Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

[Lord of Planar]

Climate alarmists have one goal = bring America to a neo-luddite Stone Age.

I think you have that wrong. I don't think that's their goal. It's just they are too gullible to understand the impact of their actions.

Think about it. The common person who rallies around AGW scares are too intellectually deficient to understand what they speak of. How many of them can speak sense about the topic in their own words?

 

[Waddy]

Population is already on track to decline in some parts of the world. Generally speaking, the wealthier a population is, the fewer children they have. Which is a good thing because rich people also consume far more resources and produce more pollution than poor people.

For wealthy countries like America, the focus should be on improving energy efficiency, reducing consumption, and minimizing waste.

How is consuming much more resources a "good" thing? Rich nations produce fewer offspring but consume the vast majority of energy and resources. How will you "reduce consumption" when every poor person in the world wants air conditioning, a better diet rich in meat, a car, and a house? Every poor person in the world wants the American middle class lifestyle. So you saying 8 billion people living like Americans? Better re-think your plan.

 

[Irredentist]

The USA has been on track for improving efficiency for decades.

Where have you been?

There is always more that can be done. I would like to see better insulation standards on homes and rental units to reduce heating costs as well as higher fuel efficiency standards on vehicles, and better public transportation.

 

[Irredentist]

How is consuming much more resources a "good" thing? Rich nations produce fewer offspring but consume the vast majority of energy and resources. How will you "reduce consumption" when every poor person in the world wants air conditioning, a better diet rich in meat, a car, and a house? Every poor person in the world wants the American middle class lifestyle. So you saying 8 billion people living like Americans? Better re-think your plan.

Consuming more resources isn't a good thing. That is why rich countries should work to reduce their consumption.

 

[longview]

Consuming more resources isn't a good thing. That is why rich countries should work to reduce their consumption.

I think if you would look, the US per capita energy consumption, peaked in late 1990's,
and has been declining ever since.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_19.pdf
Our per capita energy consumption, is now down to where it was in the late 1960's.

 

[Waddy]

Consuming more resources isn't a good thing. That is why rich countries should work to reduce their consumption.

And why should they do that? EVERY advanced "rich" nation has an economy based on continual growth, consumer oriented and consumer driven. There is no other model in use today anywhere I know of. And you're hoping ALL 8 billion people around the globe eventually become part of "rich" countries. That sounds like a formula for disaster.

 

[longview]

And why should they do that? EVERY advanced "rich" nation has an economy based on continual growth, consumer oriented and consumer driven. There is no other model in use today anywhere I know of. And you're hoping ALL 8 billion people around the globe eventually become part of "rich" countries. That sounds like a formula for disaster.

It should be a goal of any energy plan for the future, to allow everyone alive to live a 1st world lifestyle, if they choose to.
The only real way to get there with the current technology is photovoltaic solar stored as man made hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[Waddy]

It should be a goal of any energy plan for the future, to allow everyone alive to live a 1st world lifestyle, if they choose to.
The only real way to get there with the current technology is photovoltaic solar stored as man made hydrocarbon fuels.

8 billion people living a 1st world lifestyle? Ain't enough resources on the planet to make that work. Utopian pipe dream.

 

[Jack Hays]

8 billion people living a 1st world lifestyle? Ain't enough resources on the planet to make that work. Utopian pipe dream.

The more we need the more we find.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is always more that can be done. I would like to see better insulation standards on homes and rental units to reduce heating costs as well as higher fuel efficiency standards on vehicles, and better public transportation.

New units have such requirements.

How much more do you think rent would be if owners were forced to add thousands of dollars in retrofit costs?

Please buy a clue.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Consuming more resources isn't a good thing. That is why rich countries should work to reduce their consumption.

I think you need a reality check.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The more we need the more we find.

It shouldn't be long before we mine the moon and asteroids.

We put a large satellite collection points in orbit L1 or L2. Use mass accelerators to launch materials to that point from the moon. Refine it there, and send it to earth. Asteroids, we can attach boosters and drive them there.

 

[Jack Hays]

8 billion people living a 1st world lifestyle? Ain't enough resources on the planet to make that work. Utopian pipe dream.

It shouldn't be long before we mine the moon and asteroids.

We put a large satellite collection points in orbit L1 or L2. Use mass accelerators to launch materials to that point from the moon. Refine it there, and send it to earth. Asteroids, we can attach boosters and drive them there.

These days there is too little memory of Julian Simon.

Julian Simon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Julian_Simon

Julian Lincoln Simon (February 12, 1932 – February 8, 1998) was an American professor of ... He is also known for the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager, a bet he made with ecologist Paul R. Ehrlich. Ehrlich ... The Ultimate Resource challenged the conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material scarcity and resource ...

". . . Simon's 1981 book The Ultimate Resource is a criticism of what was then the conventional wisdom on resource scarcity, published within the context of the cultural background created by the best-selling and highly influential book The Population Bomb in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich and The Limits to Growth analysis published in 1972. The Ultimate Resource challenged the conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material scarcity and resource consumption. Simon argues that our notions of increasing resource-scarcity ignore the long-term declines in wage-adjusted raw material prices. Viewed economically, he argues, increasing wealth and technology make more resources available; although supplies may be limited physically they may be regarded as economically indefinite as old resources are recycled and new alternatives are assumed to be developed by the market. Simon challenged the notion of an impending Malthusian catastrophe—that an increase in population has negative economic consequences; that population is a drain on natural resources; and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. Simon argues that population is the solution to resource scarcities and environmental problems, since people and markets innovate. . . . "

 

[Waddy]

These days there is too little memory of Julian Simon.

Julian Simon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Julian_Simon

Julian Lincoln Simon (February 12, 1932 – February 8, 1998) was an American professor of ... He is also known for the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager, a bet he made with ecologist Paul R. Ehrlich. Ehrlich ... The Ultimate Resource challenged the conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material scarcity and resource ...

". . . Simon's 1981 book The Ultimate Resource is a criticism of what was then the conventional wisdom on resource scarcity, published within the context of the cultural background created by the best-selling and highly influential book The Population Bomb in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich and The Limits to Growth analysis published in 1972. The Ultimate Resource challenged the conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material scarcity and resource consumption. Simon argues that our notions of increasing resource-scarcity ignore the long-term declines in wage-adjusted raw material prices. Viewed economically, he argues, increasing wealth and technology make more resources available; although supplies may be limited physically they may be regarded as economically indefinite as old resources are recycled and new alternatives are assumed to be developed by the market. Simon challenged the notion of an impending Malthusian catastrophe—that an increase in population has negative economic consequences; that population is a drain on natural resources; and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. Simon argues that population is the solution to resource scarcities and environmental problems, since people and markets innovate. . . . "

I heard of Simon, but I don't think he took into consideration that some resources are finite and essential, and not easily, nor cost effectively replaced. Or they are replaced with inferior materials. I can give you a couple of examples; walk into any furniture store and you won't see very much oak or Maple, it is just too costly and scarce now. So we get "Asian hardwood", which is what they do with old rubber trees. A very cheap product, and not quality furniture. IKEA is a prime example. All of it will end up in a landfill. It's getting difficult to make quality guitars for the same reasons. I guess much of it will come down to how you define "middle class" in the future.

 

[longview]

8 billion people living a 1st world lifestyle? Ain't enough resources on the planet to make that work. Utopian pipe dream.

I did not say it would be easy, But no, not a Utopian pipe dream ether.
The resource is energy, and the per capita energy use for a 1st world lifestyle is declining.
The only limitation is energy storage, and this can be addressed by using energy storage found in nature..hydrocarbons.
Electricity from solar panels + hydrogen from water, + Carbon from ether sea water or the atmosphere.
Green Syngas - Sunfire
NRL Receives US Patent for Carbon Capture Device: A Key Step in Synthetic Fuel Production from Seawater | News
Storing the energy as hydrocarbons, allows seasonal transfers, so Fall surplus, can provide for Winter heating, and Spring surplus, Summer cooling.
Refineries can produce their own feedstock, and make carbon neutral transport and agricultural fuels.

 

[Jack Hays]

I heard of Simon, but I don't think he took into consideration that some resources are finite and essential, and not easily, nor cost effectively replaced. . . .

That's exactly what he took into consideration, and he'd say your assumption ("finite") is false.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]No Changes Behind The Changes: New Findings Show Europe Climate Driven By Westerly Winds For 14.5 Million Years![/h]By P Gosselin on 21. June 2020
Share this...


[h=2]From the Atlantic to the Alps: westerly winds have determined the climate in Central Europe for 14.5 million years[/h](Translated/edited from the German by P. Gosselin)
Sabine Wendler of the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre Press Office
Senckenberg Research Institute and Nature Museums

Senckenberg scientists in Germany have just studied the climate optimum of the Middle Miocene in Central Europe 17 to 14 million years ago. At the end of this long warm period, there was a global cooling that was much faster and more dramatic on land than in the ocean.
This is what the team currently reports in the journal “Scientific Reports” of the Nature Group.
At the same time, a precipitation pattern was established in Central Europe that corresponds to the one of today. According to this, the westerly wind system influenced by the North Atlantic has been one of the main drivers of the Central European climate ever since, and thus three million years earlier than previously assumed. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

Cosmic Rays as a Climate Driver: The Debate

[FONT=&quot]Counter to claims by anthopogenic global warming enthusiasts, there is ample evidence to support the idea that cosmic rays do indeed affect climate (evidence will soon be summarized on this site).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Cover of GSA Today - A geology magazine with a spiral galaxy on it. Some people didn't like it!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thus, it is no surprise that we find in our GSA Today paper ([/FONT]External PDF[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]local PDF[FONT=&quot] or [/FONT]HTML[FONT=&quot]) that Cosmic Ray Flux variations appear to be the largest driver of climate change over geological time scales. However, one of the secondary conclusions we reach in the paper is that CO[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] had only a secondary climate role over geological time scales, and that Earth's sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget is not as large as most of the climate community believes (which ranges between 1.5 to 4.5°C temperature increase following a doubling of the atmospheric CO[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]). This of course, has various interesting ramifications, which is why our work attracted many assaults.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Two such assaults appeared in the scientific media, and as such should be addressed. Here we bring the unabridged rebuttal addressing each and every point raised.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Before continuing, note that once the climatic effect of cosmic rays is included in different [/FONT]empirical sensitivity analyses[FONT=&quot] based on different time scales as the analysis described in our GSA Today article, consistent sensitivities are then obtained. The consistent sensitivity range is between 1 to 1.5°C per CO[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] doubling. That is, empirical analyses on different time scales corroborates our GSA Today results regarding the climate sensitivity. . . . . [/FONT]

 

[longview]

Cosmic Rays as a Climate Driver: The Debate

[FONT="]Counter to claims by anthopogenic global warming enthusiasts, there is ample evidence to support the idea that cosmic rays do indeed affect climate (evidence will soon be summarized on this site).[/FONT]

[FONT="]

Cover of GSA Today - A geology magazine with a spiral galaxy on it. Some people didn't like it!
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Thus, it is no surprise that we find in our GSA Today paper ([/FONT][URL="http://www.gsajournals.org/pdfserv/10.1130%2F1052-5173%282003%29013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2"]External PDF[/URL][FONT="], [/FONT][URL="http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf"]local PDF[/URL][FONT="] or [/FONT][URL="http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173%282003%29013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2"]HTML[/URL][FONT="]) that Cosmic Ray Flux variations appear to be the largest driver of climate change over geological time scales. However, one of the secondary conclusions we reach in the paper is that CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] had only a secondary climate role over geological time scales, and that Earth's sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget is not as large as most of the climate community believes (which ranges between 1.5 to 4.5°C temperature increase following a doubling of the atmospheric CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="]). This of course, has various interesting ramifications, which is why our work attracted many assaults.[/FONT]

[FONT="]Two such assaults appeared in the scientific media, and as such should be addressed. Here we bring the unabridged rebuttal addressing each and every point raised.[/FONT]

[FONT="]Before continuing, note that once the climatic effect of cosmic rays is included in different [/FONT][URL="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010866.shtml"]empirical sensitivity analyses[/URL][FONT="] based on different time scales as the analysis described in our GSA Today article, consistent sensitivities are then obtained. The consistent sensitivity range is between 1 to 1.5°C per CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT="] doubling. That is, empirical analyses on different time scales corroborates our GSA Today results regarding the climate sensitivity. . . . . [/FONT]

We should all remember that the entire concept of AGW is based on not what we know, but rather on what we do not know.
They take the observed warming, and subtract out all the known factors that can cause warming and cooling,
what remains, is then attributed to AGW!
The more we learn about other factors that can affect the warming of the planet, the less remains to be attributed to AGW!

 

[Buzz]

We should all remember that the entire concept of AGW is based on not what we know, but rather on what we do not know.
They take the observed warming, and subtract out all the known factors that can cause warming and cooling,
what remains, is then attributed to AGW!
The more we learn about other factors that can affect the warming of the planet, the less remains to be attributed to AGW!

That is nothing but denialist hogwash.

 

[longview]

That is nothing but denialist hogwash.

I am sure you would like people to believe that, but consider some of the consensus statements,
like the American Geophysical Union.
Position Statement on Climate Change | AGU

Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases,
are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence.

Why is the final sentence necessary, if actual evidence exists?
Here is another from the
Human Caused Global Warming — OSS Foundation

The only identifiable cause explaining these changes with confidence is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Science has simply not found any other cause factor that can account for the scale of the recent increase in radiative forcing and associated warming.

It basically says, we see all these changes, and have not found any other cause that can account for those changes.
This is what I said,

They take the observed warming, and subtract out all the known factors that can cause warming and cooling,
what remains, is then attributed to AGW!

 

[Jack Hays]

On Climate Sensitivity

[h=3]SUMMARY[/h]

• Earth's climate sensitivity is not expected to be that of a "black body" because of different feedbacks known to exist in the climate system.
• Although Global Circulation models are excellent tools for studying some questions, they are very bad at predicting the global climate sensitivity because the cloud feedback is essentially unknown. It is the main reason why the sensitivity is (not) predicted this way with an uncertainty of a factor of 3!
• Climate Sensitivity can be estimated empirically. A relatively low value (one which corresponds to net cancelation of the feedbacks) is obtained.
• Empirical Climate sensitivities obtained on different time scales are significantly more consistent with each other if the Cosmic Ray flux / Climate link is included. This is yet another indication that this link is real.

 

[Buzz]

I am sure you would like people to believe that, but consider some of the consensus statements,
like the American Geophysical Union.
Position Statement on Climate Change | AGU

Why is the final sentence necessary, if actual evidence exists?

The final sentence is not necessary. But it backs up the first sentence that you are ignoring. Remember that one? It says:

Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Sorry, long... but the AGU statement doesn't back up your repeated lie that the science of man-made global warming is only based on the lack of evidence that it could be something else.

Here is another from the
Human Caused Global Warming — OSS Foundation

It basically says, we see all these changes, and have not found any other cause that can account for those changes.

It also says this right before the part you quoted:

How do we know current global warming is human caused, or man made? Is global warming real, or a hoax? Consider the facts: the climate system is indicated to have left the natural cycle path; multiple lines of evidence and studies from different fields all point to the human fingerprint on current climate change; the convergence of these evidence lines include ice mass loss, pattern changes, ocean acidification, plant and species migration, isotopic signature of CO2, changes in atmospheric composition, and many others. The only identifiable cause explaining these changes with confidence is human influence and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, you are ignoring all of the OSS Foundations opening statement about AGW except the last sentence to push your false narrative.

This is what I said,

They take the observed warming, and subtract out all the known factors that can cause warming and cooling,
what remains, is then attributed to AGW!

Yes... this is what you said. But what you are saying is false and nothing but a logical fallacy. Just because there is no evidence to show that AGW is caused by something else does not automatically mean that there is no evidence that AGW is caused by man.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Mass spectrometry and climate science. Part II[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on June 25, 2020 by curryja | 1 comment[/FONT]
by Roland Hirsch
New technologies in mass spectrometry are advancing research in climate science
Continue reading →

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Climate Explainer: “If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today…”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest ” climate splainin” by David Middleton (apologies to Ricky Ricardo) From The Conversation: Climate Explained: what Earth would be like if we hadn’t pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphereJune 23, 2020 Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]