Population is the main forcing of climate change

First, what is a “Climate Scientist”? The term is only used by politicians and persons quoting nonscientific smart-phone news feeds. I have attended many “Climate Change” events, academic, governmental, software company presentations, PhD dissertations, and several sections of the COP-United Nations Climate Change Conferences over the years, I have never read that title heard anyone call themselves or anyone referred to as “Climate Scientist”.

I am European with a US American University PhD’s, in Engineering and a PhD in Mathematics, held positions as a US America University faculty member, worked for many years in the scientific research field for firms in the US America and Europe.

I have been involved in “Global Warming” now “Climate Change” for over 25 years. When discussing climate change in the US America, everyone is an expert; they quote “climate scientist”, politicians, smart-phone news feeds, and Hollywood and Television Personalities. Our firm has received considerable funding for climate science work, consulting work (model and calculations review-verification), peer reviews, and conference participation. None of our PhD’s is a degreed “Climate Scientist”. I do know persons with degrees in meteorology, climatology, and atmospheric sciences; however, they alone lack the physics and mathematics to be in the coveted governmental sanctioned climate science cognoscenti.

The 12 PhD’s in our Boston MA US America office, and the 26 US Americas working for me here in Europe, do not deny “Climate Change”. We are often asked do we believe in anthropogenic climate and we reply “YES” (we are in that 97% that agree). Now where uneducated persons and liberals are confused, the denying part is the root causes; we cannot with confidence define and quantify climate change drivers and forcings. The climate is changing; we have sufficient data to support that observation. We are simply unable to quantify the anthropogenic components, or primary climate forcings. We do not accept that Western-World CO2 output is the primary or dominate climate forcing driver, nor do we endorse a “Western-World Wealth Penalty Carbon Tax”, which makes us Climate Change Deniers.

Climate Change is complex science that only Liberal Politicians, Al Gore, Hollywood Elites, Television Comedians, Athletes, and the wealthy understand. As for those of us educated in the sciences that daily reduce empirical data and apply physics and statistics to validate real data from spurious data, understand data trends, calculate projections, and define modeling boundary conditions, “our work is inconsequential”, we are out-of-step with the media, news sources, and the internet. Free thinkers, ha, what would Karl Marx think? To question an established wealthy liberal politician such as Al Gore’s profit motive, credentials, education, sources, and projections, clearly illustrates your ignorance and places you in the climate change denier cesspool.

All of my US American and European colleagues have scientific graduate degrees. All agree man is changing the environment which leads to a change in climate. Again, anthropogenic climate change is real; just as anthropogenic environmental changes are real. We have observed perturbations in the environment that have resulted in changes in the climate. We believe climate change is occurring, but not for the financial reward reasons that nonscientific opportunist believe. It is the cause and course of action of climate change where we differ. We are not trying to get rich in the name of Green or Renewable Energy.

Anyone can provide a presentation based on internet graphs and pictures, or quote internet sites and uneducated politicians (most often quoted, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton or Obama), but to technically understand this complex system is extremely difficult, simply defining boundary conditions, variables, reducing historical data, and with new data and methods developed each day it is a “sisyphean task”. We all agree, there are both natural and anthropogenic climate forcings. One must remember, “Climate Change” is a political issue, funded by government sources (including universities and nonprofits), with no free-market forces to correct or balance public information sources. Our firm has profited from the government funded “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” work. It is corporate or professional suicide not to publically march-in-step and embrace the politics of “climate change”.

Todays “Open Discussion of Climate Change”- Real Data, Unpopular Topic: Population

Changing political ideologies as evident in the election results in the US America and Europe have resulted in the “New Enlightenment” in scientific debate and reasoning. What was considered unacceptable intimidating behavior in climate change debates is now open to data review, free discussion and spoken thought.

The Political Correct Great Silence of the last decade has dissipated opening discussion and debate in sciences. This has enabled topics considered off-limits within diverse United Nations body, such as population, environment change-climate interactions, to be discussed.

Granted with this free-discussion, it is our scientific obligation to look at population as a driver of “climate change”. Increasing population results in more consumers and more emitters, and growing urban areas. Urban centers are high energy use infrastructure areas with extreme changes in land use and land cover change. “All of the anthropogenic climate forcings are population driven.” (We clearly understand there are natural climate changes, as many as ten Bond Cycles in the Holocene. We understand that orbital geometry, changes to the solar magnetic field and solar spectrum have and will occur; however these phenomena are beyond man’s control, population is containable).

Total world population now stands at nearly 7.6 billion, up from 7.4 billion in 2015. At this rate, the UN projects, global population will reach 8.6 billion in 2030, almost 10 billion in 2050 and more than 11 billion in 2100.

More than half of global population growth between now and 2050 will occur in Africa. The United Nations reports, "Of the additional 2.4 billion people projected to be added to the global population between 2015 and 2050, 1.3 billion will be added in Africa." Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from some serious environmental problems, including deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, wetland degradation, and insect infestation.

In historical review of literature, we read how “The Sierra Club” was active in the 1970s-'80s anti-immigration policy, the “Green Anti-Immigrant” movement. It was the Sierra Club that advocated sharply restricting immigration, claiming the US should be reducing rather than increasing its population. Their contention at time (driven by science and data, not politics) was that the country’s open immigration policies were detrimental to the environment and bringing in poor immigrants and making them richer, increased their environmental impact, what we now call “carbon footprint” and “negative environmental-climate interactions”. Today, wealthy Sierra Club donors with mega-mansions and undocumented domestic help have tried to erase this responsible environmental effort.

7b67a3a7205af48c0bb7c604e506f296.png

There are many data driven sources and published credible evidence that a root cause of anthropogenic climate change is population growth (see the United Nations graph above). We have doubled global population since 1972. Global Population Doubled from 3.81 billion in 1972 to 7.63 billion 2018. The temperate distribution climate change charts reflect that point to a greater degree than industrialization.

Increasing population results in reduction of naturally evolved habitat and land cover, less biodiversity and destruction of natural climate control mechanisms. The climate and the environment are not independent, change the environment, change the climate; change the climate, change the environment. The proverbial chicken and the egg.

The Effect of Increasing Population on the Environment and Climate

· More people, more land cleared for livestock farming (increasing methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG)) and agricultural food production, more land cleared for housing and structures results in less foliage for photosynthesis (less CO2 to O2), more mining for natural resources result in land cover change and waste byproduct environmental earth surface effects, around the globe many burn wood as fuel resulting in land cover change and uncontrolled, unregulated emissions, aerosols, and particulate atmospheric matter, etc., too many people=environmental change=climate change.

· Humans use 321 billion gallons per day of surface water; additionally, humans remove about 77 billion gallons of groundwater each day. This results in not only surface vegetation and water table effects, there is documented earth nutation effects in orbital forcing of insolation due to mass redistribution. Anthropogenic geological-hydrological climate interactions are measurable, real, but unpopular to fund or discuss (no wealthy western-word subjects to blame and tax). Man-made reservoir evaporation, storm-water diversion, impervious pavements and surfaces prevent infiltration, these all affect the natural hydrologic-cycles. Anthropogenic hydrologic-cycle changes increase atmospheric water vapour (H2O vapour is a primary greenhouse gas GHG), produce unnatural humidity distributions and alterations, and effect cloud cover, all directly affecting the earth’s albedo IR absorption and emission signature. The climate effects of US America California water usage-extraction-diversion have been well documented and the corresponding environmental damage is a serious topic in global climate science. Each day in the US America state California, about 27.4 billion gallons of water are withdrawn and delivered from surface water sources alone for residential use. California mega mansions are a not just a concern with respect to land cover change, loss of native natural vegetation, but water use and the extremely important natural water infiltration processes of aquifer recharging (reduced infiltration area due to McMansion house footprint and unnatural landscaping). California’s overdrafting of surface and groundwater has changed the natural hydrologic climate-environmental cycles, resulting in increased arid conditions (forest fires), rainfall deficiencies and time dependent excess, natural vegetation change, altered biogeochemical process cycles, and altered surface sediments (highly organic alluvial deposits, and eutrophication of reservoirs) altering the earth surface-atmospheric interface with devastating consequences.

Population driven anthropogenic changes in the natural hydrologic-cycles, aquifer levels and recharging, and precipitation cycles, clearly result in environmental and climate change, yet they continue to accept illegal citizens by the thousands. In economics, supply and demand regulates the market which reduces excess consumption; however, mass immigration of entitlement driven unskilled-workers lacks reason and regulated by partisan legislation, based on ill-formed ideology and objectively driven to increasing voter base and increase campaign contributions. We must remember it is SUVs and your car that lowers drinking water reservoirs, not human withdraw due to increased population. To increase the population of an environmentally resource taxed region is irresponsible, too many people=environmental change=climate change.

· Man-made objects, roads, parking lots, buildings, shingled roofs, tilled fields, livestock pasture, lawn grass all result in removal of natural cover and foliage. These all affect natural surface heat capacities, thermal absorption and release, which change the Long-Wave IR emission signature of the earth's surface. Again, change the environment, change the climate. Many respectable sources have presented evidence that land use and land cover change, may be a primary climate forcing, too many people=environmental change=climate change.

· Particulate, do not just affect the earth’s albedo IR emission signature, but are an extremely important effect on precipitation, hydrologic cycles, groundwater movement and migration, and what we call rain. When we hear the Al Gore's and Maxine Waters shout climate change drought, they clearly lack or understand the factors. Rain is complex phenomena. Raindrops must nucleate on solid particles floating in the atmosphere. The sizes of these particles are very small, on the order of hundreds of nanometers. The natural occurring particles include dust, ocean salt, volcanic ash and yes man-made particulate. Asia now produces more atmospheric emission particulate and aerosols than the US America and Europe combined. This particulate creates solid particles floating in the atmosphere needed to initiate raindrop nucleatation; thus altering global precipitation cycles, most dominate is the Pacific Ocean rim natural precipitation cycles (California) and distribution, too many people=environmental change=climate change.

· Radiation effects of Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. The hyped 15 micron (the infrared active band of IR photon absorption of the bending mode at 667 cm-1) at the peak of the Long-Wave IR electromagnetic radiation emitted from Earth “is a factor in climate forcing”, however in proportion to population, the famous 15 micron CO2 band appears to be less a factor in climate forcing than previously stated. Clearly CO2 output is proportional to population, compounded and increased by technical progress, and improved standard of living. The higher your standard of living the greater you CO2 footprint, too many people=environmental change=climate change.

Liberal US American Environmentalism and Climate Change Action

The US American illegal immigrant influx is an environmental and climatic disaster, as the world admonishes the US America for excess energy consumption, you increase your population. The bell ringers of climate doom and environmentalism are the same open-border people that want to increase the population which will result in more energy use, depletion of natural resources, and changes to the environment. Welcoming people from third world countries, or developing countries, that are presently living at “subsistence level” introduces them to US American “Conspicuous Consumption”; this is a multiplier of said claimed environmental and climate change factors. Bestowing them with the US American “Liberal Humane Rights (entitlements)” such as automobiles, modern housing, air conditioning, refrigerators, an array of non-necessary electric appliances, and consumables purchasing power is clearly a negative effect on the environment; resulting in a negative effect on the climate. It is not only illegal, but a criminally irresponsible act with unnecessary negative effects on the environment and climate.

Let us not forget, before political correctness, everyone is offended, science is too Eurocentric, the respected gate keepers of the environment, “The Sierra Club” was active in the 1970s-'80s anti-immigration policy, the “Green Anti-Immigrant” movement.

The only real environmental regulation that Obama initiated (without thousands of lobbyist exemptions, waivers, and exclusions) was fuel standards of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. Knowing that most Harley-Davidson motorcycles do to achieve 54.5 mpg, it was a middle-class tax, “never intended to be enforceable” on automakers; it is a tax on the purchaser of a new car. Listen to Gina McCarthy, wealthy people lease cars, “exempt not buying”, indigent or impoverished people, they do not buy new cars they buy used cars, “exempt not buying new cars”. Taxpaying middle-class John and Jane Doe driving to their full-time job, they buy a new cars, they pay the Obama ridiculous 54.5 mpg tax. If liberals support this, sell your car because it does not get 54.4 mpg. To be an effective deterrent to CO2 emissions, there would need to be a consumer demand for cars with increased fuel economy; however, truck and SUV sales dominated during the period of implementation of this unachievable ridiculous regulation (tax).

Yes, I attended several sections of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21 in Paris, France, December 2015. Most US Americans are unaware of how clueless and incompetent the US American Obama representatives appeared.

What about the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference COP 21 (Paris Accord)?

US Americans have less than 5% of the world’s population and use upwards of 23% of the world’s energy. Paris Climate Agreement compliance for the US America would have been a good for the world; however it would be impossible to meet prescribed penalizing targets “without population reduction, drastic lifestyle changes, and extreme economic and industrial sector changes”. Most importantly with your debt, it would be impossible to pay the financial penalties. Clearly Obama endorsed the restrictions, limits, and objectives that could never, would never be achieved by the US America. The US America would be forced to pay an enormous middle-class “tax” with the largest wealth transfer in history to third world countries for your energy sins (a wealth penalty). The two sectors of CO2 targets established, power plant and road transportation, to reduce total carbon dioxide output for these sectors in the next eight years were preposterous. US American electricity consumption for U.S. residential utility customers would require a reduction from average of 890 kilowatt-hours (kWh)/month to 440 kilowatt-hours (kWh)/month by 2025 (the infamous Obama prescribed accepted addendum “US American residences exceeding 7,200 sqf exempt”). US American gasoline consumption would need to be reduced from 385 million gallons/ day to 198 million gallons/ day by 2025. These are just a few of the restrictions that Obama agreed, as we know he lacked the knowledge to understand these were clearly impossible, or was he capable to quantifiably comprehend this as “punishment”. US American manufacturing uses vastly more energy than every other county. If those jobs were located to poorer nations (as Obama championed) it would improve their standard of living and reduce US American energy consumption and excess. Yes, most nations agreed with Obama in Paris; US Americans are getting the largest piece of the global pie. Yes the rest of the world would have preferred the US America comply with the Paris Accord, but US Americans will never, and “should never”, give up their lifestyles. As we see in the European news, Obama “did not” buy a small home without air-condition (Mansion Estate in Washington DC), or is he escorted by a fuel efficient vehicle (Limousine and Private Jet), but he is somehow entitled to lecture the working-class on their unwillingness to sacrifice? Obama preached the Paris Climate Agreement, but has increased his carbon footprint orders of magnitude since his days as a US$23k/year community organizer.

Whenever I hear a Liberal US Americans advocate the implementation international climate agreement conditions as specified by the COP 21 Paris Climate Conference, I wonder if they understand the penalties of greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Yes, President Trump is 100% correct; it targets the US America for your success and achievement. Go ahead implement the Paris Agreement, what are you willing to “giving up” reducing your energy consumption by orders of magnitude?

The exactly the reason the Paris Accord was scraped.

The Paris Agreement was complete rubbish. It was unenforceable; it penalized the western-world for centuries of advanced scientific accomplishment. The Paris Climate Agreement was a great Global Initiative to curb the US American excesses, Period. Most of the world agrees it should have been implemented to curb US American excess and level global energy consumption and wealth distribution. US American has many industries that use excessive energy. US American manufacturing uses vastly more energy than every other county. However, the US America has developed most modern Medicine, Technology, and freedom delivering Military might, that the rest of the world takes for granted.

After 25 years of work, research, study, attending presentations, thought on “Global Warming”, then “Climate Change”, I still have no quantifying conclusion (yes I have wavered and changed direction over the years). I receive new data from technical periodicals, research, papers, universities, and discussion with colleagues, on the subject, and have made two deductions: (1) all anthropogenic climate forcings are population driven, (2) no matter how many times Obama quotes Al Gore’s climate expertise, Al Gore’s predictions were not only erroneous or blatant lies, but a fabulous stunt for wealth and fame that damaged an entire generation’s respect for science.

It is often said in the scientific community, “… it is better to know what you don’t know than spread ignorance and misinformation”