Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Centerline]

SO I'm not a scientist but I am an engineer, for the last 30 years a computer and database engineer. One of the businesses I own specializes in working with very large data sets to create predictive models. Those models span everything from shopping habits to human longevity. All of it relies on very accurate data to predict accurate outcomes.

As I understand it the data sets used by most climate change scientists that suggests temperature trends for the last 2000 years or so is a derivative of several different proxies (tree cores, ocean sediment, ice core samples, etc.). Does anyone know where the data can be found? Is their a public repository for this information? Are there any available studies on the resolution of the data sets?

 

[neuwave]

Another issue with science is that statistics get slanted according to the agenda of the presenter.

This will probably be one of those things that doesn't get accepted until common people begin to become affected by it, like most anything.


So what do the scientists want us to do?

I work in the utilities. To go full solar would cause our Members bills to go up BIG TIME. Same goes for putting ANY kind of cost onto the generating companies to change. They'll just charge the utility more which just gets passed down to the consumer.

It would be a complete lifestyle change that many can't afford, just like the ACA and tripling premiums.

Scientists that believe this is a real thing need to start offering fixes that we ALL can afford to adopt, not just telling us that things have got to change.

Electric cars maybe? Where does the electrons come from? How about the energy and meterials to create the Electrical components.

Priorities will need to be straightened out before ANYTHING can be done about the possible issue. If you ask people to downgrade the quality of life or to start walking, well, you'll see the oceans take back quite a bit of land at some point.

You mention going solar would make the payments go up BIG TIME. Could you break it down and elaborate why payments would increase? Since you work for the utilities. Would it be the change in construction of the current power plants over to solar or wind or ocean tide power? Or the cost to retrain current employees to operate different energy producing technology and maintain? Or other? If so could you show the mathematical breakdown, please? Thank you

 

[Greybeard]

Sad that people even debate this. :(

Perhaps we're just tired of people screaming that the sky is falling. In the 60's, we were going to destroy the earth with nukes. In the 70's, we were in for another ice age. In the 80's, the ozone hole was going to kill us all. In the 90's, Killer Bees... Today, 'Climate Change'. We've been less than a decade away from total disaster ALL MY LIFE!

I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, it is... always has, with or without humans contributing to it. Are we contributing this time? Who knows. Temps on Mars have gone up over the last decade, more than they have here... we responsible for that too?

What I'm saying is this: Before we dump our entire civilization down the drain, we do, in fact want proof. Not computer models (as a software engineer, I promise, I can make a computer model show _anything_ that I want it too). Proof, and a reasonable SOLUTION to the problem. We have not seen either.

You talk about the corporate dollars behind 'deniers'... take a look at the corruption and averice on the other side! How is my paying higher taxes because I use more energy than someone else going to help lower CO2 levels?

 

[Dartfrog1]

I've been around this wonderful world of ours compliments of mother green and he killing machine AKA the US Army and if we play a part it is very small and if you read the lasted report that was just peer reviewed
the only temp raises came from the AJUSTED temperatures!!! There were no temperature raises besides the ones that they CORRECTED!!!

 

[Waterjockey]

You mentioned above that basic physics and thermodynamics are missing. As an engineer, basic physics and basic thermodynamics are apart of our college curriculum. What basics are missing?

Again, poor way of saying, the models used for AGW are incomplete (modeling involves putting the world into mathematical equations....when your model is incomplete, they are missing), which is part of why they have been, ummm...less than adequate at forecasting. I shouldn't be multi-tasking and posting with the lack of attention that I should be giving to what I have said...especially incomplete thoughts, this is more my notepad jotting prompts to myself style...my apologies. If our understanding of ocean/atmospheric coupling is poor, for example, then we cannot adequately insert the math for that into the model, amongst other variables...and without detailed understanding of those relationships, you are unable to model the impacts they may have.
On personal speculation, I don't think within the respective fields, there is nearly as wide a rift between the two camps as the media makes it appear.

 

[Waterjockey]

I won't comment on the quality of Kansas/Missouri's science education, but here is a Snopes article related to the "coming ice age" Time Magazine, to which you are referring: http://www.snopes.com/the-coming-ice-age/ There was no such article in Time Magazine, although there was a bit of an overzealous article regarding climate change. That zeal was at the hands of the journalist, who was making claims which he now admits were beyond what was supported by scientific evidence.

Nevertheless, I agree there has been a perpetual problem with media outlets over-dramatizing science to get readers/viewers/listeners. Think of how often you hear about cancer treatments reported, and how enthusiastically they are reported (there is a lot of good work being done, but science typically progresses incrementally and not in dramatic, paradigm shifts).

The Time Magazine cover was a hoax, yes. But I remember vividly various magazines like popular science, mechanics etc, and media articles all around me about the coming ice age. I was very young and impressionable, and it scared the crap out of me....so much so, that is the reason I built a solar tracker as my grade 7 science project, as part of how were we going to have survive in the near future, and my foray into building all kinds of renewable energy gadgets from various magazines and library research. What Husker talks about was very real then....in fact it sound very much like what we are hearing again now, but in the opposite direction :), thus in part, the skepticism. The media does the science community a great disservice in that regard

 

[neuwave]

Again, poor way of saying, the models used for AGW are incomplete (modeling involves putting the world into mathematical equations....when your model is incomplete, they are missing), which is part of why they have been, ummm...less than adequate at forecasting. I shouldn't be multi-tasking and posting with the lack of attention that I should be giving to what I have said...especially incomplete thoughts, this is more my notepad jotting prompts to myself style...my apologies. If our understanding of ocean/atmospheric coupling is poor, for example, then we cannot adequately insert the math for that into the model, amongst other variables...and without detailed understanding of those relationships, you are unable to model the impacts they may have.
On personal speculation, I don't think within the respective fields, there is nearly as wide a rift between the two camps as the media makes it appear.

No problem. It happens that sometimes incomplete thoughts get typed in too quickly while we are busy. No worries.
Understandable that if we are missing parts of the variables the mathematical equations can be thrown. So which parts do you believe are missing? And what parts of the atsmosphric /ocean coupling are not understood well enough? I guess what I'm getting at anyone who has mentioned missing variables or the model being unreliable enough has never answered the question. But if we don't know what significant data or variables are missing, how can one deny the exsistance of climate change. Not saying improvements can't be made but knowing the amount of impact one variable has allows one to either keep it in a model or not, if needed.
Also, at what rate of change (heat/thermal) would you classify as important enough to believe climate change is from human impact? Since that is one statement climate change has stated that the rate of change. If you know I'd appreciate it, if not it's ok. I just want to ask some like yourself whom isn't convinced yet of climate change that could possibly give me a more science based answer. On the chance you have a rate of change that would change your mind. Please provide units if possible. It's just a start to see people who are not convinced l, the ability to explain their concerns in a science based train of thought. Thank you

 

[Centerline]

No problem. It happens that sometimes incomplete thoughts get typed in too quickly while we are busy. No worries.
Understandable that if we are missing parts of the variables the mathematical equations can be thrown. So which parts do you believe are missing? And what parts of the atsmosphric /ocean coupling are not understood well enough? I guess what I'm getting at anyone who has mentioned missing variables or the model being unreliable enough has never answered the question. But if we don't know what significant data or variables are missing, how can one deny the exsistance of climate change. Not saying improvements can't be made but knowing the amount of impact one variable has allows one to either keep it in a model or not, if needed.
Also, at what rate of change (heat/thermal) would you classify as important enough to believe climate change is from human impact? Since that is one statement climate change has stated that the rate of change. If you know I'd appreciate it, if not it's ok. I just want to ask some like yourself whom isn't convinced yet of climate change that could possibly give me a more science based answer. On the chance you have a rate of change that would change your mind. Please provide units if possible. It's just a start to see people who are not convinced l, the ability to explain their concerns in a science based train of thought. Thank you

Climate change is obviously real. But where is the raw data for the variable sets used to suggest the out of control warming trends. I'm having a tough time find anything other than article after article of hyperbole from both sides of the issue. I would like to get my hands on the actual data.

 

[Mattrg02]

You mention going solar would make the payments go up BIG TIME. Could you break it down and elaborate why payments would increase? Since you work for the utilities. Would it be the change in construction of the current power plants over to solar or wind or ocean tide power? Or the cost to retrain current employees to operate different energy producing technology and maintain? Or other? If so could you show the mathematical breakdown, please? Thank you

It may be easier to start with you telling me/us how you view utilities and generation companies.

In general, economics is the reason.

Matt

 

[neuwave]

It may be easier to start with you telling me/us how you view utilities and generation companies.

In general, economics is the reason.

Matt

How would it be eaiser? When you work for the utilities company and brought up the statement that the payments would go up BIG TIME. (Only using caps to quote your initial statement). Since you have first hand experience about the increase and I don't so asking the person who works for the company would be the start of finding out how and why.

 

[4FordFamily]

IMO there are far more important things we could focus on that make marginal differences on our planet. Littering and disposal of fluids and toxic waste, for example.

If we removed all cars on planet earth I truly don't believe it would make a marginal impact on climate. We can only control so little, and we also know so little.

This is a political game unfortunately. But it's certainly true that we are devastating the world with habitat destruction, careless pollution and littering, etc. we should absolutely aim to take care of the planet.

 

[Husker]

Isn't that the point though? No one is proposing policies that have costs and consequences in the trillions of dollars for different interpretations of relativity or quantum mechanics.
Whenever policy that will compel people to act through coercion or appropriation of property people tend to get rather heated about it.
Unfortunately, it becomes much harder to have an academic or even civil conversation when the costs are so high and the time frame for discussion and corresponding action is immediate.

This is an incredibly important point. The cost of being wrong in either direction is almost insurmountable. That is rarely the case for a scientific question.

 

[Mattrg02]

How would it be eaiser? When you work for the utilities company and brought up the statement that the payments would go up BIG TIME. (Only using caps to quote your initial statement). Since you have first hand experience about the increase and I don't so asking the person who works for the company would be the start of finding out how and why.

Economics is the reason, plain and simple. Generation companies aren't out to **** and pillage via c02 pollution. They would build solar if it was cheaper, it just isn't. It's much more expensive than coal fired and natural gas. I'm not going to pull the numbers and math, that's for you to do. You would cross check it anyways and likely put a spin on it.

Btw- There is such a thing as clean coal. One of our suppliers uses it and has found a way to run clean coal and still keep our prices stable. Research a clean coal plant, they are amazing. Ours found a way to use the waste onto gypsum for a drywall plant next door to them.

I'm an engineer for my utility and I spend most of my time trying to improve efficiency and reliability for our Members. Have faith in us. We aren't the enemy.

 

[Mattrg02]

IMO there are far more important things we could focus on that make marginal differences on our planet. Littering and disposal of fluids and toxic waste, for example.

If we removed all cars on planet earth I truly don't believe it would make a marginal impact on climate. We can only control so little, and we also know so little.

This is a political game unfortunately. But it's certainly true that we are devastating the world with habitat destruction, careless pollution and littering, etc. we should absolutely aim to take care of the planet.

We could do without the Ford F-350 trucks ;-)

 

[Tuffyyyyy]

Mmm yes. Science bad. Blind speculation good

Says the person trying to quote facts from the place most (all?) conspiracy theories are created.

 

[Humblefish]

Another George Carlin quote, to calm everybody's nerves :D:

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… goofballs. :p

 

[Husker]

Another George Carlin quote, to calm everybody's nerves :D:

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… goofballs. :p

There are many kinds of genius. One kind involves creating calculus to explain the force of gravity. Another is making profound and witty comments about the state of being.

 

[neuwave]

Economics is the reason, plain and simple. Generation companies aren't out to **** and pillage via c02 pollution. They would build solar if it was cheaper, it just isn't. It's much more expensive than coal fired and natural gas. I'm not going to pull the numbers and math, that's for you to do. You would cross check it anyways and likely put a spin on it.

Btw- There is such a thing as clean coal. One of our suppliers uses it and has found a way to run clean coal and still keep our prices stable. Research a clean coal plant, they are amazing. Ours found a way to use the waste onto gypsum for a drywall plant next door to them.

I'm an engineer for my utility and I spend most of my time trying to improve efficiency and reliability for our Members. Have faith in us. We aren't the enemy.

First, I never mentioned that the energy companies are out to get people or purposely generate CO2. Next you simply assume that I would put a spin on it, based off what? If it is correct then there is nothing to blame or point fingers. As an engineer, their findings and work and calculations tend to be double checked or peered reviewed or recalculated by themselves or others for accuracy. This allows for proper answers. I am not sure what discipline your are ME, EE, IE, CE, etc but we all took many physics, and mathematics classes. In calculus we all have to show our work otherwise we would never pass the class. If you where asked to answer an integral using the division by parts method you have to demonstrate the method otherwise the professor has no way of knowing that you know how to integrate. So all engineers are used to showing their numbers. As in this case you are directly linked to the energy company and brought to the discussion of BIG TIME expenses. Naturally the only way to learn about these BIG TIME expenses you spoke of is if you showed your work/explained your statement. How else did you expect anyone to learn about BIG TIME expenses if the person who comes from the industry won't or can't?

I have researched clean coal and spoken with energy companies. Because I am applying to various companies around the country for engineering, since I am about to receive my Bachelors in Mechanical engineering. Different utility companies spoke of different ways of changing or not changing their CO2 output.

So can you be able to provide useful information on the economics/BIG TIME expenses or not? Also could you not assume I will spin the numbers since I have given no reason I would. The only assumption I ever made was that you would be the best person to speak with initially about BIG Expenses since your brought the topic to the table and work directly for the utility company. Thank you

 

[Mattrg02]

First, I never mentioned that the energy companies are out to get people or purposely generate CO2. Next you simply assume that I would put a spin on it, based off what? If it is correct then there is nothing to blame or point fingers. As an engineer, their findings and work and calculations tend to be double checked or peered reviewed or recalculated by themselves or others for accuracy. This allows for proper answers. I am not sure what discipline your are ME, EE, IE, CE, etc but we all took many physics, and mathematics classes. In calculus we all have to show our work otherwise we would never pass the class. If you where asked to answer an integral using the division by parts method you have to demonstrate the method otherwise the professor has no way of knowing that you know how to integrate. So all engineers are used to showing their numbers. As in this case you are directly linked to the energy company and brought to the discussion of BIG TIME expenses. Naturally the only way to learn about these BIG TIME expenses you spoke of is if you showed your work/explained your statement. How else did you expect anyone to learn about BIG TIME expenses if the person who comes from the industry won't or can't?

I have researched clean coal and spoken with energy companies. Because I am applying to various companies around the country for engineering, since I am about to receive my Bachelors in Mechanical engineering. Different utility companies spoke of different ways of changing or not changing their CO2 output.

So can you be able to provide useful information on the economics/BIG TIME expenses or not? Also could you not assume I will spin the numbers since I have given no reason I would. The only assumption I ever made was that you would be the best person to speak with initially about BIG Expenses since your brought the topic to the table and work directly for the utility company. Thank you

Dude, were on a GD fish forum for goodness sake! No one here is going to whip out calculus to back up what they are saying, nor am I.

 

[neuwave]

Dude, were on a GD fish forum for goodness sake! No one here is going to whip out calculus to back up what they are saying, nor am I.

I never asked you to whip out calculus not once did say give me calculus. I mentioned as an example for proof of concept since you say you are an engineer. You assumed I'd spin numbers you never gave and then assumed I'd spin them when I have never once spun any ones number.

Why do keep assuming things I never asked or did or have done?

All I asked was what BiG TIME expenses (pherhaps a small break down) since you mentioned in the first place to since you work the utility company. If you don't know how BIG expenses the utility company has then say so. Simply as that. There's no harm if you don't know. You brought up BIG expenses in the first place.