that looking at the maximum temperature of the past and the temperature today while ignoring the rate and arguing that the current situation is not problematic because it's been hotter in the past, is akin to arguing that being relatively gradually accelerated and decelerated up to and down from a few hundred of miles per hour in an airplane is the same as being shot out of a cannon into a brick wall. The starting and ending speeds are the same, but the rates are critically important for the survivability.

(2) Human History: If you look at the graph you linked to, it's also critical to remember that we as a species have experienced a laughably short portion of that temperature history (modern Homo Sapiens appeared ~300,000 years ago) and most importantly, the development of anything resembling a civilization (i.e. permanent settlements, agriculture, etc) didn't appear until ~10,000 years ago, which you'll notice is basically the super stable temperature history that defines the Holocene. In short, human civilization has never experienced the temperatures and variability in climate that we are entering and that last point is key, climate change is a lot more than an increase in temperature, it is wholesale shifts in the variability of a variety of climate variables. If we look to our past, moderately severe and extended climate disruptions that were regional (as opposed to the global ones we are starting to see and can expect more of in the future) and potentially not as extreme as some of the more dire projections for our future, led to extremely negative outcomes (e.g. famines, state collapses

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.