It is important to understand that climate warming is a very big problem on a global scale. I live in Ukraine (Odessa) and I will give three examples from my climate zone.

1. Due to the warming climate in my region, farmers began to receive up to three potato harvests per season, instead of one. I hope you understand the level of problems with overproduction. This is a decrease in potato prices, this is the ruin of farmers...

2. Due to climate warming in my region, the consumption of natural gas for heating in winter has sharply decreased. At the same time, electricity consumption has also decreased. In my country, energy generating companies are monopolists. To maintain profits, the price of electricity has increased. This led to discontent among the population. These are no longer eco-nomic, but social problems.

3. We are at war and the Russians in winter wanted the peaceful people of Ukraine to die from the cold. Due to climate warming, this did not happen and peaceful people are against capitulation and, on the contrary, demand victory from the military. I think you understand the problem. The logic of war is being violated...

I think I was convincing.

Last year's ice must be preserved. To do this, you need to sprinkle it with sawdust or keep the ice underground.

The increase in temperature will influence many things, one of which is the atmospheric water balance. Melting ice, glaciers and snow will raise sea-levels, causing many low-laying cities and islands to become uninhabitable. Many areas will also become too hot and dry to allow sustained farming, leading to lowered food production and increased food prices and starvation. Forest fires will become more common, leading to a destruction of resources, homes and lives. Aquifers will also be drained quicker, leading to further depletion of water resources, likely affecting many areas in the US and Austrialia among others. This will prevent farming and food production.

Carl Alexander Frisk's assumptions should be read as assumptions.

The study of history is aimed at making correct assessments of the future. Look at the graph of temperature changes in the past (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/). Quote “70 million years ago, the Earth was in a warming phase. Along with the increase in the productivity of biological systems, the carbon dioxide content began to increase. Average temperatures reached 21-23 ° C. The carbon dioxide content was 2.5 times higher than today. Species diversity increased by 43%.

There is no doubt about rising sea levels and flooding of territories as a result of warming. However, the area of land suitable for comfortable living and growing food will increase. Look at the map of areas with permafrost (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/). Add the territories of Antarctica.

The most important. We have no reason to expect warming in the future, just as there is no explanation for the cooling of 1945-1975 (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/learning/whats-going-on-in-this-graph-feb -1-2023.html) and warming in 1997-1998 https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/

Look my discussion

"Why did the 1998 El Niño change the temperature trend quickly, but the sea level in the Atlantic and Pacific trend relatedly?"

In 1998 there was El Niño and there was an unprecedented change in the shape of the Earth. What is the reason for the 1 degree rise in temperature?

In 1998, a sharp change in the shape of the Earth from a ellipsoid to an ellipsoid spheroidbegan unexpectedly. What are the dynamics in recent years?

Why does the trend in ocean level change differ from the trend in global mean air temperature?.

The most important change is in the dew point which creates the rain clouds for our planet, which we just crossed that threshold this year.

We do not need to wait for another 1/10th of a degree increase in the average worldwide temp., we already crossed the tipping point that is going to stop the formations of rain clouds over large portions of the world.

The paradox, is in crossing this dew point barrier, we will concentrate the rain storms into more typhoons, hurricanes and cyclones, like the storm that sat on Greece then attacked Libya.

I have been watching for 20 years, the daily the image at https://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/latest_cmoll.gif and am amazed this year as the dew points worldwide changed, how few rain clouds are forming in the Amazon, over Australia, Europe, Asia, and North America. And when they do form, they create these torrential rainstorms and floods.

The dew point is the key, plus the Heat Index--we are quickly losing our planet's ability to create rain clouds, when we heat the atmosphere and at the same time eliminate the native plant cover that insulates the soil and makes the proper dew point for those clouds to form.

In the distant past, when the planet heated up, the vegetation could respond and reset the dew point to keep rainfall going. However, our species is wrecking both systems at the same time--heating the planet and chopping down the forests and having our domesticated animals eat up all of the insulating native grass cover, down to the bare sand.

You can read my proposal that was adopted by the Saudi government in 2010, where they set aside 500 million acres to plant 10 billion trees, to start to get their ecological systems back in shape, with their "Saudi Green Initiative" at https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html

This is nonsense.

Why is this nonsense? The PENTAGON who you work for, is the world's biggest single greenhouse gas emitter. AND "Climate change is a risk to national security", according to the Pentagon.

Since 2001, the US military has been responsible for 77 to 80 percent of federal energy consumption. The DOD maintains more than 560,000 buildings on about 500 bases around the world, making up a large portion of its emissions.

The Pentagon is preparing for climate change, when they sent out their press release on Oct 26, 2021 — Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks says the effects of climate change are already being felt. Storms have damaged U.S. bases for example.

So, are you personally saying that your bosses at the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense are wrong? https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049222045/the-pentagon-says-climate-change-is-having-a-negative-impact-on-national-security

Nonsense is when there are clouds over the Sahara deserts and the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula for two months in a row.

Maps in the infrared spectrum from my discussion "Could the clouds over the Sahara be a precursor to the January 2002 Nyiragongo eruption?"

Borys Kapochkin --I totally agree. I have been monitoring those changes for several years now, at https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool2.html

I worked at the Pentagon for six years. And, like every other government agency, they never miss an opportunity to say "the sky is falling, therefore give us more money."

If they can't frighten the crowds about threats from Moscow or China, they will use asteroids from space or renegade goat herders from Afganistan.

The universal reaction to climate worries is to limit production and trade while constricting human activities.

Every climate discussion leads to taking money out of the private sector and putting it (and therefore more authority) to "restrict and regulate" into the hands of life-long public officials.

History has shown that people, left to themselves, do quite well innovating their way around problems. History has also shown that the human condition tends to improve around periods of rising temperatures.

So I think we will all be just fine.

Stephen Martin Fritz. Your comment was supported by a scientist from Russia. Moreover, from the Peoples' Friendship University (synonymous with the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation). Moreover, he is a specialist in pathogenic microorganisms and epidemiology (you don’t need any comments). I don't know how to comment on this. Are you losing your qualifications?

A very important topic has accidentally emerged in the climate change debate. There is a continuous war going on in the world between groups of countries. Only sometimes does a war turn into an armed conflict. The climate problem is the manipulation of public opinion during an information war aimed at limiting the possibility of economic development of countries in the tropical equatorial zone. Agree that this is humane, this is not physical humiliation.

Manipulating a global issue to impose planned economic restrictions makes sense when the damage is to the enemy rather than to one's own interests. This is only possible if the cause of climate change does not cause debate (the reasons are simple and understandable). In this situation, it is permissible to “destroy” smart climate scientists and “feed” obedient and unprincipled climate scientists (tactically smart, but strategically stupid).

There has been a miscalculation regarding the global climate threat. The climate is changing, but the reason is not known. The consequences could also be negative for northern countries. When smart climate scientists are “liquidated,” the “obedient” (stupid) ones are unable to provide scientific support for the global long-term development plan. Government decisions can have disastrous consequences.