I have not questioned these claims, so please post something relevant to what I claim if you answer my postings Fine. I specify the time as arbitrary large (the optimal temperature is about a stable state). To compute a stable state is always easier than to compute a change in time. Then, the assumption about human civilization is that it is on the actual technical level. So, the two factors you have chosen to name (one could guess because they are the most important ones) have been already specified in my definition. Of course, there may be others. But, once you acknowledge that they can handle the factors that matter, this is not a big problem. So what? Problem computing averages? But they can do it, of course. In computer simulations, one can always compute stable solutions. And the very point of computing the optimal temperature is that this allows distinguishing the problems of the climate itself from the problems with adaptation to the new climate if the change happens too fast. No. Learn to read. And learn how to critizise in a civilized form. That means, "typical alarmism" is not enough, once the reader cannot guess what I have named "typical alarmism". So, a naive reader could guess I have really questioned if some AGW is currently underway, or claimed something completely nonsensical like that some AGW has already happened before. No. Your claims, which have never been supported here by a single reference to scientific research, are alarmism. I have no doubt that I can find with a quick net search a lot of alarmist sites. So what? It means you will get some hundreds of resulting numbers for humans which could possibly survive on Earth. Any problem with computing various averages out of this? Anyway, even if the variations would be large, one could compute maximum, minimum, median, average, and for each of them compute an ideal temperature. I doubt that they will vary very much. And I doubt that even a single one will be below the actual one.