The history of Climate Change

[Lowell2]

Yeah I saw the answer. I was only put off by the weird/unnecessary tone in the response.

Another question. One of the sources you posted on here recently (p.90, post #897) has Mr. Joseph D'Aleo as an author. Do you really think he's a credible source? This stuff (climate change) is not my area of expertise but it usually seems like a bad sign when someone who hasn't earned a Ph.D in their field makes it a point to call themselves "Dr." as if to add a veneer of credibility to their authorship on something.

And the first author mentioned there is "Dr. James P. Wallace III". Who is that? What are his credentials?

There are other names you've posted in that and other posts such as John R. Christy or Will Happer, whose statements have been criticized by some other scientists.

Are there any publications that question the idea of (significant) man-made global warming authored by climate scientists who are not on the payroll of big corporations or political think tanks and institutes, or who have not had their conclusions and statements seriously criticized by other scientists, that you can post here? I'm just interested in whether there are scientists whose credibility or objectivity has not been possibly compromised or strongly questioned that have the same views as some of these other people whose names you've already posted.

yes there are several. and there's even a few "human caused climate change advocates" who are NOT on the payroll of universities (paid by the govt), govt entities (paid by the govt) or affiliated with "green" organizations, companies (like Solyndra, etc). the fact is that EVERYONE has "skin in the game". I count none of them on either side as being truly impartial. It's very difficult to be truly impartial on all of it just as it's difficult to be impartial on any science subject that involves people / money/ power or a combination of all three.

plenty of the rocket scientists who helped put Apollo 11 on the moon didn't have degrees. Goodall didn't have a biology degree (Leakey arranged funding and in 1962, he sent Goodall, who had no degree, to Cambridge University. She went to Newnham College, and obtained a PhD degree in ethology. She became the eighth person to be allowed to study for a PhD there without first having obtained a BA or BSc.). Richard Leakey doesn't have a degree. Famous Scientists Who Never Had a Science Degree Degrees are good in indicating study, but they aren't absolutes. one has to look at what the individual has done and how it stands up.

Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, from which he received B.S. and M.S. degrees. He was a doctoral student in Air Resources at New York University, where he completed everything except his dissertation. D’Aleo was a professor of Meteorology and Climatology at Lyndon State College. He was awarded an honorary PhD by Lyndon State College for his "accomplishments as an educator and a pioneer in the field of broadcast meteorology"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%27Aleo -- that would indicate to me a credible source.

Wallace - Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Engineering Minor, Brown U. M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown U. B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown U. --and his credentials were good enough for the supreme court http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo...2.pdf to act as an expert in the field.

want to discuss the credentials of Bill Nye? Al Gore? Fisker Automotive was provided with a $529 million DOE loan, but failed to reach milestones in delivering its Karma model, an electric vehicle with a showroom cost of over $100,000. Fisker was backed by wealthy venture capitalists that contributed large amounts to President Obama and other Democrats. Among the highest profile backers is the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers (KPCB), of which Al Gore is a senior partner. According to the Wall Street Journal, Al Gore, a supporter of Fisker, purchased one of the first Karma models.[vii] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of KPCB donated $2.6 million to candidates and political action committees, favoring Democrats over Republicans by a very wide margin.[viii] Obama's Green Energy Debacle - IER
William Sanford Nye[2] (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science communicator, television presenter, and mechanical engineer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

I would hope that those I've posted about had challengers. it's the POINT of science to challenge ANY and all theories and never to consider the science as "settled". the question is if those challengers had theories that actually held up to the facts. if not, then those theories are considered falsified, and one has to reconsider the theory instead of attempting to either manipulate the facts or to use political and popular power to silence opposing voices.

 

[Lowell2]

International journal of Climatology Volume 37, Issue 2 Variability of runoff-based drought conditions in the conterminous United States - McCabe - 2016 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
February 2017
Pages 1014–1021
Variability of runoff-based drought conditions in the conterminous United States
Authors
Gregory J. McCabe,
David M. Wolock,
Samuel H. Austin
First published: 6 May 2016Full publication history
DOI: 10.1002/joc.4756

In this study, a monthly water-balance model is used to simulate monthly runoff for 2109 hydrologic units (HUs) in the conterminous United States (CONUS) for water-years 1901 through 2014. The monthly runoff time series for each HU were smoothed with a 3-month moving average, and then the 3-month moving-average runoff values were converted to percentiles. For each HU, a drought was considered to occur when the HU runoff percentile dropped to the 20th percentile or lower. A drought was considered to end when the HU runoff percentile exceeded the 20th percentile. After identifying drought events for each HU, the frequency and length of drought events were examined. Results indicated that (1) the longest mean drought lengths occur in the eastern CONUS and parts of the Rocky Mountain region and the northwestern CONUS, (2) the frequency of drought is highest in the southwestern and central CONUS, and lowest in the eastern CONUS, the Rocky Mountain region, and the northwestern CONUS, (3) droughts have occurred during all months of the year and there does not appear to be a seasonal pattern to drought occurrence, (4) the variability of precipitation appears to have been the principal climatic factor determining drought, and (5) for most of the CONUS, drought frequency appears to have decreased during the 1901 through 2014 period.

Figure 1. Number of hydrologic units (HUs) across the U.S. with drought conditions by month and year.

the prediction was for more and stronger droughts.

 

[Gaben]

Reports Of Arctic Ice Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated?Greenland Ice Mass Near Record When ice cover climbs, skeptics like to claim that it shows global warming isn’t what it is often hyped up to be. And when ice cover drops to satellite era record lows, the alarmists start screaming and hollering, forgetting that low ice levels were not uncommon in the past 100 years. They freaked out just some months ago when the yearly autumn Arctic sea ice recovery faltered and fell to “record” lows. Immediately they began predicting near ice-free conditions for the coming summer.

Just as the weather does, polar ice and snow cover also acts unpredictably, and now just a few months later Northern Hemisphere snow and ice cover is back within the normal range.

Winter snow and ice cover trend for the Northern Hemisphere has in fact been trending upwards since statistics started.

from your links own sources

The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget

The other sources are only data sets that the climate denier blogger puts his own spin on.

 

[Ighayere]

yes there are several.

Could you provide some examples?

and there's even a few "human caused climate change advocates" who are NOT on the payroll of universities (paid by the govt), govt entities (paid by the govt) or affiliated with "green" organizations, companies (like Solyndra, etc).

Ok. But that's not what I'm asking about.

the fact is that EVERYONE has "skin in the game". I count none of them on either side as being truly impartial. It's very difficult to be truly impartial on all of it just as it's difficult to be impartial on any science subject that involves people / money/ power or a combination of all three.

It's not really the same thing to be "on the payroll of universities" and to be on the payroll of a corporation or political institute which would most likely have a specific agenda with regard to this issue.

plenty of the rocket scientists who helped put Apollo 11 on the moon didn't have degrees. Goodall didn't have a biology degree (Leakey arranged funding and in 1962, he sent Goodall, who had no degree, to Cambridge University. She went to Newnham College, and obtained a PhD degree in ethology. She became the eighth person to be allowed to study for a PhD there without first having obtained a BA or BSc.). Richard Leakey doesn't have a degree. Famous Scientists Who Never Had a Science Degree Degrees are good in indicating study, but they aren't absolutes. one has to look at what the individual has done and how it stands up.

I think you're misunderstanding the point. Of course there were great scientists that didn't have Ph.D's. Tu Youyou is the most recent famous example. Oliver Heaviside is an older example.

At the same time, there are also people who won Nobel prizes for the work they did in their Ph.D. dissertation.

It was him calling himself "Dr." for that paper which I found unusual, since he didn't complete a doctorate.

Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, from which he received B.S. and M.S. degrees. He was a doctoral student in Air Resources at New York University, where he completed everything except his dissertation. D’Aleo was a professor of Meteorology and Climatology at Lyndon State College. He was awarded an honorary PhD by Lyndon State College for his "accomplishments as an educator and a pioneer in the field of broadcast meteorology"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D'Aleo -- that would indicate to me a credible source.

"Completing everything except the dissertation" is like he just took classes and exams, and did not complete an equally important - or possibly the most important - part of a doctoral program.

An honorary Ph.D. (and from the university that he used to teach at, no less) is not the same thing.

As for credibility, when I look this guy up, I see a lot of criticism and simply wondered whether there wasn't a connection between his self-aggrandizement on that particular publication and the errors other people accused him of making. The whole situation just looked bad.

Wallace - Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Engineering Minor, Brown U. M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown U. B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown U. --and his credentials were good enough for the supreme court http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo...2.pdf to act as an expert in the field.

So. . .anybody with a Ph.D. in economics and degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering would be qualified in your eyes to discuss the issue of climate change? Why?

The Supreme Court isn't usually made up of people who have the necessary expertise to determine whether an individual is an expert in a scientific field different from the areas that their degrees are in, and I doubt that it was any different in 2013. What scientist(s) did they get to vouch for the idea that this person is an expert in the field?

want to discuss the credentials of Bill Nye? Al Gore? Fisker Automotive was provided with a $529 million DOE loan, but failed to reach milestones in delivering its Karma model, an electric vehicle with a showroom cost of over $100,000. Fisker was backed by wealthy venture capitalists that contributed large amounts to President Obama and other Democrats. Among the highest profile backers is the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers (KPCB), of which Al Gore is a senior partner. According to the Wall Street Journal, Al Gore, a supporter of Fisker, purchased one of the first Karma models.[vii] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of KPCB donated $2.6 million to candidates and political action committees, favoring Democrats over Republicans by a very wide margin.[viii] Obama's Green Energy Debacle - IER
William Sanford Nye[2] (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science communicator, television presenter, and mechanical engineer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

I haven't mentioned either of them, and they aren't really relevant to the point I was making.

I would hope that those I've posted about had challengers. it's the POINT of science to challenge ANY and all theories and never to consider the science as "settled". the question is if those challengers had theories that actually held up to the facts. if not, then those theories are considered falsified, and one has to reconsider the theory instead of attempting to either manipulate the facts or to use political and popular power to silence opposing voices.

They haven't merely had "challengers", they've had serious detractors disputing their understanding of the relevant science.

I was just wondering if you had examples of people who have views similar to their views, but without the baggage that they have.

 

[Lowell2]

=Ighayere;2761334]Could you provide some examples?

It's not really the same thing to be "on the payroll of universities" and to be on the payroll of a corporation or political institute which would most likely have a specific agenda with regard to this issue.

and you don't think universities have an agenda? or that the paid grants they have don't have an agenda? or that unlike those on a corporation payroll (who have to at least be effective or get fired), Universities don't protect those who have unrealistic agendas? If one is working for a living, one generally has to work for someone. in science that's usually a think tank (funded by corporations or government or a combination thereof) or universities (funded by grants from --corporations or government or a combination thereof). There's not many who are independently wealthy and can just study whatever they want without concern for putting food on the table. Hence they are all "bought and paid for" to some degree.

=Ighayere;2761334]
At the same time, there are also people who won Nobel prizes for the work they did in their Ph.D. dissertation.

It was him calling himself "Dr." for that paper which I found unusual, since he didn't complete a doctorate.

- the NOBEL prize? that has gotten so political it's laughable. I don't consider any Nobel prize awarded in the last 20 years to be worth anything as regards indication of competence in the field of the award. As for "he didn't complete a doctorate" -- the honorary doctorates awarded to people happen to count as valid doctorates. Which he did receive. Again, Nye portrays himself as an expert and he is no such thing. He hasn't even published anything. he just plays a scientist on TV.

=Ighayere;2761334 So. . .anybody with a Ph.D. in economics and degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering would be qualified in your eyes to discuss the issue of climate change? Why?

no, not "anyone" again, looking at what the individual has specialized in after the degree, what they've published, do their peers consider them an expert.

=Ighayere;2761334
The Supreme Court isn't usually made up of people who have the necessary expertise to determine whether an individual is an expert in a scientific field different from the areas that their degrees are in, and I doubt that it was any different in 2013. What scientist(s) did they get to vouch for the idea that this person is an expert in the field?

--did you bother to see who was with him in the brief? In a fight that goes to the supreme court, there's almost always huge amounts of money spent on both sides. Plenty of experts to pick from to support your side.

=Ighayere;2761334 I haven't mentioned either of them, and they aren't really relevant to the point I was making.

No. you havent', from what I've seen, bothered to reference any papers, experts or to explain what your criteria is. You've just questioned those I've provided -- yet the majority of the references I've provided are those of peer reviewed articles that have made it into journals that are generally hostile to the skeptics on any human-caused climate aspects. So they've made it past reviewers who don't like what they say.

I really don't care what the "detractors" say -- unless they can falsify the arguments, it's irrelevant. If they can, have at it. You can post their articles here. If my references show where there's flaws in "human caused climate change" or the various proposed solutions to the same, it's not the author's credentials that matter. It's if you can or can't disprove the falsification.

many of the sources I've previously referenced worked (or still work) for major climatology outfits (NASA, etc) or universities or are well recognized as experts (with or without a degree). When doomsday "human caused global warming" "experts" assert a never ending drought in California, it doesn't matter if a 2 year old points out the 2016-2017 rain season to them as a falsification. It matters that the facts are that it rained -- a LOT -- in California and it matters that assuming that it wouldn't is at least part of what led to ignoring maintenance and repair of places like Orville. it matters when your theory is wrong. I haven't seen Brown or Gore or any of the other "experts" get out there and apologize for hyping their theory to the cost of those in California who have to deal with the results of blind acceptance.

to again point out my position>
yes the climate is changing. It has since the planet was formed. Sometimes it changes rapidly, sometimes not. Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes colder. It almost never is completely "static" for any significant length of time.

We haven't been measuring the climate that long. Especially, we haven't been doing it with reasonably accurate equipment for that long. Asserting that the time frame for reasonably accurate measurements is sufficient to identify climate trends is iffy at best. Given issues regarding the location of measurement equipment, calibration, etc, it's even more iffy. Adjusting the data makes it even MORE iffy. We can, and do, extrapolate based on "proxy" information (tree rings, plant fossils, evidence of ocean extent, animal fossils, ice cores, etc) but all of THAT is also iffy. it's only rarely that we have something that is as clear cut as the iridium layer and a large meteor crater at Chicxulub gives us a serious point of climate change --and even then there are plenty of arguments (was there or wasn't there a global firestorm? a near global firestorm? if there was a following "arctic" climate, how long did it last? did the meteor or didn't it have anything to do with the Deccan traps? Which had the biggest impact on the climate? did one or the other or simple continental drift and climate change from that kill off the majority of dinosaurs and other life? and so forth).

if the climate is warming (and it seems to be, since there aren't glaciers in NY), Is the warming good, bad or benign? is that natural or manmade? If it's natural, what, if anything should we do about it? If it's manmade, what, if anything should we do about it? CAN we do anything significant if we wanted to? if it's some of both, is the manmade portion the more critical?

if the cause is humans and the change is generally bad, then the fastest, most effective means of altering that is NOT green energy, green cars or not bathing every day to conserve water. It is quick, significant reduction of the human population. Human interference in terms of medicines, health care, and other aids that most people consider essential humanitarianisms, are the major reason for survival -- before vaccines, most children died. Without prenatal care, food, millions of others will die. If we will ALL die if we don't change the climate, then should we continue doing that? (yes, this is what's called "devil's advocate. But in realistic terms, the only way humanity is going to comply with the climate hysteric's predictions of doom is if there are less humans by 2030. and the only way to do that is mass sterilizations or allowing millions to die -- or likely, both. I personally find that repugnant, but I don't find being asked to have a "green car" as a futile gesture to be particularly useful as an alternative).

If the desire is for a cleaner planet REGARDLESS of if it does/ doesn't have a big impact on the climate, what are the pros and cons of the various proposed solutions? I don't find windmills universally good, nor coal universally bad. From simple physics and engineering standpoints, as well as in regards to environmental impacts (locally at the power site or elsewhere) ALL the various power systems humans use (including just using human power) have pros and cons regarding tradeoffs of power vs impact on the environment.

and finally, in any science, any theory, open and full discussion and challenge of theories should not be politicized, it should never be shut down. If a theory is absurd, then show that it is, scientifically. Show where the data or the conclusions are in error.

that was long winded, and I apologize for that. but if you are going to assert the demise of the polar bear as a species by 2016, and there are now more than ever, it does rather indicate that your conclusions were in error. If you are going to assert a never -ending drought in CA and that it's unique -- don't be shocked when it's pointed out that the geological evidence for a few millennia of drought/ rain cycles (including some 200 years in length) and the rainfall that refutes the claim.

 

[Lowell2]

Satellites reveal contrasting responses of regional climate to the widespread greening of Earth | Science Satellites reveal contrasting responses of regional climate to the widespread greening of Earth
Giovanni Forzieri1,*, Ramdane Alkama1, Diego G. Miralles2, Alessandro Cescatti1
Science 25 May 2017: eaal1727 DOI: 10.1126/science.aal1727

Changes in vegetation cover associated to the observed greening may affect several biophysical processes, whose net effects on climate are unclear. Here, we analyze remotely sensed dynamics in leaf area index (LAI) and energy fluxes to explore the associated variation in local climate. We show that the increasing trend in LAI contributed to the warming of boreal zones through a reduction of surface albedo, and to an evaporation-driven cooling in arid regions. The interplay between LAI and surface biophysics is amplified up to five times under extreme warm-dry and cold-wet years. Altogether, these signals reveal that the recent dynamics in global vegetation have had relevant biophysical impacts on the local climates and should be considered in the design of local mitigation and adaptation plans.

see also https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525141556.htm
the authors found that these relationships between LAI and surface biophysics were amplified up to five times under extreme warm-dry and cold-wet years.

They estimate that, across about 60% of the global vegetated area, greening has buffered warming by about 14%; for the remaining areas, which mostly include boreal zones, LAI trends have amplified the raise in air temperatures, leading to an additional warming of about 10%

 

[Lowell2]

The researchers noted that many factors are contributing to colony losses, with parasites and diseases at the top of the list. Poor nutrition and pesticide exposure are also taking a toll, especially among commercial beekeepers. These stressors are likely to synergize with each other to compound the problem, the researchers said.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-survey-honeybee-losses-horrible-bad.html#jCp

it's a little odd when a loss of 33.2% is considered an "improvement"

.
]Beekeepers who responded to the survey lost a total of 33.2 percent of their colonies over the course of the year. This marks a decrease of 7.3 percentage points over the previous study year (2015-16), when loss rates were found to be 40.5 percent. Winter loss rates decreased from 26.9 percent in the previous winter to 21.1 percent this past winter, while summer loss rates decreased from 23.6 percent to 18.1 percent.

The number one culprit remains the varroa mite, a lethal parasite that can easily spread between colonies. Mite levels in colonies are of particular concern in late summer, when bees are rearing longer-lived winter bees.


and this is related to climate how?

For example, some mite control products contain essential oils that break down at high temperatures, but many parts of the country experienced relatively mild temperatures in the spring and early summer of 2016.

 

[Lowell2]

https://techxplore.com/news/2017-05-power-carbon-dioxide-steam.html

(Tech Xplore)—A team with NET Power is currently in the process of building a power plant in Texas that will use a form of carbon dioxide to turn turbines instead of using steam to make electricity. The plant will be the first in the world to attempt to utilize the new technology. Levi Irwin and Yann Le Moullec with SETA, ManTech SRS Technologies, Inc., and Électricité de France, China Holding R&D respectively offer a Perspective piece on the work being done by the company in the journal Science.

More information: Levi Irwin et al. Turbines can use COto cut CO, Science (2017). DOI: 10.1126/science.aam8281
Summary
Two-thirds of the electricity in the United States is generated from fossil fuel via combustion-powered steam turbines. To get to the high temperatures needed for high efficiency, steam must first be vaporized from liquid water. The steam is further heated, expanded through the turbine, and condensed to water on the other side. In this process, called the Rankine cycle, the vaporization step is a phase change that requires a large heat input but delivers no increase in temperature (or efficiency). Advanced steam turbines try to avoid the phase change by going to supercritical conditions, but attempts to exhaust heat at low temperatures push parts of this cycle to operate just above water's critical point (374°C and 218 atm). Near this point, steam's heat capacity increases sharply, so up to 36% of total heat input still goes to a low-temperature, vaporizer-like process (see the figure). By switching from steam to supercritical CO2 (scCO2) and running a Brayton cycle (the same cycle run by natural gas turbines), the "vaporizer" step can be avoided, providing an opportunity to replace subcritical steam plants with a cycle that could be up to 30% more efficient. These gains are expected to persist in the smaller turbine sizes suited for harvesting solar thermal energy.

 

[Ighayere]

and you don't think universities have an agenda? or that the paid grants they have don't have an agenda? or that unlike those on a corporation payroll (who have to at least be effective or get fired), Universities don't protect those who have unrealistic agendas? If one is working for a living, one generally has to work for someone. in science that's usually a think tank (funded by corporations or government or a combination thereof) or universities (funded by grants from --corporations or government or a combination thereof). There's not many who are independently wealthy and can just study whatever they want without concern for putting food on the table. Hence they are all "bought and paid for" to some degree.

So, most of the scientists who work at universities worldwide are as biased as those on the payroll of big companies and political institutes. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it of course, but my own views do differ somewhat.

- the NOBEL prize? that has gotten so political it's laughable. I don't consider any Nobel prize awarded in the last 20 years to be worth anything as regards indication of competence in the field of the award. As for "he didn't complete a doctorate" -- the honorary doctorates awarded to people happen to count as valid doctorates. Which he did receive. Again, Nye portrays himself as an expert and he is no such thing. He hasn't even published anything. he just plays a scientist on TV.

I've never mentioned Bill Nye and he's irrelevant to my point.

The Nobel prizes I was referring to are the science ones. They are mostly non-political, and I wonder whether you have the requisite expertise to simply claim that those who have won science Nobel prizes in the last 20 years won the awards for political reasons. Are you a highly educated expert in physics, medicine, and chemistry?

And no, D'Aleo did not complete a doctorate. An "honorary Ph.D", and furthermore one from the university that he used to teach at, is just not the same thing.

no, not "anyone" again, looking at what the individual has specialized in after the degree, what they've published, do their peers consider them an expert.

What evidence is there that Wallace's scientific peers (climate scientists, in this context, even though he doesn't have the educational background one would expect most climate scientists to have) consider him an expert?

What has he published that you would be qualified to assess the merit of?

--did you bother to see who was with him in the brief? In a fight that goes to the supreme court, there's almost always huge amounts of money spent on both sides. Plenty of experts to pick from to support your side.

The issue is, what is the basis of the idea that he has expertise? I'm asking about Wallace specifically.

No. you havent', from what I've seen, bothered to reference any papers, experts or to explain what your criteria is. You've just questioned those I've provided -- yet the majority of the references I've provided are those of peer reviewed articles that have made it into journals that are generally hostile to the skeptics on any human-caused climate aspects. So they've made it past reviewers who don't like what they say.

I really don't care what the "detractors" say -- unless they can falsify the arguments, it's irrelevant. If they can, have at it. You can post their articles here. If my references show where there's flaws in "human caused climate change" or the various proposed solutions to the same, it's not the author's credentials that matter. It's if you can or can't disprove the falsification.

many of the sources I've previously referenced worked (or still work) for major climatology outfits (NASA, etc) or universities or are well recognized as experts (with or without a degree). When doomsday "human caused global warming" "experts" assert a never ending drought in California, it doesn't matter if a 2 year old points out the 2016-2017 rain season to them as a falsification. It matters that the facts are that it rained -- a LOT -- in California and it matters that assuming that it wouldn't is at least part of what led to ignoring maintenance and repair of places like Orville. it matters when your theory is wrong. I haven't seen Brown or Gore or any of the other "experts" get out there and apologize for hyping their theory to the cost of those in California who have to deal with the results of blind acceptance.

to again point out my position>
yes the climate is changing. It has since the planet was formed. Sometimes it changes rapidly, sometimes not. Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes colder. It almost never is completely "static" for any significant length of time.

We haven't been measuring the climate that long. Especially, we haven't been doing it with reasonably accurate equipment for that long. Asserting that the time frame for reasonably accurate measurements is sufficient to identify climate trends is iffy at best. Given issues regarding the location of measurement equipment, calibration, etc, it's even more iffy. Adjusting the data makes it even MORE iffy. We can, and do, extrapolate based on "proxy" information (tree rings, plant fossils, evidence of ocean extent, animal fossils, ice cores, etc) but all of THAT is also iffy. it's only rarely that we have something that is as clear cut as the iridium layer and a large meteor crater at Chicxulub gives us a serious point of climate change --and even then there are plenty of arguments (was there or wasn't there a global firestorm? a near global firestorm? if there was a following "arctic" climate, how long did it last? did the meteor or didn't it have anything to do with the Deccan traps? Which had the biggest impact on the climate? did one or the other or simple continental drift and climate change from that kill off the majority of dinosaurs and other life? and so forth).

if the climate is warming (and it seems to be, since there aren't glaciers in NY), Is the warming good, bad or benign? is that natural or manmade? If it's natural, what, if anything should we do about it? If it's manmade, what, if anything should we do about it? CAN we do anything significant if we wanted to? if it's some of both, is the manmade portion the more critical?

if the cause is humans and the change is generally bad, then the fastest, most effective means of altering that is NOT green energy, green cars or not bathing every day to conserve water. It is quick, significant reduction of the human population. Human interference in terms of medicines, health care, and other aids that most people consider essential humanitarianisms, are the major reason for survival -- before vaccines, most children died. Without prenatal care, food, millions of others will die. If we will ALL die if we don't change the climate, then should we continue doing that? (yes, this is what's called "devil's advocate. But in realistic terms, the only way humanity is going to comply with the climate hysteric's predictions of doom is if there are less humans by 2030. and the only way to do that is mass sterilizations or allowing millions to die -- or likely, both. I personally find that repugnant, but I don't find being asked to have a "green car" as a futile gesture to be particularly useful as an alternative).

If the desire is for a cleaner planet REGARDLESS of if it does/ doesn't have a big impact on the climate, what are the pros and cons of the various proposed solutions? I don't find windmills universally good, nor coal universally bad. From simple physics and engineering standpoints, as well as in regards to environmental impacts (locally at the power site or elsewhere) ALL the various power systems humans use (including just using human power) have pros and cons regarding tradeoffs of power vs impact on the environment.

and finally, in any science, any theory, open and full discussion and challenge of theories should not be politicized, it should never be shut down. If a theory is absurd, then show that it is, scientifically. Show where the data or the conclusions are in error.

that was long winded, and I apologize for that. but if you are going to assert the demise of the polar bear as a species by 2016, and there are now more than ever, it does rather indicate that your conclusions were in error. If you are going to assert a never -ending drought in CA and that it's unique -- don't be shocked when it's pointed out that the geological evidence for a few millennia of drought/ rain cycles (including some 200 years in length) and the rainfall that refutes the claim.

Okay, but I will still reiterate my request. If you have examples of scientists who have views like D'Aleo or Happer etc. but don't have the baggage that they do, please post them. I stated that several of the people whose names you've mentioned so far have indeed had their actual understanding of the science strongly questioned. Since I don't have the expertise to judge who is wrong or who is right, I would just prefer to see sources that do not have the sort of potential credibility problems and strong criticism of their views that the individuals whose work you've posted before do have.

 

[Lowell2]

So, most of the scientists who work at universities worldwide are as biased as those on the payroll of big companies and political institutes. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it of course, but my own views do differ somewhat.



I've never mentioned Bill Nye and he's irrelevant to my point.

The Nobel prizes I was referring to are the science ones. They are mostly non-political, and I wonder whether you have the requisite expertise to simply claim that those who have won science Nobel prizes in the last 20 years won the awards for political reasons. Are you a highly educated expert in physics, medicine, and chemistry?

And no, D'Aleo did not complete a doctorate. An "honorary Ph.D", and furthermore one from the university that he used to teach at, is just not the same thing.



What evidence is there that Wallace's scientific peers (climate scientists, in this context, even though he doesn't have the educational background one would expect most climate scientists to have) consider him an expert?

What has he published that you would be qualified to assess the merit of?



The issue is, what is the basis of the idea that he has expertise? I'm asking about Wallace specifically.




Okay, but I will still reiterate my request. If you have examples of scientists who have views like D'Aleo or Happer etc. but don't have the baggage that they do, please post them. I stated that several of the people whose names you've mentioned so far have indeed had their actual understanding of the science strongly questioned. Since I don't have the expertise to judge who is wrong or who is right, I would just prefer to see sources that do not have the sort of potential credibility problems and strong criticism of their views that the individuals whose work you've posted before do have.

since you clearly are cherry picking the authors I provide feel free to provide your own. I'm not obliged to dance to your tune. You assert that colleges and Universities don't have bias, but picking up the average newspaper refutes that -- or reading the proposed curriculum and the positions of the various universities.

Here's one for you, since you've only bothered to attack my sources and positions --

Let's assume humans are contributing to the change in climate. What's the ideal climate for the planet? What's the ideal temperature? is the ideal for the United states the same as for Canada? Uruguay? the Sudan? Australia?
Is the ideal entirely static? So any alteration by nature once this ideal is achieved needs to be counteracted by people to ensure the perfect climate?

If the science is so settled, why attempt to silence opposing views? the issue of dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds seems pretty overwhelming, but no one has shut down debate on it. If the science and predictions are so accurate, why were there fewer hurricanes ? 'Forecast Bust:' Why 2013 Hurricane Predictions Were So Wrong : NPR after all, if the theory is so correct, the predictions based on it ought to be correct.

Regarding animals: https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2017/05/whales-only-recently-evolved-into.html#PlZAlTih7muvegQG.97

The blue whale, which uses baleen to filter its prey from ocean water and can reach lengths of over 100 feet, is the largest vertebrate animal that has ever lived. On the list of the planet’s most massive living creatures, the blue whale shares the top ranks with most other species of baleen whales alive today. According to new research from scientists at the University of Chicago, Stanford University and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, however, it was only recently in whale’s evolutionary past that they became so enormous.
Graham Slater, assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago; Nicholas Pyenson, the museum’s curator of fossil marine mammals; and Jeremy Goldbogen at Stanford University traced the evolution of whale size through more than 30 million years of history and found that very large whales appeared along several branches of the family tree about 2 to 3 million years ago. Increasing ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere during this period likely altered the way whales’ food was distributed in the oceans and enhanced the benefits of a large body size, the scientists say.

--note by the way these guys don't have DR in their names. They appear, however, to be fully accepted as experts in their field.

The team used the fossil data, together with data on 13 species of modern whales, to examine the evolutionary relationships between whales of different sizes. Their data clearly showed that the large whales that exist today were not present for most of whales’ history. “We live in a time of giants,” Goldbogen said. “Baleen whales have never been this big, ever.”
The research team traced the discrepancy back to a shift in the way body size evolved that occurred about 4.5 million years ago. Not only did whales with bodies longer than 10 meters (approximately 33 feet) begin to evolve around this time, but smaller species of whales also began to disappear. Pyenson notes that larger whales appeared in several different lineages around the same time, suggesting that massive size was somehow advantageous during that timeframe.
This evolutionary shift, which took place at the beginning of the Ice Ages, corresponds to climatic changes that would have reshaped whales’ food supply in the world’s oceans

so like giant bison, giant irish elk, mastadons and others, the large size of whales is an evolutionary response to a cold period. they weren't always that way. Polar bears, the darling (and not currently endangered) of "save species" are actually quite recent offshoots of the brown bear

--so much so that they can and do successfully interbreed. With the ending of the last ice age, many species disappeared.
on the other hand, the end of the ice age gave rise to other animals and their ability to disperse to new environments -- Horses and Homo Sapiens among them. Climate Change Drove Evolution of Ice Age Predators - Astrobiology Magazine
Climate Change Triggered Evolution in Ice Age Predators [VIDEO] : Animals : Nature World News

The wolf wouldn't exist. horses, cattle, modern humans. A warming climate helped these species. how warm is warm enough? how warm is too warm? too cold? WHO DECIDES?

So with all the hype about man-caused climate change, please provide (PHDs and no ties to anyone getting a grant or other funding by people with a specific point of view, since that's your criterion) peer reviewed well accepted (no one is disputing them since that seems to be your criterion as well) as to the perfect climate that should be aimed for, how that is determined and that it actually does provide benefits for everyone and every animal on the planet.

I don't think you will find any such, because there is no such. which is why i find the whole "we're to blame" game and the political maneuvering about it to be so unscientific. If the climate is in real dire straits and we ALL need to work together, then giving China (one of the largest polluters) a pass until 2030 (apparently well past the doomsday date according to many. In fact, some of the predictions indicate we're already past it) is not only unreasonable, it's suicidal. Yet, there it is. This country needs to do this and that, but THAT country doesn't. nope. if it's global, it's global. None of those emerging nations get a pass either. It's just too bad if they are only now coming out of dire poverty, famine, lack of modern systems -- they'll just have to find a way to NOT use the fuel resources they have that are considered anathema and use the approved "green" ones only -- even if they are significantly more expensive, less effective and arent' available in those countries. Where's the demand for lower population NOW? after all, fewer people, even if they pollute at the same rate would pollute less.

Or maybe the fact that it's getting warmer (yes, probably is or at least was -- ends of ice ages DO tend to be warmer) is being used as a political tool by people who come in on private jets, with 13 car and helicopter convoys to lecture us peons about how WE should "sacrifice" to save the planet. How many of those advocates are living in an apartment with minimum utilities? NONE OF THEM.