@CB It takes 2.1 births per woman for population replacement. China is now down to 1.5. All of Europe is about 1.6, the US at 1.9. Even India is now down to 2.1. Brazil is 1.9. We will probably not hit 9 billion by 2050 and will begin a long decline after that.

#2
the rest of the 7.8 billion people up to the living standards of an average American? We have to expect the use of the world's total resources to have increased at an exponential rate.

The only way for this to be balanced is for the Americans and Europeans to consume much, much less. We have been pigging out for well over two centuries and are the source of the base load of CO2 in the environment. I remember walking to school in the mid fifties when the air was so filthy with smog it brought tears to my eyes and caused my nose to hurt.

As poorer nations come out of poverty, they are producing a fraction of the pollution and waste that we did due to more efficient production of steel, aluminum, power, food, transportation, etc, etc than we in America did.

Doubling the population at a cost of just quadrupling the use of resources in order to begin to bring the poorer 8/10ths of the world's population up to the economic standards of even the poorest American is a fucking bargain.

Look around at our cities and towns and how we live. The GDP of the US is over 62,000.00 per capita! Compare to the rest of the world:

China has far, far surpassed the US for getting more from less.

The GDP per person is now over $10,000 in China.

Common prosperity: China's poverty alleviation campaign

"The people yearn for a better life, and our goal is to help them achieve it."
- Chinese President Xi Jinping

2020 is set to be the year China eradicates poverty in the country and becomes a "moderately prosperous society in all respects." If China achieves this goal, it would be 10 years ahead of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal target of ending global poverty by 2030.
...
China has lifted more than 800 million people - 76 percent of the world's poor - out of poverty since the 1980s, contributing more than any other country to global poverty reduction. After this historic achievement, China is determined to help every last one of its poor, having made poverty alleviation a top agenda in the country's 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020).

"We must ensure that by the year 2020, all rural residents living below the current poverty line have been lifted out of poverty, and poverty is eliminated from all poor counties and regions," Chinese President Xi Jinping said while addressing the 19th CPC National Congress.
...
China's development is the development of Chinese people, and the country's leadership has a proven track record to show that. According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)'s Human Development report, since the Human Development Index (HDI) was introduced in 1990 China is the only country in the world to have moved from low development group to high development category.
...

@CB

#6
in reducing pollution from industrial and human activities. They will be able to respond much more rapidly to these problems than the United States due to having a command economy. The country can direct massive amounts of government funding in developing the technology and manpower towards ameliorating environmental problems.

China continues to clean up their environment on a scale and speed historically unmatched by their western counterparts.

China’s War on Pollution Will Change the World

China is cracking down on pollution like never before, with new green policies so hard-hitting and extensive they can be felt across the world, transforming everything from electric vehicle demand to commodities markets.

Four decades of breakneck economic growth turned China into the world’s biggest carbon emitter. But now the government is trying to change that without damaging the economy—and perhaps even use its green policies to become a leader in technological innovation. So, as lawmakers attend the annual National People’s Congress, here’s a look at the impact of the environmental focus, at home and abroad.
...

China is now #1 globally in renewables in patents, production and investment by factors of 1.5 to 3. In 2018 more electric vehicles were produced than the rest of the world combined. All the major cities now have electric buses and taxis. Many gasoline powered vehicles are banned in city centers. There are also 250 million electric 2-wheelers, 99% of the world's total, in China.

China also leads the world in tree planting. In 2018, 60,000 soldiers planted trees in Hebei province, which encircles Beijing, in an area equivalent to the size of Ireland.

China and India Lead the Way in Greening

The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India—the world’s most populous countries—are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.

Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. They then set out to track the total amount of Earth’s land area covered by vegetation and how it changed over time.

The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. Overall, one-third of Earth’s vegetated lands are greening, while 5 percent are growing browner. The study was published on February 11, 2019, in the journal Nature Sustainability.
...

@RantingRooster We have had the four things.

They have just been building toward a solar maximum (warming) not a minimum (cooling).

1.We have had a long term trend in declining cosmic rays since about 1700 (the Be10 graph below) causing warming.

2.We have had a long term trend in the increase of TSI (the TSI graph below) causing warming.

3.We know from Forbush decreases (coronal mass ejections that cause a decrease in cosmic radiation) that when these decreases are large enough, there is an immediate decrease in clouds within several days. So the theory has been proven by observation of its climatic effects as well as experimentally in the cloud chambers. Svensmark himself and his son have two papers on this. Attempts to debunk his papers have included minimal Forbush decreases and there is a threshold that has to be overcome to observe the negative effect on cloud formation. Also Nir Shaviv and Jon Vizer have shown the link to cosmic rays and climate in the geological record. High Be10 concentrations, as well as high C14 concentrations, and high Ti41 concentrations, (all produced by cosmic rays) all correspond in the geologic record to cold times.

4. We have had an increase in cloud cover since Solar cycle 23 began (solar winds began to slow down) and the increase in cloud cover has lasted through Solar cycle 24. The prediction for Solar cycle 25 is that it will be about the same as 24. These two cycles are much more representative of the past than those of the 20th century. And the expectation is for another one like them. After that, there is real disagreement among the experts.

The theory poses a huge measurement problem as well. Its effects are most likely to be observed in areas where there are very few means of measuring it. Over the oceans, in the southern hemisphere, at the poles, etc. We don't even have good measurements for temperature in these places, much less a means of documenting cloud cover.

It is also clear the solar physicists do not know which direction the sun is headed. Toward a real maximum (solar winds of perhaps 800 kilometers/sec instead of 600) that could really ramp up temperature or toward a real minimum (solar winds of 150 or 200 instead of 300)) which could put us in another mini-ice age.

Unfortunately Dr. Beckwith is quite typical of climatologists who know very little about the sun, cosmic rays, TSI, (UV significantly increases and decreases with TSI movement and that has huge implications for heat gain and loss) the ozone layer, and the shrinking of the atmosphere since Solar Cycle 23 began. If he knew about these things he would address them. It is obviously not his field. It's sad that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. But it is clear he doesn't want to. It's a classic case or wilful ignorance.

Rely on him if you want. I quit relying on these generalists who know little about the sun and space weather about ten years ago.

As for Skeptical Science, it has its opposition in the No-Trick Zone where hundreds of articles are logged in on the sun and its effect on climate. The last five years or so they literally have logged over a hundred a year if I recall correctly. Two can play that game of websites that link to papers supporting a position.

Don't think that the astrophysicists in the space agencies around the world don't know about this. The thermosphere of the earth has shrunk so much since Solar Cycle 23 that the drag on satellites has been severely reduced and they are staying in orbit far longer than anticipated. Creating space junk for one thing. And for another thing the thermosphere is reaching unprecedented cold for the Space Age.

#8

From SkepticalScience

"Henrik Svensmark has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures (Svensmark 1998). The theory goes that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, which are capable of seeding cloud formation on Earth. So if the solar magnetic field were to increase, fewer GCRs would reach Earth, seeding fewer low-level clouds, which are strongly reflective. Thus an increased solar magnetic field can indirectly decrease the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing the planet to warm. Therefore, in order for this theory to be plausible, all four of the following requirements must be true.

Solar magnetic field must have a long-term positive trend.
Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend.
Cosmic rays must successfully seed low-level clouds.
Low-level cloud cover must have a long-term negative trend."

Most recently from SkepticalScience.com, What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?

In short, the CERN experiment only tested one-third of one out of four requirements to blame global warming on cosmic rays. Additionally scientists have measured solar activity and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth, and neither meets the first two requirements listed above. Both solar magentic field strength and the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth have been flat over the past 50+ years

From PNAS.org (older article, I think from 2012, so it's a bit old)

The correlation is remarkable because the Earth’s climate has not been driven by the Sun alone. Other forcings like volcanoes, greenhouse gas concentrations, and internal variability also have played an important role. To quantify the solar influence on the Earth’s climate and to distinguish between the different forcings, climate model simulations are required for the Holocene, employing the new dataset of total solar irradiance"

And then there's this, from 2 years ago by Dr. Paul Beckwith,
[video:https://youtu.be/Bn9M-U1TcTY]

From Cern

“Direct effects of cosmic-ray ionisation on the formation of fair-weather clouds are highly speculative and almost completely unexplored experimentally,” says Kirkby. “So this run could be the most boring we’ve ever done – or the most exciting! We won’t know until we try, but by the end of the CLOUD experiment, we want to be able to answer definitively whether cosmic rays affect clouds and the climate, and not leave any stone unturned.”

(bold emphasis mine)

Until Kirby can actually prove his theory, he's just being a good scientist and not leaving any stone unturned, as he indicated. Imho, the theory is no where ready for main stream review, nor do I consider it in anyway an "elephant in the room".

Additionally as SkepticalScience indicated above, Kirby would still need to prove the remaining 2/3rd of one of the 4 requirements, and then satisfy the remaining 3 other requirements all together. So he's got his work cut out for him.

I won't rule it out completely, I did find more food for thought from PNAS, articles I found when searching for "climate change, cosmic rays", with publication dates between the years 2016-2019. (I have not gone through them so...)

@davidgmillsatty

          Others have already refuted Henrik Svensmark's work. I see no point in me simply citing other's critiques.

RIP

#9 See my posts above.

@Cassiodorus
when CO2 AND methane levels in the atmosphere were considerably greater than 410 PPM. In fact, the CO2 levels at the beginning of that era were already greater then the current level.

About climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide: today compared with PETM

Due to IPCC the climate sensitivity of CO₂ very likely is 3.0 ± 1.5 ℃ for each doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO₂.

Counting on earlier global warming using the Arrhenius formula [ΔT=λ·α·㏑(C/C₀)], global mean vs emissions of atmospheric CO₂, assumed mostly depending on CO₂, gives:

1970-2018 0.9 ℃ 325ppm,408ppm: sensitivity 2.74 ℃
PETM 5 ℃ 700ppm,2000ppm: sensitivity 3.30 ℃

I would say that we will be able to get things under full control within 100 years from the current advances being made - especially as shown by China.

Greta's plan to immediately cease using coal and other fossil fuels would destroy life as we know it. Starvation and disease would kill untold billions of people. Do you realize how much energy we need just to produce and transport food and material to keep us warm and safe from the elements - mankind's basic needs? Or how much energy we will need to make the transformation to a low carbon footprint?

According to NASA, the world has got 5% greener in the last 2 decades.

#10

We've been here before

Was there a time in human history when atmospheric carbon dioxide was more than 410 parts per million? The measurements say no.

@RantingRooster It is a graph of Be10 concentration from a Greenland ice core. Be10 is the best proxy for cosmic radiation. If Svensmark is right the earth was far cloudier in the last millennium than it was in the 20th century.

#10 #10
when comparing environmental factors of the distanct past vs today, because the timescales are so incredibly and dramatically different. The timescale and the rate of change today is much more compressed, a century or two vs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Especially when we're talking about a 4.5c rise in average temps globally.

From SkepticalScience.com

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of natural global warming that took place almost 56 million years ago. It came at a time when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was already higher than today, and global temperatures also much warmer. The PETM warming was a roughly 200,000-year long event where global temperatures rose by a further 6–8°C, and is thought to have been caused by a massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere."

(bold emphasis mine)
Snip

The authors find that the maximum PETM rate of emission for organic carbon as the source is equivalent to 6.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, and for methane as the source, 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. For comparison: 2010 human-carbon emissions were 30.6 billion tonnes. So if organic carbon was the source, current emissions are almost 5 times faster than the PETM, and if methane, current emissions are rising 27 times faster.

(bold emphasis mine)

My point I guess, is that the compressed timescale that change is happening today is much, much, quicker than in the distant past, which isn't giving many spices time to adapt.

When considering a 4.5c rise, another simple, yet not so obvious factor to consider is what is referred too as the Wet Bulb Effect,

"A sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, unclothed in the shade next to a fan; at this temperature our bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it."

In other words, high heat (95 degrees or higher) and a high humidity (100%) equals certain death. It's not the heat that kills you, as they say, "It's the humidity".

Then there's the Methane pulse is just on the horizon, a sudden release of large amounts of methane from the Permafrost regions of the planet. From ScientistWarning.Org,

"Even more troubling is that recently, researchers everywhere are finding that methane readings globally are going bonkers to quote those reporting on this. Others are noting a surging trend and recently, shocking data has emerged showing global atmospheric methane readings literally going off the charts."

And then we have Dr. Paul Beckwith, a Climate Systems Scientist, explains that a "Blue Ocean Event", will crush humanity like a bug.

[video:https://youtu.be/OH-rQyEoYew]

We are facing a plethora of variable factors, anyone of which could trigger runaway climate change, and a 4.5c rise in global "average" temp would mean we are already in "the event", as it were. Meaning there would be no stopping it.

From PNAS.Org

This analysis implies that, even if the Paris Accord target of a 1.5 °C to 2.0 °C rise in temperature is met, we cannot exclude the risk that a cascade of feedbacks could push the Earth System irreversibly onto a “Hothouse Earth” pathway.

One tipping point too many crossed, and it's a virtual cascade of tipping points and earth could be a Venus like planet in less than 100 years or so.

(edit, added 100% to high humidity)

@RantingRooster
accelerating over a period of only a few thousand years to a temperature rise of 8C. The PETM as a whole lasted 200,000 years (ie natural recovery time). I would say that we are now about 200 years into the industrial revolution which has started the current anthropogenic global warming.

I don't think we understand all the processes at play here. I'm not saying that we will survive unscathed. I mentioned 50-60% death rate of humans (mainly due to living in coastal areas) worst case if the situation is not rectified soon. But I see forces at work in ameliorating the situation. China, having replaced the US as the prime emitter of CO2 several decades ago, will be hitting peak emissions well before the Paris Accord of 2030 (possibly as soon as 2022 from reports). This is an important milestone because China emits about 27% of the global total CO2 compared to US 15%. The Power of Siberia gas pipeline has just been opened a month ago and this will replace a lot of China's coal fired electrical plants. Unfortunately, the US does not have the same priority. They are fighting to keep coal plants and saving the natural gas for export. (Fracking is a whole new pile of shit.)

At this time, without sequestration, the global temp rise will be about 2C if the Paris accord is followed and peak emissions are reached by 2030. If we plant 1.2 trillion trees in the next decade it would sequester about 10 years of CO2 emissions and give us a bit of breathing room.

The US is lagging behind in these efforts. Maybe it needs a few Cat 5 hurricanes across Florida and the East Coast the coming year as a wake up call?

#10 #10
when comparing environmental factors of the distanct past vs today, because the timescales are so incredibly and dramatically different. The timescale and the rate of change today is much more compressed, a century or two vs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Especially when we're talking about a 4.5c rise in average temps globally.

From SkepticalScience.com

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of natural global warming that took place almost 56 million years ago. It came at a time when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was already higher than today, and global temperatures also much warmer. The PETM warming was a roughly 200,000-year long event where global temperatures rose by a further 6–8°C, and is thought to have been caused by a massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere."

(bold emphasis mine)
Snip

The authors find that the maximum PETM rate of emission for organic carbon as the source is equivalent to 6.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, and for methane as the source, 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. For comparison: 2010 human-carbon emissions were 30.6 billion tonnes. So if organic carbon was the source, current emissions are almost 5 times faster than the PETM, and if methane, current emissions are rising 27 times faster.

(bold emphasis mine)

My point I guess, is that the compressed timescale that change is happening today is much, much, quicker than in the distant past, which isn't giving many spices time to adapt.

When considering a 4.5c rise, another simple, yet not so obvious factor to consider is what is referred too as the Wet Bulb Effect,

"A sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °C (95 °F) is likely to be fatal even to fit and healthy people, unclothed in the shade next to a fan; at this temperature our bodies switch from shedding heat to the environment, to gaining heat from it."

In other words, high heat (95 degrees or higher) and a high humidity (100%) equals certain death. It's not the heat that kills you, as they say, "It's the humidity".

Then there's the Methane pulse is just on the horizon, a sudden release of large amounts of methane from the Permafrost regions of the planet. From ScientistWarning.Org,

"Even more troubling is that recently, researchers everywhere are finding that methane readings globally are going bonkers to quote those reporting on this. Others are noting a surging trend and recently, shocking data has emerged showing global atmospheric methane readings literally going off the charts."

And then we have Dr. Paul Beckwith, a Climate Systems Scientist, explains that a "Blue Ocean Event", will crush humanity like a bug.

[video:https://youtu.be/OH-rQyEoYew]

We are facing a plethora of variable factors, anyone of which could trigger runaway climate change, and a 4.5c rise in global "average" temp would mean we are already in "the event", as it were. Meaning there would be no stopping it.

From PNAS.Org

This analysis implies that, even if the Paris Accord target of a 1.5 °C to 2.0 °C rise in temperature is met, we cannot exclude the risk that a cascade of feedbacks could push the Earth System irreversibly onto a “Hothouse Earth” pathway.

One tipping point too many crossed, and it's a virtual cascade of tipping points and earth could be a Venus like planet in less than 100 years or so.

(edit, added 100% to high humidity)