Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Al Agnew]

I won't debate global warming anymore. People (and I'm talking about any side of an issue) have an infinite capacity to convince themselves of what they want to believe. Sometimes even scientists.

As for Jeb asking again about cheaper and less volatile energy sources...the whole point is that they aren't here YET, but they aren't far from being here. But they won't get here without more research. If there is no possibility of having energy that's cheaper and more reliable and stable than fossil fuels, then we're just as screwed as we are if we keep using fossil fuels. But I think that anybody with a bit of imagination can visualize scenarios with existing alternatives where they become cheaper than oil. Better production methods of producing solar panels could help solar GRADUALLY replace oil and coal for home and business heating, cooling, and electricity. It ain't that far away, and as I said somewhere, we know that technology tends to decrease in cost over time. That's just one example, but surely you can imagine similar things happening with wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. And that's not counting hydrogen fuel cells, or some other idea that's just in its very beginning stages of development. Geez, nobody is saying or expecting to wave a magic wand and have some energy source replace oil tomorrow. It's going to take the research and innovation for it to happen, and it probably won't end up being a single type of source but a combination of many, each depending upon the applications it's best suited for. And it won't happen overnight, unless the benevolent extraterrestrials show up and give it to us. But it better happen or the world will be a sadder place in a few decades.

[Outside Bend]

Just google 'debunking global warming'.

Look, we all know we're not going to change each others minds on the whole global warming mess. So not much sense discussing it, really.

How about we get back to alternative energy sources. I'm still waiting to hear about these claimed sources that may be cheaper, and more stable, than fossil fuels, as has been suggested.

I did google it. First thing that pops up is a piece by an Oregon legislator (or candidate). He claims "Let me make this clear, I have no degree, no accreditation, no published papers on the topic." Obviously qualified to speak on the issue, though.

His claims regarding climate science range from patently false ( "Then there is the issue of Modeling their works. They cannot get a single model to work,") to absolutely ludicrous ("I will say… one model actually works, but it debunks AGW and CC.That model is Farmers Almanac."). In one instance he claims Greenland's loss of ice cover is no big deal- and the article he cites as evidence claims precisely the opposite.

Let me make this clear, I have no degree, no accrditation, no published papers on the topic. But if a layman like myself can find a handful of reasons not to believe this guy after barely reading his article, I'd be curious to see what an actual climatologist has to say.

Once again Jeb, you're missing the point. Anyone can go online and write a diatribe on why climate science is bunk- it doesn't make them an expert, it doesn't even mean they have a clue what they're talking about. At best folks like this are just profoundly ignorant of how science works- at worst they're charlatans, claiming to know more than the folks actually studying the issue, perverting or outright manufacturing evidence to support an ideology. Their claims don't have to be tested, they don't have to be validated, they don't have to be factual or even logical- they're not science.

The reason why papers like this don't show up in scientific literature, the reason they're not entertained in the scientific community- it's not because scientists are a bunch of big ol' meanies, it's not because educated elites are trying to squash the underclass, it's not a vast conspiracy to try and keep people from driving Dodges or using incandescent light bulbs or eating flatulent livestock. It's because the arguments against the climate change hypothesis have not stood up to scientific analysis. Repeating the same tired arguments over and over and over again doesn't change that outcome. In a lot of ways it mirrors your beliefs regarding research- just as it's unwise to invest in fruitless energy research, it's probably unwise to expend energy defending demonstrably false arguments.

I've watched this thread closely but rarely commented, because the discussion always winds up in the same spot. It's one thing to be skeptical, but substituting a handful of weak, factually inaccurate arguments for reams of tested, verified evidence is simply irrational. If you're not convinced by all that evidence, that's fine, that's your perogative.

Personally, I believe no amount of information is going to convince those folks. And that's alright, too. To riff off jeb's ealier analogy, there's still people who believe the earth is flat, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There are people who believe flouridation is a communist plot, that the world will end in December because the Mayans said so, that Steven Seagal is a talented is a talented actor. As beliefs these they're perfectly innocuous, but we don't craft policy around them. I don't see why climate science would be any different. If you don't believe in global warming fine, just don't expect everyone else to wait while you mull it over some more.

[jeb]

I won't debate global warming anymore. People (and I'm talking about any side of an issue) have an infinite capacity to convince themselves of what they want to believe. Sometimes even scientists.

Exactly right. Which is why it's referred to as more religion than science in it's current state of development. And why I won't debate it here anymore, either. Just wasted keystrokes. Plus, it's agains the rules here to do so. Really surprised this thread hasn't been nuked, actually.

As for Jeb asking again about cheaper and less volatile energy sources...the whole point is that they aren't here YET, but they aren't far from being here. But they won't get here without more research. If there is no possibility of having energy that's cheaper and more reliable and stable than fossil fuels, then we're just as screwed as we are if we keep using fossil fuels. But I think that anybody with a bit of imagination can visualize scenarios

Yes, I can visualize them, but they've been being visualized for many years now without much to be shown for it. Storage issues problems, chief among them. I hope they do solve some of those problems, as I've said, sooner rather than later. But I can't see making claims that some particular altnernative MIGHT be cheaper IF we can finally solve some major issues. I was more curious about if there were real promise of that given what we KNOW today.

[Justin Spencer]

Look how the price of solar arrays have gone down over the past decade, pretty good progress there. I still think if all NEW construction was required to have a solar array it would be an easy way to make a difference in how we power our homes and new businesses. This cost would seem pretty small when you are already talking about a $100 thousand dollar plus mortgage, I really don't think this would discourage new building and would eventually make a significant difference.

[Justin Spencer]

Here's an interesting little history lesson I'm sure you all will enjoy. Jimmy Carter (who I'm sure was Jeb's favorite president) put solar panels on the White House in 1979 in an attempt to set an example for the American People. One of Ronald Regan's (probably Jeb's least favorite president) first things to do in 1981 after taking office was to order them removed.

Carter predicted that “a generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people; harnessing the power of the Sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”

Reagan's political philosophy viewed the free market as the best arbiter of what was good for the country. Corporate self-interest, he felt, would steer the country in the right direction,

You be the judge as to what is best for our current situation, and just think where we would be if 33 years ago we had run with the idea that Jimmy Carter had for solar energy.

[Outside Bend]

Yes, I can visualize them, but they've been being visualized for many years now without much to be shown for it. Storage issues problems, chief among them. I hope they do solve some of those problems, as I've said, sooner rather than later. But I can't see making claims that some particular altnernative MIGHT be cheaper IF we can finally solve some major issues. I was more curious about if there were real promise of that given what we KNOW today.

No one's putting all their chips on one source- use solar, wind, or tidal energy when it's available, use biofuels, hydro, geothermal etc when we have immediate energy demands. We can even store water uphill a la' Taum Sauk- fill it when it's sunny or windy, drain it when it's not. Everything's on the table.

We haven't licked storage yet, and just like you I'd like to see it resolved. But just as you've been saying, we shouldn't abandon current technology when we don't have the next step figured out. We know how to generate power via renewables- not knowing how to store it shouldn't preclude us from using the technology we have.

Is there technology available today which will completely eliminate our need for fossil fuels? No, but that's a strawman anyway- no one's saying there is. But the cost of the technology has dropped exponentially in the last three decades, and if the trend continues, we're looking at solar directly competing with fossil fuels in less than ten years- a little more than five years in some of the sunnier parts of the country.

[jeb]

No one's putting all their chips on one source- use solar, wind, or tidal energy when it's available, use biofuels, hydro, geothermal etc when we have immediate energy demands. We can even store water uphill a la' Taum Sauk- fill it when it's sunny or windy, drain it when it's not. Everything's on the table.

We haven't licked storage yet, and just like you I'd like to see it resolved. But just as you've been saying, we shouldn't abandon current technology when we don't have the next step figured out. We know how to generate power via renewables- not knowing how to store it shouldn't preclude us from using the technology we have.

Is there technology available today which will completely eliminate our need for fossil fuels? No, but that's a strawman anyway- no one's saying there is. But the cost of the technology has dropped exponentially in the last three decades, and if the trend continues, we're looking at solar directly competing with fossil fuels in less than ten years- a little more than five years in some of the sunnier parts of the country.

But some here seem to be advocating starting on new infrastructure to support some of the alternatives, even though they are not ready for prime time. Yet. I agree with you that it's just too early to start talking about that. We need to have many more hard questions answered before we can go there.

I get the feeling this is an emotional issue to far too many. It's the pie in the sky, let's do something even if it's wrong because it feels so good mentality. I'm all for less dependence on foreign energy sources, but let's get it right the first time. We can't afford what we're doing now, let alone wasting money charging off in the wrong direction.

[jeb]

Look how the price of solar arrays have gone down over the past decade, pretty good progress there. I still think if all NEW construction was required to have a solar array it would be an easy way to make a difference in how we power our homes and new businesses. This cost would seem pretty small when you are already talking about a $100 thousand dollar plus mortgage, I really don't think this would discourage new building and would eventually make a significant difference.

Solar's dust to dust environmental impacts are not pretty, though, as we've already discussed. If you're into this for lessening the environmental impact, this is likely a poor choice. If you're just in it to see us buying less oil from outside sources, solar is a good looking option to supplement a small part of our power grid. But until the storage issue is licked, it's not going to make much difference. That and the space needed for what will have to be huge solar farms.

[Tim Smith]

Solar's dust to dust environmental impacts are not pretty, though, as we've already discussed. If you're into this for lessening the environmental impact, this is likely a poor choice. If you're just in it to see us buying less oil from outside sources, solar is a good looking option to supplement a small part of our power grid. But until the storage issue is licked, it's not going to make much difference. That and the space needed for what will have to be huge solar farms.

I spoke to a solar consultant this weekend. The start-up costs of the offset package they were offering was a lease that was offset by 30% federal tax credit and 30% rebates from Excel Energy and a 100$ monthly lease. Energy sent back to the grid offsets Excel's cost and the savings to the consumer is 20-70%.

This is a business, not a charity and taking a big chunk out of my energy bill sounds pretty good to me.

Compare the environmental costs of making the panels to the drilling, piping, spilling and refining of coal based energy and it's pretty hard to see how this is a bad deal.

[Quillback]

So what was the cost to you to install out of your pocket? Are they paying money to you to lease the panels? Curious how that works. How many years until you recoup your initial investment?