TexasCHLforum.com

TVegas wrote:cb1000rider, I considered making an educated, logical argument based on everything you addressed, but I had to decide against wasting my time and energy. I commend you on trying though. The folks who doubt human impact on the climate simply don't understand how it works and they don't want to believe it is possible because life is rosier when you don't have to acknowledge fault, even if it is diffuse and common. They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Why do I believe the reality of current climate change? I believe it because of research and analysis of the data, and methods of data collection, that I have personally done during my studies at A&M. I am about to graduate with a degree in Environmental Studies, but don't try to dismiss me as a "liberal hippy". I don't trust every word my largely liberal professors have said, but that only extends to opinions, and this subject is not based on politics or opinions when it comes to my professors. I trust my own education and analysis more than I would ever trust a handful of people making the same claims based on very little real evidence.

I respect all people, especially the folks who would be members of this forum, so please don't take my comments as inflammatory. They are simply the conclusions of what my own research in school has brought me.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing the thread. I agree completely that the article is complete bunk.

When the data is looked at over larger periods of time changes can still be seen even before industrialization. Man's impact on global climate change is negligible if there is any at all. What about all the changes before industrialization? Were those because of all the methane emissions of all those animals that were more abundant then?

mojo84 wrote: CB, I take it you are in an industry that profits from alternative energy sources. Is this correct? If so, you benefit from the "climate change" is causing harm to the earth arguments. Is this correct?

I know some "green homebuilders". They laughingly say being "green certified" has added 25-30% to their bottom line as it has drives up the cost of construction, repair and maintenance. They are "all in" on climate change, global warming, climate or whatever you want to call it.

No, Mojo, I'm not. If I was, I'd freely admit it. I work in technology, but not at all related to the energy industry. My education affords me some sort of status as an "electrician" in some jurisdictions and in the lesser regulated ones (rural), I've got minimum credentials to do electrical work like solar when working with contractors. I've done a grand total of 3 arrays - all residential. Electrical (PV) and some hot water on those installs. I got certified to install wind, but then refused to install it as I didn't like the product. Unlike most of my hobbies, this one actually made money and I enjoy working with my hands - it feels like real work, especially hauling up an array in the middle of August. It really was a hobby and an interest thing that paid and I mainly did it for a friend who is a home builder. I could probably do it for a living, but it's a lot more risky in terms of predictable income than my day job.

I agree with you - I see builders that advertise "energy star" certifications and there isn't much to it. Some of that stuff there is value in - when we built, I did foam insulation, low E windows, solar hot water, and some altered construction to be able to pack more insulation in. I haven't done PV (solar) at home yet because I see that the price trend continues to be downward...

TVegas wrote:cb1000rider, I considered making an educated, logical argument based on everything you addressed, but I had to decide against wasting my time and energy. I commend you on trying though. The folks who doubt human impact on the climate simply don't understand how it works and they don't want to believe it is possible because life is rosier when you don't have to acknowledge fault, even if it is diffuse and common. They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Why do I believe the reality of current climate change? I believe it because of research and analysis of the data, and methods of data collection, that I have personally done during my studies at A&M. I am about to graduate with a degree in Environmental Studies, but don't try to dismiss me as a "liberal hippy". I don't trust every word my largely liberal professors have said, but that only extends to opinions, and this subject is not based on politics or opinions when it comes to my professors. I trust my own education and analysis more than I would ever trust a handful of people making the same claims based on very little real evidence.

I respect all people, especially the folks who would be members of this forum, so please don't take my comments as inflammatory. They are simply the conclusions of what my own research in school has brought me.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing the thread. I agree completely that the article is complete bunk.

An almost graduate lecturing those of us who are professional engineers with 30 years of experience in various fields....please. I was a fresh college graduate once and I had no idea how much I didn't know. I know this will be hard for you to accept, but sorry, in the fields of science and engineering, when you graduate from college, you really don't know anything. The degree prepares you to learn it doesn't make you an expert. You may not see it in environmental studies so much, but an undergraduate science or engineering degree of any kind does not prepare one for how stupid you soon feel in front of a group of non-degreed technicians with years of experience. I've seen engineers with Phd's and no experience made fools of by people with no degrees and lots of experience. It can be very humbling.

TVegas wrote:They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Personally, I wouldn't ever argue that the planet isn't getting warmer, but (for me) the point of argument is about how much of that is impacted humans. And I admit that the human factor isn't a factual issue yet. However, if you can't get to the point of recognition that the climate is changing, that sort of kills any further debate and discussion.

I see some hope. BaldEagle doesn't buy the whole thing and points to some grand conspiracy (my words, not his). I love a good conspiracy, but need to understand how that works out of for the puppet masters. What I do appreciate about his posts are that regardless of agree/disagree on the global warming, he believes that we should take reasonable means to protect the environment. I consider that point of view to be inherently reasonable. I wish more people were of that sort of mind.

When we can't even agree on basic facts like coal power being relatively "dirty" in terms of green house gasses, there really isn't any ground to base a discussion on.

And at least this topic has been free of personal attacks!

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: CB, I take it you are in an industry that profits from alternative energy sources. Is this correct? If so, you benefit from the "climate change" is causing harm to the earth arguments. Is this correct?

I know some "green homebuilders". They laughingly say being "green certified" has added 25-30% to their bottom line as it has drives up the cost of construction, repair and maintenance. They are "all in" on climate change, global warming, climate or whatever you want to call it.

No, Mojo, I'm not. If I was, I'd freely admit it. I work in technology, but not at all related to the energy industry. My education affords me some sort of status as an "electrician" in some jurisdictions and in the lesser regulated ones (rural), I've got minimum credentials to do electrical work like solar when working with contractors. I've done a grand total of 3 arrays - all residential. Electrical (PV) and some hot water on those installs. I got certified to install wind, but then refused to install it as I didn't like the product. Unlike most of my hobbies, this one actually made money and I enjoy working with my hands - it feels like real work, especially hauling up an array in the middle of August. It really was a hobby and an interest thing that paid and I mainly did it for a friend who is a home builder.

I agree with you - I see builders that advertise "energy star" certifications and there isn't much to it. Some of that stuff there is value in - when we built, I did foam insulation, low E windows, solar hot water, and some altered construction to be able to pack more insulation in. I haven't done PV (solar) at home yet because I see that the price trend continues to be downward...

Based on your previous comments it seems like your experience with renewables is at the home or business small scale distribution level? From what you've said that does not translate to the grid level. For instance, large wind generators are not "wild" nor do they require any kind of storage for operation. They have very sophisticated control systems and are well controlled. Unfortunately, our political system and money considerations greatly influence how they are actually operated so that they tend to be less "reliable" than they could be and are in Europe, where grid operators are apparently allowed to make decisions for the system rather than maximizing generator revenues.

For example, in Europe, installations tend to reflect the expected geographic conditions, even if that means they cost more. Here, it's strictly the cheapest installation regardless of condition in order the maximize revenue. Also, in Europe, wind generators must feather their blades so they're not operating at full output, and therefore have some reserve power that can be employed when generation is lost in another part of the system. Not here, because that would reduce generator revenues, or alternatively, they'd want to be paid for not generating. Before the "deregulation" scam the system had higher reserve margins.

My point is simply that a lot of the problems with renewable energy are not technical problems, though intermittentancy is and will remain a problem well into the future. They're political and money problems. At the moment, renewables on the grid level are primarily a money extraction device from start to finish. Where there are technical problems they're generally being addressed by manufacturers and these devices are constantly being improved. Most of the renewable battle is over money extraction.

I have more than 16 years of experience in the field of my degree and in one other area, but don't consider myself an expert in either. I learn more in both all the time. Some people have considered me an expert, but that is only because my knowledge in those areas was far more than theirs. I am friends with and know many people in both areas that know far more in each area than I do. To me, they are experts.

cb1000rider wrote:

TVegas wrote:They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Personally, I wouldn't ever argue that the planet isn't getting warmer, but (for me) the point of argument is about how much of that is impacted humans. And I admit that the human factor isn't a factual issue yet. However, if you can't get to the point of recognition that the climate is changing, that sort of kills any further debate and discussion.

I see some hope. BaldEagle doesn't buy the whole thing and points to some grand conspiracy (my words, not his). I love a good conspiracy, but need to understand how that works out of for the puppet masters. What I do appreciate about his posts are that regardless of agree/disagree on the global warming, he believes that we should take reasonable means to protect the environment. I consider that point of view to be inherently reasonable. I wish more people were of that sort of mind.

When we can't even agree on basic facts like coal power being relatively "dirty" in terms of green house gasses, there really isn't any ground to base a discussion on.

And at least this topic has been free of personal attacks!

You can dismiss this stuff by calling it "conspiracy" but the fact is BaldEagle is describing the way the world actually works. Ever read Noam Chomsky on the MSM? You can't accuse him of being some Fox news watching tea partier. He describes a set of filters that affect what appears in the media. The media isn't the only organization with filters. Ever read Carroll Quigley? He was once lauded as Bill Clinton's history professor.

I see how this stuff works every day. It's all about the money. There doesn't have to be any organized or over arching conspiracy anymore than bees pollinating flowers is a bee conspiracy. People naturally react to incentives and the incentives in this system are primarily money and power. That translates into a lot of people knowing on what side their bread is buttered.

mojo84 wrote: Once you graduate, will you be in a profession utilizing your degree and will that result in personal income or profit? Will that profit or income be increased by the existence or perceived existence of global warming?

I'm going to law school next fall and may be working in environmental law after that, but likely in commercial litigation. Will my work and therefore income be affected as a result of the completely factual existence of climate change? Possibly, but most likely not. Do I personally stand to gain more from the projected consequences of climate change than I will lose? Absolutely not. If I work in environmental law, it will not be in air quality or alternative energy, but almost certainly wetland restoration/regulation or hazardous materials.

mojo84 wrote: If you do not like the idea of looking at the last 20 years, what period of time fits your argument? Haven't we gone through something like 7 ice ages? Didn't those involve, climate change, global warming, global cooling etc.?

No one with adequate knowledge of climate science could claim that we have 100% certainty in our understanding of climatology. As a result, we have to account for uncertainty, which is small enough that we can still be sure we are having an influence. As I stated, you can debate the exact amount of warming, but you can not debate that there has been significant warming (even the lowest estimates are still high enough to be significant).

Accounting for uncertainty means comparing global average temperature trends over time, not simply comparing the average temperature in a given year to another year that supports your argument (this is called cherry-picking data). The "20 years of cooling" claim is usually based on comparing 1995 and 2014 average winter temperatures in the US. That is in fact true, but not only is it too short of a time frame, it is also only winter temperatures and only in the US. Using the exact same data, extending the time frame to 1981 and 2010 shows "40 years of warming".

When conducting solid analysis (not cherry-picking convenient years), there has been about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 1880, and about two-thirds of that was in the last forty years. If you look at the historical record, there has been a clear upward acceleration since the industrial revolution. This isn't a time frame that fits my argument, it is history starting today and going back for up to thousands of years.

Yes, there have been ice ages and warmer periods, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we humans have become a prominent factor that has accelerated the warming since we started burning coal as fuel.

What I have posted here is simply the facts. I am not debating the general reality, because there is no rational argument to be had. You can continue to debate specifics, but I will not be wasting anymore of my time. This is like debating religion and politics.

I am not claiming to be an expert. My knowledge of climatology is comparable to an engineers knowledge of basic physics when they graduate. If we were arguing about whether gravity were real would my level of work experience matter?

TVegas wrote: This is like debating religion and politics.

So, it's just opinion and people's beliefs then? I for one believe their is much more history and evidence that supports what the bible says than what the climate changers are claiming. However, that's another topic for another forum since we aren't supposed to discuss religion here.

Yes, the fact the earth and its climate has been through ice ages and warmer periods is the exact point. It's going to happen whether we humans effect it or not. Do we have an impact, maybe. Does this impact mean we are going to ruin the world, I don't think so.

Restoration of wetlands, that's an interesting area of law. Does that involve classifying privately owned property as federally protected wetlands?

Accounting for uncertainty means comparing global average temperature trends over time, not simply comparing the average temperature in a given year to another year that supports your argument (this is called cherry-picking data). The "20 years of cooling" claim is usually based on comparing 1995 and 2014 average winter temperatures in the US. That is in fact true, but not only is it too short of a time frame, it is also only winter temperatures and only in the US. Using the exact same data, extending the time frame to 1981 and 2010 shows "40 years of warming".

So, what is the difference in daily average temperature between the last 100 years compared to the 16th century or the 3rd century or the 19th century?


I believe global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it is real and a natural occurrence. I just doubt the effect humans have on that change, especially when it's people that benefit from humans being the predominant reason for such change or warming.

I also consider it in the same vain as those that want to exert control over others through gun control.

TVegas wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Once you graduate, will you be in a profession utilizing your degree and will that result in personal income or profit? Will that profit or income be increased by the existence or perceived existence of global warming?

I'm going to law school next fall and may be working in environmental law after that, but likely in commercial litigation. Will my work and therefore income be affected as a result of the completely factual existence of climate change? Possibly, but most likely not. Do I personally stand to gain more from the projected consequences of climate change than I will lose? Absolutely not. If I work in environmental law, it will not be in air quality or alternative energy, but almost certainly wetland restoration/regulation or hazardous materials.

mojo84 wrote: If you do not like the idea of looking at the last 20 years, what period of time fits your argument? Haven't we gone through something like 7 ice ages? Didn't those involve, climate change, global warming, global cooling etc.?

No one with adequate knowledge of climate science could claim that we have 100% certainty in our understanding of climatology. As a result, we have to account for uncertainty, which is small enough that we can still be sure we are having an influence. As I stated, you can debate the exact amount of warming, but you can not debate that there has been significant warming (even the lowest estimates are still high enough to be significant).

Accounting for uncertainty means comparing global average temperature trends over time, not simply comparing the average temperature in a given year to another year that supports your argument (this is called cherry-picking data). The "20 years of cooling" claim is usually based on comparing 1995 and 2014 average winter temperatures in the US. That is in fact true, but not only is it too short of a time frame, it is also only winter temperatures and only in the US. Using the exact same data, extending the time frame to 1981 and 2010 shows "40 years of warming".

When conducting solid analysis (not cherry-picking convenient years), there has been about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 1880, and about two-thirds of that was in the last forty years. If you look at the historical record, there has been a clear upward acceleration since the industrial revolution. This isn't a time frame that fits my argument, it is history starting today and going back for up to thousands of years.

Yes, there have been ice ages and warmer periods, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we humans have become a prominent factor that has accelerated the warming since we started burning coal as fuel.

What I have posted here is simply the facts. I am not debating the general reality, because there is no rational argument to be had. You can continue to debate specifics, but I will not be wasting anymore of my time. This is like debating religion and politics.

Very interesting. The small amount of uncertainty is enough to be sure of something? Did I get that right? Sounds a little double negativey.

Also, congratulations and good luck on law school.

No one has denied climate change, which is why the narrative was changed from global warming to climate change. How could anyone deny that the weather changes or that the climate changes?

VMI77 wrote: Based on your previous comments it seems like your experience with renewables is at the home or business small scale distribution level? From what you've said that does not translate to the grid level. For instance, large wind generators are not "wild" nor do they require any kind of storage for operation. They have very sophisticated control systems and are well controlled. Unfortunately, our political system and money considerations greatly influence how they are actually operated so that they tend to be less "reliable" than they could be and are in Europe, where grid operators are apparently allowed to make decisions for the system rather than maximizing generator revenues.

Definitely small scale. Non-industrial. Basically the optimum target is to cover 100% of your energy use based on weather averages and approximate usage data. Treat the grid like a battery and target a yearly bill that comes out to $0 after factoring in debits and credits for use.

The small (residential) wind generator that I was certified to install was wild AC. No clutch, no regulation. It would feather to prevent over speed. As such you feed a battery to store it an then regulate it out to regulated (household) AC via a converter. Non-ideal.

One of the other posters is right though. There's a limit to how much "renewable" you can throw into the mix before unpredictable demand starts to destabilize things. Europe is way out in front.. And right now it's prime time in the USA due to subsidies and the fact that the vast majority of energy is from conventional means, so you can product your own power and net meter from the grid largely because none of your neighbors are doing it.

Some of the issues are due to the nature of for-profit power producers and the lack of a "socialistic" (my words). We've got discreet players that all want to make money, and an entire real-time market designed for brokering those deals. It's not optimized to work well. You point out that these are the limits that we have now and they're not changing. I point out that we're just so barely scratching the surface that renewables aren't really a technical problem in the USA.. Yet...

The climate never changes in Texas. That's why I live here.

Wow!