Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Mattrg02]

Not a single person is this thread (that I am aware of) is a trained climatologist. Nearly all who are climatologists agree on the basic principles and predictions, with differences being in the timing and extent of the effect of greenhouse gases on the very complex system which is earth climate.

So when untrained people, most of whom have not actually read and technically evaluated the peer reviewed articles to clearly identify what specifically they think is wrong with a given model, say they are are not convinced by the many trained experts around the world, I do not give equal weight to their opinions as to the experts.

If someone has a specific concern with an assumption of a specific model, that's great. That's what science is, and it takes place in the scientific community all the time. That said, no one in this thread is going to be able to assess whether a particular concern has any merit because none of us have the needed training or familiarity with the exact details of the models to give an adequate response.

With that mentality, then our opinions are all equally valid and there shouldn't be any scientific discussion, period.

I'm not a mathematician, but I had to take a lot of it to get my EE degree. That doesn't mean that I can't discuss differential equations with a mathematician.

 

[neuwave]

With that mentality, then our opinions are all equally valid and there shouldn't be any scientific discussion, period.

I'm not a mathematician, but I had to take a lot of it to get my EE degree. That doesn't mean that I can't discuss differential equations with a mathematician.

I tried to talk to you about just basic algebra with you in form of cost verse expenses of how it would cost the utility company a lot of expense if they attempted to switch over to renewable energy. But you got mad when I tried learn from someone like yourself who is in the industry.

 

[Mattrg02]

I tried to talk to you about just basic algebra with you in form of cost verse expenses of how it would cost the utility company a lot of expense if they attempted to switch over to renewable energy. But you got mad when I tried learn from someone like yourself who is in the industry.

That is because basic algebra isn't the math used to determine cost of energy and Member pricing projections. It isn't simple, as you seem to think.

You also come off as very argumentative for someone with literally no experience outside of a lecture hall and a text book. I bet that ticks you off, but should motivate you to graduate, take an opportunity, humble yourself, and then do some real learning.

Matt

 

[Newtron]

Also in this cat and mouse above. A concentrated solar thermal farm is about 9 times more costly to install than a coal plant. With an ROI (return on investment ) at 12 years to break even. A system refurbishment is required at 15 year mark on the reflectors. (Very costly)

At least that was the last time I quoted an energy system.

I may own a portion of a Solar Thermal company that produces mobile fracking cleanup systems that runs off grid. Startup I am no longer with but still own part of.

They (oil companies) are willing to pay because they don't want maintenance on generator systems in the middle of nowhere. And don't care about degradation in the system as long as it keeps working to some degree and can just do annual maintenance vs monthly.

Energy systems however care about efficiency because that = money and brown outs as the system degrades.

 

[Mattrg02]

Also should add:

Solar plants have a huge flaw when it comes to time of use and reliability... Darkness.

Storage is required for Solar systems and battery technology is lagging solar technology very badly. This GREATLY ups the cost.

I know all of this because, along many things at my utility, I am the head of our Solar initiative and project manager for our own, utility scale, solar array projects that we have coming down the pipes. We aren't doing this because it's cheaper than our power provider, we are doing this because our Members want the option.

I haven't brought up maintenance costs since both solar and coal have them.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

With that mentality, then our opinions are all equally valid and there shouldn't be any scientific discussion, period.

People who challenge the consensus of expert scientists without a clear reason that can be evaluated are just expressing unsubstantiated opinions. It isn't of scientific value to say 'I don't believe that prediction" without giving a reason. The reason is the scientific discussion.

 

[Newtron]

You should talk to my boss on batteries. ;) I'm sure you have seen the big tesla packs installed in LA, to help prevent our brown outs. Yes LA still gets brown outs. They also have a new set for Australia being installed.

 

[Mattrg02]

People who challenge the consensus of expert scientists without a clear reason that can be evaluated are just expressing unsubstantiated opinions. It isn't of scientific value to say 'I don't believe that prediction" without giving a reason. The reason is the scientific discussion.

One thing hurting scientists is that they are always having to bring in funding for their research, else they go hungry. They have a motive. The Paris Acord definitely looked bad when the talk about giving our money away was mentioned.

The university that I graduated from, which we are now a sponsor of, is always having to get grant money or handouts to continue their research. They need us as an industry player to show the Government that they are doing research worth the grant money.

What I find as disturbing is that their PhD kids, several of whom I went to school with, miss basic concepts that make their work, which is pretty much reinventing the wheel, worthless. That doesn't look good and only hurts my view of scientists and their work. This isn't to say that I now view all scientists as lousy, just makes me more skeptical.

Unfortunately, there's a motive to keep this climate change thing front and center. We need to get money out of it and people may be more apt to go along with it.

Edit: Guess what else is a world issue that needs help? Feed the children. I was into that until I saw where my money was going.

 

[Mattrg02]

You should talk to my boss on batteries. ;) I'm sure you have seen the big tesla packs installed in LA, to help prevent our brown outs. Yes LA still gets brown outs. They also have a new set for Australia being installed.

Oh yea, I saw them. Very expensive and very low capacity, but getting there.

 

[Pmj]

I think, regardless of your opinion on AGW or politics, if you are a lover of nature (as I would assume you are to house reef inhabitants and frequent this website), you would want us to desperately look for cleaner sources of energy and find ways to at least mitigate our practices of polluting. Yes, that means their will be a cost to doing so. I hope we can get enough people to agree to at least that at some point.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

One thing hurting scientists is that they are always having to bring in funding for their research, else they go hungry. They have a motive. The Paris Acord definitely looked bad when the talk about giving our money away was mentioned.

The university that I graduated from, which we are now a sponsor of, is always having to get grant money or handouts to continue their research. They need us as an industry player to show the Government that they are doing research worth the grant money.

What I find as disturbing is that their PhD kids, several of whom I went to school with, miss basic concepts that make their work, which is pretty much reinventing the wheel, worthless. That doesn't look good and only hurts my view of scientists and their work. This isn't to say that I now view all scientists as lousy, just makes me more skeptical.

Unfortunately, there's a motive to keep this climate change thing front and center. We need to get money out of it and people may be more apt to go along with it.

Nonsense. You don't think there's money, and tons of it, for a true expert climatologist who had data and models that showed there wasn't a contribution to global temperature rise from CO2? So why aren't they showing it?

I know why. lol

 

[Pmj]

Nonsense. You don't think there's money, and tons of it, for a true expert climatologist who had data and models that showed there wasn't a contribution to global temperature rise from CO2? So why aren't they showing it?

I know why. lol

Yeah, I never understood that line of thinking. What scientist wouldn't want to be internationally known as the scientist that finally found the truth about the climate hoax? I'm sure there is a ton of money for research from the oil companies and the other interests in maintaining the status quo.

 

[Mattrg02]

Nonsense. You don't think there's money, and tons of it, for a true expert climatologist who had data and models that showed there wasn't a contribution to global temperature rise from CO2? So why aren't they showing it?

I know why. lol

Because of politics. Any scientist that disagrees with this gets ostracized and ridiculed.

Isn't that what science did back in the flat earth and giant turtle in space days?

Science can't be wrong, but scientists surely can be. History constantly proves that.

 

[easternreefer]

Is change occurring? sure? but is it the death of us and the world.. highly unlikely.. look for information on the little ice age in the early 1800's . Change in the short term happens and what most of the data I have scene is very short term.. i'm sorry but saying that in the last 30 years something has changed means squat as far as the worlds climate is concerned. We have no full honest data on what the earth was like 200 years ago. much less in the last 10,000 years.. The other thing that bothers me about the climate change thing is that science speaks about cycles of everything..but with climate its nope this is the death of us.. there will be no natural correction ever.. the data of the last 30 years is indisputable.. Really.. 40 years ago they said we could not keep SW aquariums..

 

[neuwave]

That is because basic algebra isn't the math used to determine cost of energy and Member pricing projections. It isn't simple, as you seem to think.

You also come off as very argumentative for someone with literally no experience outside of a lecture hall and a text book. I bet that ****** you off, but should motivate you to graduate, take an opportunity, humble yourself, and then do some real learning.

Matt

Well I used algebra in my question since basic math since you earlier got frustrated about a calculus reference I gave, when I didn't even ask you about giving me any calculus in the first place. I never thought or said it was simple math but a base description would be of great help to see a basis of the BIG expense you mentioned before. Your welcome to go into more detailed mathematics and I'd be happy to listen. I never said your were wrong about said pricing but asked how it worked. You know to learn from someone like yourself who has years in the industry and years of experience.

lol That didn't tick me off. And it doesn't motivate me to graduate, graduation is already happening this year.

Also in this cat and mouse above. A concentrated solar thermal farm is about 9 times more costly to install than a coal plant. With an ROI (return on investment ) at 12 years to break even. A system refurbishment is required at 15 year mark on the reflectors. (Very costly)

At least that was the last time I quoted an energy system.

I may own a portion of a Solar Thermal company that produces mobile fracking cleanup systems that runs off grid. Startup I am no longer with but still own part of.

They (oil companies) are willing to pay because they don't want maintenance on generator systems in the middle of nowhere. And don't care about degradation in the system as long as it keeps working to some degree and can just do annual maintenance vs monthly.

Energy systems however care about efficiency because that = money and brown outs as the system degrades.

As you can see above Newtron gave me more numbers and figures(math) as small as it was, more than you ever did. Thank you Newtron

Basically, yes I am a new engineer and such that as engineering students graduate don't only look at the books for answers but we also go to the experienced engineers (you said you are a EE) for knowledge. We graduates enjoy and are enthusiastic to know their experience. Mark you just made a bunch of assumptions about my personality and what I would do. Since I have worked in the corporate business world and private stock market investor just shy of two decades(I'm a lot older than you might assume). I have seen how money and finances attribute to cost company changes.
Not a single mention of single math based comparison of renewable energy and the utility company. Since the vast majority of your posts to me comments on personality. I can only conclude that don't know or just like to argue.

 

[Mattrg02]

I've got the answer for us all.

Aliens.

They are the ones that could put this topic to rest. We need to find them, and ask them, what's the deal with climate change.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Because of politics. Any scientist that disagrees with this gets ostracized and ridiculed.
.

And gets massive amounts of money to continue their work from those who "want" there to be no climate change.

Sure, politics is easy to blame.

Unfortunately, few if any, expert climatologists, have data and models that show it to be false.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

. The other thing that bothers me about the climate change thing is that science speaks about cycles of everything..but with climate its nope this is the death of us.. there will be no natural correction ever.. the data of the last 30 years is indisputable.. Really.. 40 years ago they said we could not keep SW aquariums..

That's the sort of hyperbole that sounds incriminating, but no expert climatologist ever claims it. lol

 

[Mattrg02]

Well I used algebra in my question since basic math since you earlier got frustrated about a calculus reference I gave, when I didn't even ask you about giving me any calculus in the first place. I never thought or said it was simple math but a base description would be of great help to see a basis of the BIG expense you mentioned before. Your welcome to go into more detailed mathematics and I'd be happy to listen. I never said your were wrong about said pricing but asked how it worked. You know to learn from someone like yourself who has years in the industry and years of experience.

lol That didn't **** me off. And it doesn't motivate me to graduate, graduation is already happening this year.



As you can see above Newtron gave me more numbers and figures(math) as small as it was, more than you ever did. Thank you Newtron

Basically, yes I am a new engineer and such that as engineering students graduate don't only look at the books for answers but we also go to the experienced engineers (you said you are a EE) for knowledge. We graduates enjoy and are enthusiastic to know their experience. Mark you just made a bunch of assumptions about my personality and what I would do. Since I have worked in the corporate business world and private stock market investor just shy of two decades(I'm a lot older than you might assume). I have seen how money and finances attribute to cost company changes.
Not a single mention of single math based comparison of renewable energy and the utility company. Since the vast majority of your posts to me comments on personality. I can only conclude that don't know or just like to argue.

Honestly, I just don't enjoy discussing the finances and economics behind pricing and energy projections. I have to sit in a presentation each year with our power provider and look at their different statistics models that justify their projections. It's dry, it's boring, and is completely out of the scope of this thread. I'm an Engineer, not a CPA or statistician. I only care about costs and efficiency.

 

[Husker]

Because of politics. Any scientist that disagrees with this gets ostracized and ridiculed.

Isn't that what science did back in the flat earth and giant turtle in space days?

Science can't be wrong, but scientists surely can be. History constantly proves that.

Most often, the reason paradigm-shifting data are ignored is because of political pressure. Scientists have historically done pretty well at accepting paradigm shifts as soon as the data indicated the shift was warranted. It is the uninformed public and policymakers who resist the evidence based shifts. The heliocentric solar system, evolution by natural selection, life leads to life (and the absence of spontaneous generation of life), microbes as the source of infections (and not "bad air"), DNA as the molecular entity of inheritance, etc. These all overturned previous paradigms with new data. The scientific community generally embraced the evidence (as it accumulated), but public acceptance on all these issues was very delayed due to religious, political, or philosophical reasons.