If we all would still be living the tribal life... — Benkei

If wishes were horses...

the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution. If we were still fishing with sailing boats and hemp ropes and nets, the population would not have been growing at the rate it has, and we would not be as numerous as we are, nor as totally fucked as we are, and there would still be lots of fish in the sea. But Steel hawsers and plastic nets are a thing, and I have to carefully sort the seaweed I put on my garden to decontaminate it.

I'm not advocating a massive cull of humanity, I'm predicting one.

Climate models have long predicted that a warming world would lead to higher humidity, because warmer air evaporates more water from Earth’s surface and can hold more moisture. The consequences of more humid heat include greater stress on the human body, increased odds of more extreme rainfall, warmer nights and higher cooling demand.
With only a few days left in meteorological summer, defined as June to August, this summer is on track to be the most humid in the United States in 85 years of recordkeeping based on observations of dew point — a measure of humidity — compiled by Hudson Valley meteorologist Ben Noll. It’s also likely to end up being the most humid summer globally, Alaska-based climate scientist Brian Brettschneider said in an email to The Washington Post.
If both trends hold, then five of the most humid summers in both the United States and worldwide will have occurred since 1998

—WaPo

the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution — unenlightened

I thought it was the invention of fertilizer. The global population begins its exponential rise around then.

I'm not sure what you mean, as you give no date or reference.

If you mean the invention of artificial fertiliser, then the 1900s seems very late date. Natural fertilisers were in use from Roman times and before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fertilizer

But agricultural industrialisation began alongside the industrialisation of production with horse drawn machines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)

Ok, not fertilizer. I was thinking of Jethro Tull, so you're right, it was about industrialization:

"Jethro Tull's invention of the seed drill contributed to the population increase during the British Agricultural Revolution:
Seed drill
Tull's horse-drawn seed drill allowed farmers to plant seeds in straight rows, which increased the amount of seeds that germinated. The seeds were planted below the ground, out of reach of wind and birds.
Agricultural Revolution
The seed drill allowed farmers to cultivate larger areas and produce more food, which led to a population increase.
Modern agriculture
Tull's methods were adopted by many landowners and helped to establish the basis for modern agriculture." -- google AI

, , human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time.
Transitions by hunting/gathering ... tool use/making ... farming helped increase growth when the population was much lower.
It was with the industrialization (starting, let's just say, around 1800) that anthropogenic effects went global. (and we started infecting the Moon and Mars as well :wink:)
I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities.

I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities. — jorndoe

I don't know, millions of Americans faithfully put their garbage into recycling bins, not realizing that there are limited options for doing anything with all that material. China used to take a large portion of American recyclables, but not anymore. In other words, caring doesn't necessarily equal beneficial action.

human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time. — jorndoe

Sure it has. Exponential growth is what happens to populations until a constraint or limit halts it. As long as there were new worlds to conquer, new environments to exploit, new technologies to use, new resources of energy, new more intensive farming methods, human exponential growth has continued - give or take a few hiccups - plagues, famines and so on. But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on.

But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on. — unenlightened

World population likely to shrink after mid-century

Improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility, and world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study published in The Lancet.

[ Also people with a higher standard of living tend to have less children. Or is it that having less children gives you a higher standard of living? ]

By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies

By century's end 23 countries will see populations shrink by more than 50%, including Japan, Thailand, Italy, and Spain.

Continued global population growth through the century is no longer the most likely trajectory for the world's population.

This looks far too rosy to me.

You ever plot something you think is linear and found out it ain't?

The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't)

The new analysis predicts that the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates.

The latest (2019) UN Population Division report estimates that world population is likely to reach 10.88 billion by 2100.

Population forecasts from UN Population Division use just past time trends as the determinant of future trajectories for fertility and mortality. So population forecasts from the UN Population Division are more linear than the new analysis.

In the new study researchers developed a statistical modelling strategy that use past and forecasted trends in drivers of fertility (education and met need for modern contraceptives), mortality (sociodemographic variables and more than 70 risk factors for disease) and migration (sociodemographic variables, deaths due to conflict and natural disasters, and the difference between birth and death rates). Also, their model incorporates uncertainty about migration and accounts for women delaying childbirth as they become more educated.

The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't) — Moliere

The new analysis attempts to handle the situation where a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate.

Population forecasts from UN Population Division don't attempt to handle these situations.

Scientists have captured Earth’s climate over the last 485 million years

These are selected quotes from an article in The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet

There is no doubt that Alarmists will interpret this information in a catastrophic way.

An ambitious effort to understand the Earth’s climate over the past 485 million years has revealed a history of wild shifts and far hotter temperatures than scientists previously realized — offering a reminder of how much change the planet has already endured and a warning about the unprecedented rate of warming caused by humans.

At its hottest, the study suggests, the Earth’s average temperature reached 96.8 degrees Fahrenheit (36 degrees Celsius) — far higher than the historic 58.96 F (14.98 C) the planet hit last year.

At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C).

Temperatures began to slowly decline over the next 30 million years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide was pulled from the air, before plummeting into what scientists call a coldhouse state around 444 million years ago. Ice sheets spread across the poles and global temperatures dropped more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).

Coldhouse climates — including our current one — prevailed just 13 percent of the time. [note - we are currently in a coldhouse climate]

This is one of the more sobering revelations of the research, Judd said. Life on Earth has endured climates far hotter than the one people are now creating through planet-warming emissions.

Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability.

Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability. — Agree-to-Disagree

True. It's crazy that anyone ever believed that the earth would cease to be habitable due to anthropogenic climate change.

We still need to switch to fusion though.

A claim nobody ever has made.

Judd said the timeline should serve as a wake-up call. Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability. But it will create conditions unlike anything seen in the 300,000 years our species has existed — conditions that could wreak havoc through ecosystems and communities.

We're talking about mass displacement due to flooding and droughts, food shortages due to failed crops, more violent weather, supply chain disruptions, fresh water shortages, increased likelihood of wars for scarce resources etc.

It's crazy that anyone ever believed that the earth would cease to be habitable due to anthropogenic climate change. — frank

There are only 2 sane people in the world, you and me. And I am beginning to have my doubts about you. :grin:

There are many crazy people around. Probably more crazy people than sane ones. Unfortunately the crazy ones have convinced young people that there is no future for them.

A claim nobody ever has made. — Benkei

Certainly no one who was particularly well informed.

Unfortunately the crazy ones have convinced young people that there is no future for them. — Agree-to-Disagree

Eh, the world is always ending. We endure.

Don’t waste too much time with climate deniers. Ignore feature works great. That’s my recommendation.

Anyway— yes, for denialists who don’t understand a single thing climate scientists say, but want to sound as if they alone have special knowledge, it’s important to develop the strawman of “they think the world will end in 12 years!”

Idiots are gonna idiot.

Don’t waste too much time with climate deniers. — Mikie

You seem to waste a lot of time Mikie. :grin:

Question: What do you call somebody who calls people "deniers" even though they don't deny climate change?

Answer: Mikie. :vomit:

Britain’s last coal-fired electricity plant is closing. It ends 142 years of coal power in the UK
^{— Jill Lawless · AP · Sep 30, 2024}

UK to shut last coal-fired power plant | WION Climate Tracker
^{— WION · Sep 19, 2024 · 3m:56s}

That's cool, except China is in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants. :sad:

At the timeline’s start, some 485 million years ago, Earth was in what is known as a hothouse climate, with no polar ice caps and average temperatures above 86 F (30 C). — Agree-to-Disagree

Amphibians evolved about 360 million years ago. So aside from the earliest insects there was no animal life on land 485 MYA.

Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F? (It is paywalled, so I haven't looked at the article itself.)

Do you think that article suggests that most of the animal life on land that is larger than an insect wouldn't go extinct if the average temperature was above 86 F? — wonderer1

I like to work in degrees Celsius. Your temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit is the same as 30 degrees Celsius.

Here are the average summer temperatures for the hottest countries in the world. They are in degrees Celsius and are sorted from the hottest country to the coldest country.

- Kuwait 44.5
- Iraq 42.2
- United Arab Emirates 40.6
- Chad 40.5
- Qatar 40.4
- Sudan 39.9
- Niger 39.6
- Pakistan 39.3
- Mali 38.8
- Saudi Arabia 38.3

About 397 million people live in these countries. That is over 5% (over 1 in 20) of the total human population.

Remember that we have had about 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming over the last 100 years. So these places were hot even before global warming started.

As far as I know the human species and most of the animal life on land have not gone extinct in these countries.

The normal human body temperature range is typically stated as 36.5–37.5 °C (97.7–99.5 °F). Because movement, digestion circulation and all life processes generate heat, at ambient temperatures above 30°C the human body needs to cool itself by sweating even at rest, to avoid heat stroke. The effectiveness of sweating as a cooling response is reduced by humidity. The recommended sleeping ambient temperature is 18 - 20°C

Kuwait, in the summer (June, July, August) the nighttime temperature rarely falls below 29°C.
The average high these same months is 45°C. Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. With air-conditioning, wot me worry about climate change?

https://weatherspark.com/y/150245/Average-Weather-in-Kuwait-Year-Round#Figures-ColorTemperature

Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. — unenlightened

For a country that is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" the population growth is very high.

In the year 2000 the population of Kuwait was 1,991,674
In the year 2023 the population of Kuwait was 4,349,380

That is an increase of 2,357,706 people in 23 years. The population is now 218% of the population in the year 2000. The population has more than doubled since 2000.

Why is the population of Kuwait going up so fast when Kuwait is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" ?

At this point, to be a climate denier takes really hard work. Must be like playing whack-a-mole. Unprecedented heat, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.— but nah, nothing to see. Or it’s all “natural,” so no need to care about emissions. Or it’s “not so bad,” because it probably won’t wipe out every human.

I was thinking of a good film metaphor for all this— and of course Don’t Look Up was a good one, but there has also been another staring us in the face for 50 years: Jaws.

Try picturing the shark as climate change, and it all makes sense. And Republicans are still the mayor.

Why is the population of Kuwait going up so fast when Kuwait is supposedly "already more or less human uninhabitable in summer" ? — Agree-to-Disagree

I already told you. Air conditioning.

I already told you. Air conditioning. — unenlightened

Air conditioning demand in Kuwait 2011-2021
Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 22, 2024

In 2021, the demand for air conditioning devices in Kuwait amounted to approximately 133 thousand units, the second lowest number of the past decade. Within the observed period, demand for air conditioning peaked in 2015 at approximately 225 thousand units, but has been on a downward trend since then. Especially the past three years saw a significant drop in demand for air conditioners, with 2020 marking the low-point of only 123 thousand units.

In Kuwait the demand for air conditioning devices is dropping significantly while the population is growing rapidly (doubled since 2000).

Your stated that:

Without air-conditioning, Kuwait is already more or less human uninhabitable in summer. — unenlightened

The statistics don't seem to support you claim.

You really are an idiotic argumentative twerp.

The world's hottest city whose coast can burn sea creatures to death and whose streets feature air conditioning has been branded "unliveable".

In happier times, Kuwait City was known as the "Marseilles of the Gulf", boasted a thriving fishing industry and was an attractive prospect for tourists.

But like so many of Britain's seaside towns, the hub has fallen on harder times in recent years - albeit for reasons that would be alien to anybody who has taken a shivering stroll on one of the UK's beauty spots.

On July 21, 2016, the Mitribah weather station in northern Kuwait registered a temperature of 54C (129F) – the third-highest reading in the world. The blistering Cerberus Heatwave Europe has just endured would hardly have raised an eyebrow in the Middle Eastern country.
On July 21, 2016, the Mitribah weather station in northern Kuwait registered a temperature of 54C (129F) – the third-highest reading in the world. The blistering Cerberus Heatwave Europe has just endured would hardly have raised an eyebrow in the Middle Eastern country.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1798490/world-s-hottest-city-where-streets-are-air-conditioned-spt

So demand for new air con units has fallen because it is so unliveable that tourists are avoiding it and the economy has declined along with new builds. But you couldn't work out that your evidence was evidence for exactly what I said, so you had to go posting it like you were in the right.

Idiot!

I think his point was that humans can and do adapt to desert conditions with extreme heat.

It's true. Some Spaniards wandered into El Malpais and died because they couldn't find water and their horse's hooves were damaged by the glass in the sand. Meanwhile, humans have been living there like Fremen for thousands of years.

I don't think this is really related to climate change, where volatility is the main problem, not heat.