8 minutes ago, 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

Phew!

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

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.

The real issues have always been over population. if it continues to increase the same way, food, especially from the sea, will run out. Topsoil in critical areas is getting thinner. Some areas are incapable of farming but are necessary for climate. Warming temps, especially this rapid, will kill many species like it said, which will affect humans even more. People can adapt but population will kill everything. Zero population growth has to become a fact and not an idea.

4 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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.

If you care about having any credibility at all then you need to add links to backup your claims.

The link below estimates a global population peak of just over 10b by 2084, followed by a gradual decline.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/

Here's a similar one:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/09/5-facts-about-how-the-worlds-population-is-expected-to-change-by-2100/

See how easy it is?

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The real issues have always been over population. if it continues to increase the same way, food, especially from the sea, will run out. Topsoil in critical areas is getting thinner. Some areas are incapable of farming but are necessary for climate. Warming temps, especially this rapid, will kill many species like it said, which will affect humans even more. People can adapt but population will kill everything. Zero population growth has to become a fact and not an idea.

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.

Just now, nauseus said:

If you care about having any credibility at all then you need to add links to backup your claims.

The link below estimates a global population peak of just over 10b by 2084, followed by a gradual decline.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/

Here's a similar one:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/09/5-facts-about-how-the-worlds-population-is-expected-to-change-by-2100/

See how easy it is?

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. 

7 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The real issues have always been over population. if it continues to increase the same way, food, especially from the sea, will run out. Topsoil in critical areas is getting thinner. Some areas are incapable of farming but are necessary for climate. Warming temps, especially this rapid, will kill many species like it said, which will affect humans even more. People can adapt but population will kill everything. Zero population growth has to become a fact and not an idea.

Well, yes. The more of us there are then the worse mess we create.

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, yes. The more of us there are then the worse mess we create.

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

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Why do you believe their forecasts?

There are several more with similar numbers. The populations of large parts of the world are already declining.

My question to you must be why should I believe you? You only offer rants, not facts.

Just now, nauseus said:

There are several more with similar numbers. The populations of large parts of the world are already declining.

My question to you must be why should I believe you? You only offer rants, not facts.

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.

12 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The real issues have always been over population. if it continues to increase the same way, food, especially from the sea, will run out. Topsoil in critical areas is getting thinner. Some areas are incapable of farming but are necessary for climate. Warming temps, especially this rapid, will kill many species like it said, which will affect humans even more. People can adapt but population will kill everything. Zero population growth has to become a fact and not an idea.

Populations in China, Russia, Asia in general, and Eastern Europe are shrinking. Most excess fertility is in the sub-Saharan African states.

11 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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. 

You've just done it again. I can't read that because I don't know where it's been. Disgusting!

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

7 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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.

Maybe if there had not been so many advances in food production already then there might not have been these 2b extra hungry mouths today? Ever think about that?

3 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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

Well that'll knock your 15b forecast about a bit, eh?

Just now, nauseus said:

Well that'll knock your 15b forecast about a bit, eh?

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

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Maybe if there had not been so many advances in food production already then there might not have been these 2b extra hungry mouths today? Ever think about that?

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

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Hopefully it's near your bedtime now.

700m people pre fossil

8.3bn now

Mr and Mrs Oil and Mr and Mrs Coal had a lot of babies

46 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

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

You won't as you and the rest of us will all be dead!

56 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

It's just an estimate and the actual number does not matter.

Then why post them if they don't matter?

2 hours ago, khaosokman said:

AI is not science.

Then why keep posting your endless diatribes from it?

2 hours ago, 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.

water vapor makes up for almost all of it, and the small band where co2 has any effect is also covered by water vapor

1 minute ago, mordothailand said:

water vapor makes up for almost all of it, and the small band where co2 has any effect is also covered by water vapor

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.

4 hours 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."

why did you bother with bringing up random australia temp then ?

On 2/15/2026 at 7:16 AM, Bday Prang said:

unlikely ,as despite the scaremongering , it ain't happening tomorrow , all on this forum will be long dead and buried before any of these doom and gloom predictions come to pass, if they ever do.

Wasn't most of the world supposed to be underwater some time ago? and aren't we all supposed to be boiling in our own sweat by now ,?

when I was a kid we had a hole in the ozone and we were all going to die. The Earth is a living thing and is always changing.

We are currently in the Pleistocene Ice Age period.

3 hours ago, khaosokman said:

So what seems to be the problem with it?

So you don't even understand the basics of MMCC?

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So you don't even understand the basics of MMCC?

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

15 minutes ago, ericthai said:

when I was a kid we had a hole in the ozone and we were all going to die. The Earth is a living thing and is always changing.

We are currently in the Pleistocene Ice Age period.

The Pleistocene is defined as a geological epoch characterized by turbulent glacial and interglacial oscillations that preceded the current warm and stable Holocene epoch.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/pleistocene

10 minutes ago, ericthai said:

when I was a kid we had a hole in the ozone and we were all going to die. The Earth is a living thing and is always changing.

We are currently in the Pleistocene Ice Age period.

No, they didn't say that at all.... They saw it as part of climate change – the USA immediately banned the use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). which caused significant ozone layer depletion, leading to international phase-outs under the Montreal Protocol. The main fear was the excessive amount of UV radiation that would normally be deflected by the ozone layer – threatening the Earth's surface with dangerously high levels of ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. This reduction of the atmosphere's natural protective shield posed severe threats to human health, ecosystems, and materials.

As a result of the Montreal Protocol, the production and import of most CFCs have been banned in the United States and globally to allow the ozone layer to recover. and YES! Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is recovering, with the Antarctic hole expected to fully heal by approximately 2066. While signs of healing are clear, full recovery takes decades because CFCs linger in the atmosphere for 50–100 years.

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Pleistocene Ice Age

Currently we are in the Holocene Epoch, which began roughly 11,700 years ago after the last major glacial period of the Pleistocene ended. The Holocene is characterized by a warmer, more stable climate compared to the Pleistocene.  Unfortunately, man-made climate change (MMCC) is interfering with that, as you can already see with a destabilising climate.

Just now, kwilco said:

Currently we are in the Holocene Epoch, which began roughly 11,700 years ago after the last major glacial period of the Pleistocene ended. The Holocene is characterized by a warmer, more stable climate compared to the Pleistocene.  Unfortunately, man-made climate change (MMCC) is interfering with that, as you can already see with a destabilising climate.

If you had quoted me fully and properly you would see that I said all that (except for your final line) already!

Goldfishing?