Natural gas plants having trouble competing with solar?

[SunEagle]

How did you get from a discussion about energy sources, distribution and standby losses to what is, IMO only, a misstatement of the sense, if not the results of a poll dealing with what the public believes about the causes of possible climate change ?

BTW, public opinion, like innuendo, does not always coincide with facts, causes or reality. Science, which you claim to like, but also claim no particular expertize about, needs proof, not press. Public opinion does not quality as proof - at least not yet.

But crowd mentality can get real ugly and cause riots.

[Engineer]

Well Sheldon that is the problem with Academics, Physicist, and Teachers. They only know theory and have never built anything. They can come up with a concept, make a model, but it takes an engineer to actually determine if it works and make it work.

Not true, well OK they hire us grad students to do a lot of the grunt work, but for anybody not in theory (the bulk of them) it's a lot of work. We had a beautiful lab that the other departments were jealous of, it used to be some kind of aircraft hanger, anyhow we built elements going for the supercollider calorimeter. Thinking lots of specially designed and built aluminum tubes. Anyhow Congress canceled the SSC and I decided I didn't want to find the Higgs Boson at CERN and switched to Engineering.

Long story short, the physicists wore hard hats, the biologists wore waders, and so forth, so no that's completely wrong.

[DanKegel]

How did you get from a discussion about energy sources, distribution and standby losses to [public opinion poll about climate change]?

Sunking wrote " the major majority of the country rejects your ideas". In other words, he made an unsupported claim about public opinion on climate change. But there's no reason to make unsupported claims when the data's out there, so I found the most recent opinion poll on the subject. And the data does not support his position, at least not today. That's how I got there. Was it unreasonable to fact check Sunking's assertion? (Edit: it may have been unwise to take his bait. He wasn't responding to my on-topic question, and I probably shouldn't have responded to his off-topic reply.)

I agree that public opinion doesn't always coincide with reality. For questions about natural phenomena, one should trust scientific consensus more than popular opinion. But alas for Sunking and you, scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the reality of climate change, and of man's activities contributing to climate change. I'd be happy to provide the data on that, too, if you want to see it again. But I gather you're not impressed by data, or by science, when it comes to climate change.

(Sunking, what did you mean by "major majority"? Was that a typo, or perhaps a reference to the right wing idea of "the majority of the majority"?)

[J.P.M.]

I agree that public opinion doesn't always coincide with reality. For questions about natural phenomena, one should trust scientific consensus more than popular opinion. But alas for Sunking and you, scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the reality of climate change, and of man's activities contributing to climate change. I'd be happy to provide the data on that, too, if you want to see it again. But I gather you're not impressed by data, or by science, when it comes to climate change.

If you believe opinion doesn't always coincide w/ reality, why is it, IMO anyway, and as in this case about the Gallup poll you cite, that you seem to often imply that it does, with your stuff often seeming allusory in nature, to me anyway. ?

As for my being impressed, I'm rarely impressed by data and I'm less impressed with a lot of what I see from he pro climate change side of things. The data are what they are. I'm more impressed by methodology of the research, its focus and rigor. I see a lot of data form the climate change side, I just don't feel a lot of the warm & fuzzies about the rigor or the conclusions. For example, I believe I understand why a clear daytime sky is blue, and I'm impressed by Rayleigh's thinking and work that went into the theory, and I sure like it blue skies, but I'm not impressed by the data that verifies the fact that it is blue. It's only data. The interpretation is where the science is. I see a lot of data relating to so called global warming, and I understand it as well or better than you may, but I do not a smoking gun in the data. I often see more inference than something I'd rely on to be repeatable by experiments designed for verification. Call it my prick engineer opinion.

Since, until now, I don 't believe I've expressed an opinion other than I'm not sure about climate change, it looks to me as though you have again inferred what my opinion on the subject might be. Again, as in the past, you are incorrect- this time with respect to climate change, and humanity's role in it. So, Alas, or maybe not, it's to Sunking's and other's peril, but not mine that they may disagree with your opinions about climate change.

If you care, and for the record, IMO only, the climate does appear to be warming - that's data. However, I don't trust what either side seems to be saying where the data leads as I smell a rat waving a dollar sign at the end of most every analysis, either as more fossil fuel interests benefitting. Or, a bunch of quasi or actual academics looking for grant money fodder. Or the media looking for work (as when Hearst cabled back to his artist/employee Frederic Remingtion in response to Remington's 1897 cable from Cuba: " There will be no war", the following : " You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war".

Furthermore, if the planet has been warming for the last 200 years, by going back further through tree rings or further in geologic time to ice core data etc. is that, say 200 years a long enough time frame to spot a trend ? Or ( as an idea off the top of my head only), could what's going on be no more than a response to cyclic inputs that have not changed except as part of a set of constructive/destructive inputs of different frequency and thus seemingly never repeated manifestations ? The data seems to show that the planet has warmed in the past and it is warmer now.

The data shows it's also cooled down in the past. I've seen no data that shows it will not cool in the future just as it has cooled in the past.

I'm also skeptical about human perception with respect to geologic time. I'd suggest that a longer time frame than we have available may be required to call anything going on now a smoking gun at least at this time.

To be sure and on the safe side, while not knowing the actual causes, I do believe for a lot of reasons that the level of greenhouse gasses ought to be reduced, but not primarily as a response to what I see as fear mongering and by the stampeding of the technically ignorant. For one thing, less emissions usually mean less energy used and wasted. I like that because I'm cheap and I hate waste. I also like clean air, and I believe cleaner air would be a result (and the sky would also be a lot bluer more of the time - a return to more scattering of the shorter wavelengths of light and more opaqueness to the longer wavelengths). And, on some probability <1.0 that human activity is responsible for some portion of the global warming that seems to be going on, the worst thing that would probably happen to the environment is it'll get better in some qualitative sense. Finally, there's a lot of commerce to be done and thus economies to be improved by cleaning up the mess which, although I may be wrong, does indeed seem to exist.

All that however, is not helping my big beef: I think the climate change thing has taken on a separate life of it's own and most all of what I see, hear and read is little more than profiteering at the public's expense - from all sides with one of many bad results being a bunch of crap that clouds real research, slows possible results by increasing skepticism and reduces what may be a problem to the level of a bumper sticker. I'm skeptical of what I see as your's and other's chicken little like attitudes as either profit motivated and disingenuous, or the product of an ignorant and easily manipulated way of seeing the world, or both, or other things. Such crap is, at least to my way of looking at it, and as usual, hurting rather than helping humanity.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest, but as I've written in the past, don't impute opinions to me that I don't have - ask - don't assume you know what I'm thinking. It's rude and IMO, uncivil.

[DanKegel]

If you believe opinion doesn't always coincide w/ reality, why is it, IMO anyway, and as in this case about the Gallup poll you cite, that you seem to often imply that it does

? Sunking said, I think, that the majority of people don't believe humans have anything to do with climate change. I showed that's not true, according to the latest US poll.
I was simply fact-checking his statement, not making a comment on how much public opinion coincides with reality.

Is that clear, or are you still confused about that part of my post?

I don't have time to read the rest of your tome just now, will get to the rest tonight.

[jflorey2]

If you care, and for the record, IMO only, the climate does appear to be warming - that's data.

Agreed.
And CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing - that's data. (It just passed the 400ppm mark.)
Most of the reason for that increase is our emissions of CO2. That's math, easily derived from the data.
And CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that's both a theoretical and experimental conclusion you can test for yourself with simple apparatus. Increasing CO2 concentrations will increase heat retained by the planet.

Those are the fundamentals of the phenomenon, removing all the denial and alarmism surrounding the issue.

[Sunking]

? Sunking said, I think, that the majority of people don't believe humans have anything to do with climate change..

Geez you quoted me and still do not have a clue what I said.

major majority of the country rejects your ideas

What is so hard to understand you are a minor minority. The country rejects carbon tax, elitist like yourself, high energy prices, and ona nd on. Why do you think Trump is so popular? They are sick of your ideas and PC. .

[DanKegel]

What is so hard to understand you are a minor minority. The country rejects carbon tax, elitist like yourself, high energy prices, and ona nd on. Why do you think Trump is so popular? They are sick of your ideas and PC. .

Ah, so you're a Trump supporter? That fits.

There are certainly lots of people who are mad as hell, and aren't going to take it anymore. That doesn't mean they're right, or that they're seeing the world clearly.

I apologize for bothering you with stuff you're not interested in.

[J.P.M.]

Agreed.
And CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing - that's data. (It just passed the 400ppm mark.)
Most of the reason for that increase is our emissions of CO2. That's math, easily derived from the data.
And CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that's both a theoretical and experimental conclusion you can test for yourself with simple apparatus. Increasing CO2 concentrations will increase heat retained by the planet.

Those are the fundamentals of the phenomenon, removing all the denial and alarmism surrounding the issue.

Agreed.
And don't forget CH4 from flatulent cows and melting tundra, volcanic eruptions etc. and on & on. My question is the source(s) - human, natural, combination, synergistic, or other. My big beef is the hype that clouds the reality, slows progress on getting at something closer to the truth and lines crooks and conmen's pockets. I suspect, but do not know with enough confidence from what I've seen, that it's some human, some natural. My training and temperament tell me to not let emotion cloud logic and critical thinking, and if erring, go on the side of caution that says do real research and come up with experiments that will produce reproducible results. Less B.S. from all sides. A pox on the histrionics. More serious science.

[DanKegel]

And don't forget CH4 from flatulent cows and melting tundra, volcanic eruptions etc. and on & on. My question is the source(s) - human, natural, combination, synergistic, or other. My big beef is the hype that clouds the reality, slows progress on getting at something closer to the truth and lines crooks and conmen's pockets. I suspect, but do not know with enough confidence from what I've seen, that it's some human, some natural. My training and temperament tell me to not let emotion cloud logic and critical thinking, and if erring, go on the side of caution that says do real research and come up with experiments that will produce reproducible results. Less B.S. from all sides. A pox on the histrionics. More serious science.

Actual climate scientists have looked at issues like CH4 from cows and tundra, and gas from volcanos. Why do you dismiss their work so casually?

[J.P.M.]

You say you're interested in science -- but you reject the work of actual climate scientists. Why?

At least your asking questions. You still don't have it right however. I don't think you understood what I wrote. I don't reject all of it. Only the stuff I think is B.S. Serious research, presented in serious, recognized formats that are peer reviewed and documented is a lot different than junk science. IMO, a lot of what's written is not well done and is poor science, but gets a lot of press.

[Sunking]

Ah, so you're a Trump supporter? That fits..

Not me, nor Billary. I would have to hold my nose if I had to pull a Ballet handle and select the lessor evil of Trump. But the two nominees show clearly how stupid US citizens have become. Trump is no Republican, he is a full left card carrying Democrat member doing everything he can to destroy the GOP and get Billary elected. Absolutely brilliant.

[DanKegel]

I don't reject all of it. Only the stuff I think is B.S. Serious research, presented in serious, recognized formats that are peer reviewed and documented is a lot different than junk science.

It seems we agree that peer-reviewed papers published in serious scientific journals tend to be better sources of accurate science than, say, Discover Magazine or the Wall Street Journal, correct?

Given a set of authors with opposing positions, do you think it's fair to say that authors who have more such papers published, and whose papers are more highly cited, are likely to be right about climate change related questions more often than authors who have fewer such papers published, or whose papers are cited less often?

[J.P.M.]

It seems we agree that peer-reviewed papers published in serious scientific journals tend to be better sources of accurate science than, say, Discover Magazine or the Wall Street Journal, correct?

Given a set of authors with opposing positions, do you think it's fair to say that authors who have more such papers published, and whose papers are more highly cited, are likely to be right about climate change related questions more often than authors who have fewer such papers published, or whose papers are cited less often?

Not necessarily. Quantity does not equal quality, but at least we seem to agree on the idea of source veracity, at least in principle. Unfortunately, I believe the quality of the science is declining along with the rest of the intelligence quotient of society, but that's off topic.

An example of quality of results not following along as quantity increases: I'm currently reading a book that amounts to a history of eugenics in the U.S. in the 20th century : "Imbeciles", Cohen, Adam, ISBN # : 9781594204180. One observation I've made so far is that the science of the time and the powers and institutions that be, from the most respected, learned medical scientists and what they published, to the nations leaders - Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, etc and the nations press, including "Scientific American", "The Sat. Evening Post" and other popular press of the time all touted the benefits to society of sterilizing, or confining those deemed unfit to breed, including, the mentally handicapped, epileptics, criminals, prostitutes, the indolent - including the chronically unemployed - and others by those in power. Reading the book, I need to keep my own advice of questioning everything I read, but the author documents well and this seems to pass my smell test so far.

Point is, society and most of the people in it, including the most respected, educated and cosmopolitan can be manipulated and swayed until some point of view or opinion takes on a life of its own. At that point, the flanges can come off the wheels of the driving engine of science but the driving force of the manipulated opinion is still turning the wheels.

IMO, that may well be some of what is happening with the idea of climate change today.

I'm pretty sure the planet is warming. I have no idea how much of such warming is short term (say, < 200 yrs. or so) vs. permanent (say > 10 EE4 yrs. or so). And, I have no guess as to how much, if any of any warming is due to human activity. Unfortunately, for me anyway, I do not trust most of what passes for science these days, including as it applies to climate sciences. But that's my problem.

My problem or not, it still influences my opinion and fuels my skepticism, but not that the planet is warming. Rather, my doubts come from the ability of the sources of the information to correctly and intelligently look at the problem. That is, what's causing the warming and with that best guess information, how long is it estimated to last, and also what, if anything, can be done about it ?

With apologies to a lot of folks who actually know something, the highly credentialed but undereducated and delusional people who equate a tuition receipt ( a degree) with intelligence, who also seem to lack critical thinking skills, and who also have too much time on their hands and not enough common sense and gumption to do real science, as well as the press and the conmen who glom off the ignorance of the great unwashed masses and use the output of the junk science to eek out a living will be with us always.

As we get dumber, the number of such people increases as does the ignorance that they feed on.

The public is being manipulated. The clutter of the junk science is clouding the issue and making progress slower and more difficult. Those who spout the junk science without knowing what they are puking out are part of the problem.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of your opinions. I just think your behavior in writing about most thinks dealing with R.E. and climate change is similar to that of a loose cannon with a fair amount of what you come up being not well thought out, or off the cuff, or what you repeat because it reinforces what you're already been convinced of. I see a lot more from you of what others think about most any subject than what you think, with the inference that because it's written, it must be true. Given my opinion about most of what's written about climate change may give you some indication of what I think of most of what you write about the subject. I think you're actions are doing more harm than good a fair portion of the time. It's a similar M.O. to what I've seen since the mid '70's from those lacking the discipline to dig really deeply and question everything.

The last word on the subject is yours.

[Sunking]

Point is, society and most of the people in it, including the most respected, educated and cosmopolitan can be manipulated and swayed until some point of view or opinion takes on a life of its own. At that point, the flanges can come off the wheels of the driving engine of science but the driving force of the manipulated opinion is still turning the wheels..

So what happens when you put 1000 scientist in a room, give them a data set. and ask then to come to a consensus conclusion? Well they come up with a conclusion based on the data they received.

Now you reveal to them the data is cherry picked, and there is only one source for the data, the goberment.