[alancalverd]

We didn't survive last time. Most of us weren't here 130,000 years ago (when [CO2] was rising as quickly as at present). The entire human population probably numbered less than 200,000. 

By 20,000 years ago the world was in the grip of the last ice age, so the UK at least was pretty well uninhabitable.

If nothing changes,  most of us won't survive the next 500 years either, because there are just too many of us for a hot world to support.

And when it starts to cool down again, religion and politics will precipitate mass slaughter as the northern tribes try to migrate southwards.

[Bored chemist]

Most of us weren't here 130,000 years ago (when [CO2] was rising as quickly as at present).

STOP SAYING THAT.

"Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years."
from
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

[alancalverd]

Regardless of the fine detail, the fact remains that 10¹⁰ humans have never been exposed to a global maximum temperature previously, so there is no evidence that "we survived it last time". On the contrary, the last 2000 years or so have seen small "experiments" in Iceland, Easter Island, the Sahara, Oklahoma, and so on, where a relatively small and short-term shift in climate either devastated the (previously resilient and sustainable) population or initiated a major and unpopular migration.

That is my primary concern, and one that nobody else seems to be taking seriously.

[Bored chemist]

Well done on missing the point and misinterpreting "we" in "we survived it last time".
You know perfectly well that I meant "humans survived it last time". Yes, the world is overpopulated.

It doesn't stop this

130,000 years ago (when [CO2] was rising as quickly as at present

being a lie.

[alancalverd]

"humans survived it last time".

Insert "some.." and note that even then, only because there were very few to start with, and they were highly mobile.

Repopulation won't be a problem over the next 100,000 years if any vestige of civilisation survives the Trumpf-Putain-Taliban era, but the intraspecies human carnage over the next five centuries will almost match the extinction of the dinosaurs, and our successors will have to compete with flies and cockroaches for food.   

[Bored chemist]

FFS!

Stop trying to miss the point.

It is not helpful to pretend "we humanity survived it last time".
There was no "last time".

[alancalverd]

I have never pretended or suggested that "humanity survived the last time". If it were so, I might not have consistently prophesied inevitable doom.

The last time temperatures were anywhere near this level was about 120,000 years ago. Whilst there is evidence of hominid fossils and stone tools dating back 300,000 years, it is also argued that the facial features would not be recognised as modern Man, and I tend towards to the view that if not homo sapiens , then at least what we recognise as civilisation, is a much more recent phenomenon, and in my view (which I have stated repeatedly) will not survive the next 500 years.

[Petrochemicals]

Every ice age, humans retreat to the Sahara, which becomes a lush and verdant vegetated paradise. Much like every "hot age" the cooler regions become viable living spaces. This of course happens over many many years, slower than buildings go out of fashion. No wonder Hair Trumpf wants to take over Greenland (which i assume he thinks is bigger than it is) and Canadia, they will soon be prime pieces of dwelling land.

[acsinuk (OP)]

The future does indeed look bleak if we cannot get the population explosion under control.  The stats in
 
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html 

The graph shows out of date trends but on right side we see that oil and coal are almost equal in tonnage used which is producing the CO2 and global warming.  This is because coal or wood/charcoal are used to economically produce the cement and steel for the construction industry which consumes almost 50% of all fossil fuel.
Notice only about 25% of fuel is used for transport, the other 25% of the gas/oil going to power plants to produce electricity to keep us warm at home.
Electric cars may save 0.5% of oil energy but we need to save 50%  by not having to build homes for the 700 million extra people being born each year.   The graph shows Asia as main contributor but we know that Africa also needs some family planning assistance which surely the UN can supply.

[alancalverd]

Every ice age, humans retreat to the Sahara,

Indeed, but how many? Certainly not  ten billion.

And the immediate problem is heat, not cold.

So it would make sense for defensible, cold, island nations (British Isles, New Zealand, Iceland....) to move to a sustainable population (Iceland and New Zealand are already there) and invest in their navies.

[Bored chemist]

The last time temperatures were anywhere near this level was...

...not important because it's the rate of change that matters.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Correction to my last post, just realized that I have written 700 million extra people need houses instead of 70 million per year.  But still, that means the world population is expanding each year by more people than live in the England.
Just imaging how much building is going on world wide each year and the amount of concrete and steel is needed!!

[alancalverd]

...not important because it's the rate of change that matters.

which was higher, and just as irrelevant, 240,000 years ago and several times in between.

Folk who keep picking over the minutiae are, I think, in panic denial of the obvious looming disaster. A very human failing: you  could sacrifice a chicken to placate the rain gods, or build a boat, but after 50,000 years of civilisation, politicians, climate "scientists" and "activists" just argue about whose chicken to sacrifice.   

[alancalverd]

Just imaging how much building is going on world wide each year and the amount of concrete and steel is needed!!

Thus generating almost as much CO2 as is needed to build electric cars. Not to mention railways to nowhere.

[Petrochemicals]

As i have said many times and many people before i was born,  the earth cannot sustain 10 billion at this level of resource use even without a catastrophe. The human population does experience mass reduction in numbers, the Toba volcano 80,000 years ago was thought to have been one. It was an extremely quick "ice age like" event. I would imagine if global warming happens to the extent that is touted, we could slowly move further north until the next ice age. But I think global warming is the least of mankind's 10bn people problems.

[acsinuk (OP)]

So we all agree that global population explosion must be reduced but how??
The UN is the obvious choice but they appear to have placed it in their TOO DIFFICULT tray.
Well, maybe Trump can put some pressure on them to educate ordinary people in the tremendous advantages of having small families; so their kids can inherit their houses thus slowing building
My view is UN should supply free contraception along side existing medical aid. Use their $6 billion on saving the planet.

[Bored chemist]

Well, maybe Trump can put some pressure on them

He will do that if he sees a personal profit in it.

My view is UN should supply free contraception along side existing medical aid.

Trump is cutting overseas aid, so he is doing the exact opposite of what you want to see.
The US president is not helping.

[alancalverd]

Frankly, most of the world is doomed by its adopted stupidity, but the British Isles are defensible and potentially sustainable by the simple procedure of paying women not to be pregnant, and the rather more difficult procedure of rebuilding the armed forces.

Trumpf's attitude to European affairs is consistent with American history in these matters - turn up late, and claim all the credit. It's a sideshow, but money talks, so many of my friends are simply boycotting American goods and services: McDonalds, Twitter, Esso, Tesla....you name it. It's good for your physical and mental health.

As for small families, the real President of the USA (Musk) has n children where n ≥ 13. Solution? He's part of the problem.

[Bored chemist]

British Isles are defensible

We got to test that shortly after Brexit- using covid.
It didn't go well.

if president Musk had 14 wives and 13 children, he might actually be helping...
But, he's not.

[alancalverd]

You don't defend an island by failing to quarantine anyone entering from a suspect country.

IIRC most of the United Kingdom was fairly well defended between 1939 and 1945. Indeed the main island had not actually been invaded since 1797, and not successfully since 1066, until 2018.