Solar educators on tap for Talking Green event

Advertisement

Butcherknife Brewing Company co-owner Nate Johansing is so supportive of solar energy that he’s bringing the beer to encourage other locals to show up and learn more about solar installation opportunities.

The brewmaster is part of a team of local business sponsors working together to present a Yampa Valley Sustainability Council Talking Green educational event about the latest technology, grants, federal tax credits and local success stories for solar-powered electricity.

The YVSC Talking Green event is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Tuesday Nov. 17 at Moots Cycles at 2545 Copper Ridge Drive, which has its own 42-panel solar electric system. Speakers will include representatives from two local solar installation companies, who will discuss residential and commercial systems, and from Louisville-based Clean Energy Collective that built the Craig solar array, which has 20 percent remaining for sale.

Johansing and co-owner Mark Fitzgerald will purchase a 12.3-kilowatt solar system for their beer-making headquarters to be installed by the end of this year. Johansing said the project is made possible by a $18,662 USDA Rural Energy for America Program grant, a 30-percent federal tax credit and a small business loan from Yampa Valley Bank.

“We are really excited. We wrote it in our mission statement to be environmental advocates,” said Johansing, whose brewery opened in June 2014 on Elk River Road. “The movement in the craft brewing industry to be extremely aware of what is around us and to do as much as we can to use locally.”

The brewmaster has a history of promoting environmental stewardship, such as work with a local biodiesel co-op. His company sources up to 70 percent of brewery hops from southern Colorado and 40 percent of its yeast from Woodland Park. The spent hop plants are sent up the road to Yampa Valley Farms for pig feed.

With the heat produced from making beer and the new building’s tight envelope, the brewery owners rarely needed to turn on the room heating system last winter. Conduit was installed during initial construction in preparation for a later solar electric system, which is expected to cover 20 percent of the electricity needs, said Susan Holland, with solar installer Emerald Mountain Energy in Steamboat Springs.

The system will include 44 solar electric modules made by SolarWorld.

Johansing said installing solar power is another step toward collective sustainability efforts in the local community to prepare for the future when fossil fuels are more expensive.

“Renewable energy really needs to be part of modern-day entrepreneurship,” Johansing said. “It’s really not that expensive, and you are building more equity into your building as an investment in those assets. If we do it all together in small steps, down the road it will create a much better framework to make bigger changes.”

According to the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association, Colorado ranks ninth in the country for installed solar capacity at 430 megawatts, or the equivalent of power for 82,000 homes.

Some $212 million was invested on solar installations in Colorado in 2014, and average installed residential and commercial photovoltaic system prices in the state have fallen by 24 percent in the past year, according to CoSEIA.

Suzie Romig is energy outreach coordinator for the Yampa Valley Sustainability Council.

Comments

Harvey Lyon 1 year ago

Always had a lot of respect for Nate Johansing who gave lots of time coaching my kids in youth sports.

I have my doubts about solar as a principle energy source until us engineers come up with a the technology to store solar energy for the times "the sun ain't shining". I'll keep working on it.

Go get 'em Nate, I love your beer! :)

1

jerry carlton 1 year ago

He makes really good beer! "Its not really that expensive". Of course not when you get a 18,662 grant of our tax dollars and a 30% federal tax credit of our tax dollars.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Aren't grants coming from taxpayers for solar the same thing as "externalizing" costs of fossil fuels?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

An $18,662 GRANT for a 12.3 KW system is the sort of numbers that proves to people that government thinks solar power is affordable.

Good system with mounting is available for $25,000 to $30,000. In an area that is friendly to solar then it would just need an electrical permit. And the permit fees would be minimal cost for inspecting that basically a special circuit breaker was installed correctly. None of this engineering for installs something that weighs 5 lbs per sq ft for roofs rated for 100 lbs of snow load. None of this charging fees based upon the cost of the panels.

In an area where government isn't a problem for installing solar then this install should have cost a total of $30,000 to $35,000. That wouldn't need a $18,662 grant plus 30% tax credits.

But it is why areas like this does not have much solar installed because project was probably twice as expensive as it should have been.

0

jerry carlton 1 year ago

Scott W Who cares how much it cost? It is only our tax dollars.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Scott,

The government giving out those kind of funds to support Solar power, proves to me that the government thinks that solar power is needed to save us from whatever. It probably more so proves that the government does not believe that people will install those panels without subsidies.

Been sick the past couple of days so more time to type on a real computer, not my phone while cleaning milking equipment. Anyway, it dawned on me, that the current deflationary pressures we are having (the printing of money is combatting the deflationary pressures that are occurring https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1) is putting a world of hurt on those very pension systems that Sarah Jones spoke of... "the divestiture from fossil fuels in some of the world’s largest pension funds (CalPERS for example)" as having an impact on the price of fossil fuels and the mining companies stock prices.

So maybe the desire to put coal plants out of business is to bail out those very pension funds that have dumped massive funds into renewable energy stocks, as they are socially responsible. It all is a business model and the pension system and government guarantees are a bad system. Personal responsibility and helping people to lift themselves up makes so much more sense than the government caring for people from cradle to grave.

One last comment on those grant funds, is the government giving grants out FAIR TO ALL CONCERNED? Taking scare resources from all and directing them to a few is not fair. Nor is the fact that those who receive the funds gain a competitive advantage over others. One rancher in Wyoming, producing grass fed beef as I was at the time, received a $100,000 grant to buy additional supply of yearlings to turn into beef later in the year. That gave that operator a significant competitive advantage over the rest of us.

Maybe the governments ultimate responsibility should simply be to protect us against being poisoned from roundup laden food, pollution that is spread across everyone to the benefit of those polluting. It seems to me that if we followed the constitution, based upon the Iriquios (sp) governing principles, a little more strictly we would not have the issues we do today.

Mark, giving a grant to solar panels has nothing to do with externalizing the costs of fossil fuels. The external costs of fossil fuels (most can be manufactured much like diamonds today) are its costs born by all benefitting a few (me driving my car). Imposing a tax on fuel, to be used to pay a portion of public health care (whatever it is called), would be a good way of internalizing the costs and putting it to good use.

The external costs of solar panels probably are not accounted for in their production process', though those mainly occur in China, so it is not in my back yard.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

John,

My point is that a government subsidy of $1.50 per installed watt demonstrates that it is not economical at least here. Entire facilities are being installed elsewhere for less than $2 per watt.

That if government wants to figure out why there are a lack of local installs then they should examine why a local install needed a $1.50 per watt grant and fix that.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

John,

Sarah never answered any of my questions. Now you are repeating one of her assertions. Will you please explain to us how divesture from BTU's stock equals lower price for coal? I see how one could drive the price of BTU (or IBM or any other company) STOCK down by selling, but how does one drive commodities prices down by selling company stock?

I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't make the connection...

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Their selling stocks in mining companies has nothing to do with the lower price of coal. I did not state that, I quoted her, and stated that the fact the economy really has not recovered if you factor in the fact that monetary supplies are growing at 8% per year. The economy not doing well, other countries cutting back on coal usage, that is what I would think.

Calpers selling stocks in mining companies has nothing to do with commodity prices. They may have a desire to see coal plants shut down so that any investments they have in alternative energy do better.

0

Robert Huron 1 year ago

What was left out is that the Oil and Gas Industry has for many decades received tax credits and tax breaks both at the Federal and State levels which amounts to about $80 Billion a year. Corporate Welfare is alive and well in the US from Sugar to Oil and other Industries too numerous to mention. Who do you think is paying for all the Super Pac's which will spend $5 Billion on the Presidential Election? At last count 158 families in the entire US will be spending that amount of money. What will they get in return?

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

The only reason they spend it, and the only reason they get such influence, is because we have allowed government to control so many areas of our lives. And the very dim among us still protest for MORE government in MORE areas of our lives, so they can sell MORE favors to MORE "special" families.

Were government limited to its proper role (about 20% of its current size) these 158 families would have no one to go to to buy influence and special protection.

They would instead have to earn their money by providing the best products at the most competitive prices to American consumers.

1

Harvey Lyon 1 year ago

Well there you go! That's "trickle down" economics. Someone makes the ads, someone makes the posters, someone is employed by the money the Super Pacs spend. Long live Ron Regan's beliefs!

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Robert,

Solar also gets 30% federal tax credit so it is hardly not a subsidized industry like oil and gas.

But this sort of $1.50 per watt grant is not generally available. It is a grant to one specific business. And it is an obscenely large grant per watt. And it is the worst sort of grant which is cash up front instead of some amount per kwh up to some max amount. So they got the $18K up front regardless of how well it works.

Make $1.50 per watt grant generally available and it would be widely installed. And the tax payers go bankrupt. That sort of special grant for one business is the sort of crony capitalism that no one should support.

0

jerry carlton 1 year ago

Scott W The taxpayers and the federal government are already bankrupt. Remember the federal debt?

0

jerry carlton 1 year ago

Pat It is none of your business but I will respond. My first new car I financed 1/3 of the cost. Paid it off in 1 year. After that, cash only for autos. I financed 6 houses over the years. The condo I own in Steamboat and the house in Lake Havasu were bought with cash. I never increased my debt from year to year as the federal government does. It was constantly decreasing. God has blessed me richly and I do not mean I won the lottery. Want to share your financials now? I doubt it.

0

jerry carlton 1 year ago

Pat I did not expect you to respond as I was pretty sure that although you do not mind asking rude questions, you would not be interested in responding to rude questions. The national debt keeps increasing year after year. If that is not a definition of bankruptcy, what is your definition?

0

jerry carlton 1 year ago

Pat You still have not given your definition of bankruptcy?

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Robert, I don't think you will here from 99.9% of people that the corporate welfare should be encouraged. That is the type of bolo eu the brought forth the groundswell of support for Dr. Paul in his attempt to gain the hop nomination years ago. However the corporate machine brought forth loons to sway people away from a return to the constitutional democracy this country was founded upon.

Scott, sorry I was not certain about the sarcasm I thought I saw typed.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Constitutional republic. Not a democracy which devolves into mob rule as Plato wrote about centuries ago. Everyone voting themselves a free lunch.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Still, no one has answered the question:

Aren't grants coming from taxpayers for solar the same thing as "externalizing" costs of fossil fuels?

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Thought I did, must have been one of those times I typed out a reply and deleted it.

No it is not externalizing the cost of fossil fuel. It might be spreading the cost of solar over those who may disagree with it and thus it does not reflect its true cost. It has nothing to do with fossil fuel.

Internalizing the cost of fossil fuel to account for its impact on everyone, while not everyone benefits equally, is the point of imposing some form of fine, tax, duty on something that can not wholly contain its process, without negative impacts on other. No solution is perfect, but to cart blanche state that you have to reduce your emissions to this level now, without an option of offsetting those emissions, if available is wrong.

For the coal industry here, if we are reductionists and solely talk about carbon emissions from the coal power plants, then the benefit to the region for allowing such activities would be immense. Much of the power generated here is exported elsewhere. If allowed to trade with local ranchers, who flood irrigate their fields, extracting more carbon from the atmosphere than would normally occur without human intervention (was working with someone to put together a program on my previous ranch), then the local ag sector wins, the power companies stay in business and in general the environment wins (as more forage is available for wildlife, if subsoil tillage is incorporated with ultra high density grazing then the clayish soils will become more porous and the land will be less susceptible to drought and a myriad of other benefits occur.

That system needs an accounting system though as currently they just guess as to what happens with the amount of carbon is actually deposited in the topsoil.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

I think you misunderstood. I worded it poorly.

Try this: Isn't laying the expense of solar energy for a single family, at the feet of the multitude of taxpayers, akin to (or the same as) what fossil fuel opponents whine about when they claim that the pollution from that energy source is a cost that is being "externalized" and which hides the true cost of those fuels?"

That's what I was asking.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

yes and all subsidies should end. The government should just work at protecting one another from another harming them, as best it can.

That does involve some sort of impact fee on fuel consumption, exhaust monitoring, etc.. No spraying waste water from fracking sites into the air to dispose of your waste at my expense..

The government does not need to try and jigger the system, unless they are simply providing loan guarantees so that the people get repaid. Those impact fees can go to helping provide health care for the poor. Providing a taxation system that does not reward technology at the expense of the people. We should reward those employing people as opposed to having them pay a tax on their wages in addition to the employee, making is so much easier to simply avoid people with technology as you get to write it off.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Mark,

Arguably similar situation of those benefiting are a different group than are paying.

But there is also the difference that major CO2 emitters are not being asked to pay for the costs they impose onto others. While solar grant recipients receive money from others that can be clearly identified as how much money is coming from where.

I hate these grant programs where one selected person/business gets so much public money.

If government had said that they have $18,000 to spend on new solar installs and then allocates the money based upon those that request the least per watt then probably could have gotten several times more solar installed. And it would have been fair and open to all. Not just the one business that figures out to play the game and get the most money.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Those Co2 emitters are also not being given any credit for Jim Webster's blueberries growing faster.

I absolutely agree with your concept of "auctioning" the $18,000 credit. That's brilliant. Like I said... you should work for government. If you did, we might not have any Yachts or row-boats, but by Gosh we'd have solar panels on every roof... even in Seattle...

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Mark,

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but defining a max amount of subsidy money and then allocating it by those that contract to provide the most benefit for the lowest cost is a well established method. It has been used for years by utilities to create renewable electricity production while avoiding the pitfalls of unlimited subsidies like in Germany.

The utility and the public are protected because they are allocating a fixed amount of money for subsidies. The risks are accepted by private investors that makes money if they can produce more at lower costs than the competition.

It is one of those things that if government wants to provide subsidies then it should at least limit the costs and be effective.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Not being sarcastic. I think auctioning off the $18,000 credit is brilliant.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm against the subsidy altogether, but if it MUST exist, this is a good way to administer a lousy expenditure.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Gubamint should not be involved in subsidizing solar, it has been around for a long time. The cost of panels have come way down and if today, it can not work somewhat economically, then it should not be an alternative. Coal is a dwindling resource, so some of my desire to put in solar, was to fix my costs of doing business.

Energy prices are most likely going to start climbing again. The US dollar is strengthening because of world turmoil and the safe haven that the dollar provides. however, at some point in time the 18 trillion dollar debt, plus unfunded liabilities the feds plus all the state and local governments have will cause high inflation in this country at some point in time as we make little and have a huge trade deficit. It simply is a matter of time, but the debt either is paid or we go the way of latin american economies in the 80s or zimbabwe today, quadrillion bank notes anyone?

Scott, when we pass through this low solar maximum, to and have another spot without sunspots for over a year and temps continue to drop and there is snow for the second time in Egypt in over 100 years, will you open your mind to the possibility that maybe interstellar energy has more of an impact on our climate than CO2, or any other emission. That is not to say that polluters should get away with polluting.

Mark, CO2 has such a small impact on plant growth. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, potassium and all the other micro nutrients have such a larger impact.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Shouldn't comment when tired and sick

Scott, when we pass through this low solar maximum, and have another year without sunspots , temps continue to drop and there is snow for the second time in Cairo in over 100 years, as it happened in 2013, will you open your mind to the possibility that maybe interstellar energy has more of an impact on our climate than CO2, or any other emission. That is not to say that polluters should get away with polluting.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

John,

Looks to me that we good satellite data on the amount of solar radiation. And that sunspot activity has a pretty small overall impact upon solar radiation reaching the earth.

It is a physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Seems pretty convincing that earth's atmosphere is trapping more heat than previously and that would be expected with such a major increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And a snow storm in Egypt does not contradict a global warming scenario. In fact, most analysis shows that global warming results in more energy in the atmosphere. So a powerful winter storm is perfectly consistent with global warming.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Scott why don't you google sunspots and cold winter as there were lots of articles this summer telling people to expect a cold winter for this reason. I put a link in the people resist change article. You are so steadfast in your belief that only what happens on the third rock from the sun effects our weather. Why is it then that our scientists expect a cold winter because of their absence?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

John,

I see articles of a strong El Nino. For some places that is likely to result in a jet stream pattern that is a colder winter.

The article you cite states that effect of any potential diminished solar activity is much less than that of global warming from CO2 emissions.

0

rhys jones 1 year ago

I hear the wool is extra-thick on the woolly caterpillars this year, skunk cabbage is up, and the Farmer's Almanac I haven't checked. My trick knee hurts, El Nino is back in town, and the new crop of seasonals says it's going to happen. We're gonna get nailed for sure!!

After thirty or so of 'em, the one thing I've learned about our winters is you can't predict anything more than about four days out -- I'm a dedicated NOAA watcher, there are a couple of storms lined up right now with us in their sights, but the strangest things can happen to those, they could blow to either side of us, or just dissipate or turn into high clouds that just roll by...

Now if somebody would just pay me for this expert commentary, much like the platoons or prognosticators who make their living flapping their gums about it. I'm only an amateur prognosticator, and I certainly don't enjoy it. I just feel it is my duty to share my jaded pessimism.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Sort of, kind of, vaguely corresponds to less than two tenths centigrade changes in northern hemisphere temp changes.

Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 concentrations closely corresponds to what is now a 1 centigrade increase in worldwide temps.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Mars is warming...??? it HAS to be George Bushs fault...

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Scott I see a graph which had little anger in the sun during the maunder minImum it shows lots now. I do not know what causes it nor does anyone else on this planet. I read years ago that our solar system was passing through the galactic plane and the region was more energized, dense or whatever you want to call it. Did that cause the sun to be angry? Did it cause a rise in our temps, I don't know.

As I stated to Dan, I am open to either option, as long as the facts are represented accurately. That being my dairy cows are not taxed to fund the u.n. At differing rates than beef cows as they eat the same diet and methane emissions have been shown to be rendered inert on biologically active soils. If there is also some scheme to derail coal fired power without the option of carbon trading then I am against that. Carbon trading should be actually documented amounts of increase of carbon in the soil, as carbon farmers of America has detailed how to do. What I have seen so far was farmers union or something like that, which appeared to be a complete joke of actually determining how much Carbon was actually sequestered.

The EPAs plan seems flawed. I will not carry on the topic of interstellar activity as being the cause for warming trends or cooling trends as it is purely based upon correlation, which does not mean causation. Though it does correlate well.

Also for some scientist to state they do not expect it to effect the trend is also to be expected as that is the current party line.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

John,

It is hardly all based upon correlation. We have very accurate numbers for recent solar activity, intensity, charged interstellar particles, CO2 levels and so on. It has been measured how much more energy is reaching the earth than being emitted back to space.

It is conjecture as to exactly what caused, and even exactly what was, the so called mini ice age. Overall, it was far less of a change in global temps than have already been observed from global warming.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Last two sentences are contradictory. If we don't know what was the mini ice age, then we can't know it was far less of a change than...

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Mark,

They use the same method of tree ring growth and other indications to determine what was worldwide temps during the mini ice age. It wasn't overall that sharp or widespread. It barely appears to have had any impact upon the Southern Hemisphere. Temp data has it being a two tenths C temp decline.

But there were some years in which Europe was clearly more than two tenths C colder so it looks to have been a change in weather patterns primarily affecting Europe than a major overall cooling. A leading theory is a change in the Gulf Stream that normally brings a lot of warmth to Europe.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Scott, as this article is about solar power. One of my main concerns with solar is its pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

http://m.livescience.com/2324-solar-power-greenhouse-emissions-measured.html

I have had that concern for years after researching it. Though our saviors want to do away with coal when we have no alternative. If you are worried about co2 then end grain subsidies and work on putting it in the topsoil.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

By the way if the fear is rising ocean levels wiping out coastlines then build desalinization plants and put the salt back in the ocean, use the war to green the deserts , which in turn pulls more co2 out of the atmosphere

Had one person say that cas drought is the result of climate change. Not that there have been droughts throughout history

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Scott, here is a philosophical question for you that I do not need an answer to as really no one knows.

In quantum physics the observer can have an effect on the outcome of an experiment. So if one person can have an effect on an issue, is it possible that if there are millions of people out there believing that humans are the cause of global warming do those thoughts help to make that outcome come about?

I wish that I had not f'd off for the first couple of years of college and studied it further. Though I read a lot about it today, when not working my ass off.

Anyway, personally that is why organized religion was set up the way it was. To control what people think and direct thoughts to shape reality in the way, that those who know more than you or I do, want it shaped.

Anyway, way too deep for a computer discussion.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

John,

Quantum physics is a precise science. I did take it in college. It is not a metaphor for society.

One of the things it notes is that at some what is being measured is so small that the means of measuring it has a notable effect upon it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not a philosophical statement but an actual equation.

As for whether global warming is a mass conspiracy or simply everyone agreeing, I think it is way too big for it to be claimed that there is a lack of alternative ideas being considered.

The groupthink for science has been documented for things like looking at a tribe of gorillas and male scientists studying the male hierarchy of the tribe and not even noticing that there might be a hierarchy among the females. And it literally took female scientists studying gorillas to point out that there was also a female hierarchy.

But global warming is of such international interest that anyone that can prove a novel idea will become instantly famous. The group of notable statisticians that had criticized some global warming studies that decided to undertake an analysis of global temps were not motivated by a desire to prove yet again the validity of the hockey stick graph. They had enough questions on the previous methodology that they hoped they could find something new and important. If they had been able to disprove something notable then they would be world famous. The grad students on the team would be get jobs of professors at major universities and so on. Instead they found that previous studies had some weak techniques, but that the hockey stick graph is accurate.

There is just too much to be gained by someone with a new idea on global warming that withstands scrutiny to not be noticed. And scientific scrutiny means having the data and analysis to support the claim.

Someone a few years ago presented calculations that maybe warmer air could rise faster and get higher in the atmosphere and thus increase heat being lost to radiation (less air above to absorb IR radiation). It was interesting and so others looked at it closely. They found the calculations were wrong and that what the correct calculations predicted was what was being observed by weather satellites and so on.

Thus, for global warming the science is not from a small isolated group that isn't considering other ideas (in contrast to the relatively small number of gorilla behavior scientists). It is a large group with a lot of expertise and the alternative ideas are not being ignored, but are being examined to be shown as credible or not.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

I do not know how anyone in your position can confidently say "alternative ideas are not being ignored, but are being examined..." You simply cannot prove that to be the case... Not at all, and there is ample evidence to the contrary, as well as ample motivation for the majority of scientists to parrot their sugar-daddies wishes.

Just the amount of pertinent information that is actively suppressed by main-stream scientific and media outlets is enough to arouse suspicion in all but the most sold-out "believers".

The benefits of Co2, benefits of a warm climate, monumental advances made possible by fossil fuel, the yearning for billions to have MORE access to it, rather than less, the ability of government to use this "crisis" as a means to achieve their HIGHEST goal of usurpation, the successive failures of the panic police predictions ("the ice caps will be gone by 2015", "mass starvation by 2010", "species extinction" "oceans lapping the skirt of the statue of Liberty", and on and on...) etc., etc.

If you'd ever truly factor all this and so much more into the equation then you'd perhaps begin to see why so many do not share your confidence in the data, nor in those who would lead us to safety from the danger we are told is real.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

And that doesn't even BEGIN to consider who it is that is proposing the "solution". That is: The most inept, corrupt, wasteful, ignorant, disconnected, out-of-control, entity that has ever existed in all of human history... The Gubbamint... otherwise known as "Uncle Scam".

Many people might embrace Global Warming if Mother Theresa was going to be in charge of fixing it. But to expect people with more than half a brain to cede what little autonomy they have left to the bumbling boobs from the Cesspool on the Potomac??? You're delusional.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Mark,

"The benefits of Co2, benefits of a warm climate"

So then you are not disputing the science of manmade global warming, but whether or not it is harmful or beneficial to society.

The harm of benefits of global warming to society clearly depends upon where you are. Looks like it will make Canada into both a much better area for growing and them ports a shorter distance for shipping.

Loy lying areas will be absorbed by the sea. Those people will be big losers. That sort of change by others impacting people is morally hard to justify.

Most estimates of the good vs harm focus on the costs to people negatively affected. Those numbers are big enough that it becomes hard for benefits to outweigh that.

0

mark hartless 1 year ago

Liberal philosophy: Forget about those your policies wrong or hurt. Acknowledge only the good achieved.

Yet on Global non-warming, you take the exact opposite position.

0

John Weibel 1 year ago

Scott

I did take physics in college just didn't major in it. I did not want to complete my aerospace degree and most likely work on killing devices and did not desire to make college a life I graduated in Econ on schedule.

As I stated I do not Desire to have the conversation on the papers thread.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

Yes, let's continue to work on alternative sources of energy that are priced so the middle and less than middle class can afford it but maybe just maybe the worry about CO2 as a pollutant is a bit over done. It IS good to keep an open mind.

OOPS

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.” “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path. “Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued. “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked. “Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained. Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s32FRYmF

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Dan,

There is no "oops".

Dr Will Happer has peer reviewed papers on other topics, not climatology. And what he is saying is not from a peer reviewed paper, but his personal opinions.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

On second thought there is an "oops". It was an "oops" for that panel to bring in someone working outside of his field of expertise.

And his comments are full of "oops" due to all of the peer reviewed papers he dismisses without comment. In particular, the peer reviewed paper regarding the hockey stick temps by the Berkeley statisticians whom were critical of some other global warming papers. Anyone that dismisses that paper should be able to state their reasons why they believe that paper is wrong.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

So sayeth Judith Curry.from "Reasoning about climate uncertainty" She has written 130 peer reviewed papers.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0180-z/fulltext.html

6 Conclusions

"I have argued that the IPCC has oversimplified the issue of dealing with uncertainty in the climate system, which can lead to misleading overconfidence. Consequently, the IPCC has neither thoroughly portrayed the complexities of the problem nor the associated uncertainties in our understanding. Improved understanding and characterization of uncertainty and ignorance would promote a better overall understanding of the science and how to best target resources to improve understanding. A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, reasoning about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself. The IPCC should seek advice from the broader community of scientists, engineers, statisticians, social scientists and philosophers in strategizing about ways to improve its understanding and assessment of uncertainty.

Improved characterization of uncertainty and ignorance and a more realistic portrayal of confidence levels could go a long way towards reducing the “noise” and animosity portrayed in the media that fuels the public distrust of climate science that is clouding the policy process. Once a better characterization of uncertainty is accomplished (including indeterminacy and ignorance), then the challenge of communicating uncertainty is much more tractable and ultimately more convincing.

Improved understanding and characterization of uncertainty is critical information for the development of robust policy options. When working with policy makers and communicators, it is essential not to fall into the trap of acceding to inappropriate demands for certainty; the intrinsic limitations of the knowledge base need to be properly assessed and presented to decision makers. Wynne (1992) makes an erudite statement: “the built-in ignorance of science towards its own limiting commitments and assumptions is a problem only when external commitments are built on it as if such intrinsic limitations did not exist.”"

and regards the "hockey stick" there is this

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/2004gl021750.pdf

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

You would do better to go away from the denier sites and go to:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Founders Mueller is actually quoted on some denier sites since he did find some errors in Hadley and some other sites.

But when they used better, rigorous and open methods to analyze the data and still came up with the same hockey stick then the most ardent deniers then also denied his results.

So do tell what they have done wrong.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

Scott, Just providing you peer reviewed papers. As you seem to demand that. Maybe science is not settled. It's ok to keep an open mind. That doesn't seem possible to you regards global warming/climate change. I am willing to look at both sides of the discussion. Are you?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Dan,

Your links are to one paper that has very specific issues to some temp studies. It is not too dissimilar to what Meuller had noted in some prior research. But Mueller and crew went through the data in a very rigorous manner and have maintained what was the original data, and an open record of their statistical methods.

The Judith Curry article is just her making a long verbal argument.

The "other side" based upon scientific validity is far closer to Mueller's BerkeleyEarth group as their policy is limit themselves to saying what can be said with a high level of statistical confidence.

Unfortunately, the deniers now hate Mueller's group because not only did they validate the hockey stick graph, their statistical analysis has the present slightly warmer than NASA, Hadley and most the others.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

Scott, so I have an open mind on AGW/global warming/climate change and you don't.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Dan,

No, I read your links. They weren't convincing. Judith Curry is making arguments related to this or that study, but isn't making any convincing overall point and doesn't even try to make one supported by any data. The other suggested there were specific errors in another analysis. Maybe true, but doesn't prove anything else.

But did you read the temperature analysis done by the BerkeleyEarth group? Looks to me like they address the criticisms made about other studies. They had criticized other studies and took it upon themselves to do it right. What errors or doubtful methods did you find in their analysis?

Seems to me that you are the one without an open mind.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

Scott, So you choose to dismiss peer reviewed papers - your standard, not mine - out of hand if they don't support your ideology. Interesting approach.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Dan,

No, the criticism may be valid and there are certainly flawed studies. But just because a particular study's methods are flawed doesn't mean that the exact opposite is true. It just means that study cannot be relied upon.

So your cited papers can be accepted that there are flawed global warming papers. But they do not present conclusive evidence that either global warming isn't happening or that if it is happening that it will be beneficial.

Meanwhile, the BerkeleyEarth group has done their own independent analysis of temps based upon the raw data, kept the raw data available and openly described their methods for processing the data to detect urban heat islands and so on with the stated intent of correcting poor methods of other papers.

So, with your open mind then certainly you have availed yourself of their paper on global temps and have thoughts on their results. So what do you think? Have you identified flaws in their paper? Or do you accept their results?

I know that ideologue look at a name like BerkeleyEarth and automatically dismiss it because it has "Berkeley" and "Earth". But the founding professor Mueller is highly regarded for his statistical rigorous methods. His speech criticizing IPCC methods in their report was a big hit among deniers. And the deniers had great hope when he announced his project for an independent analysis using proper statistical methods. But when their results also had a hockey stick graph then deniers had no use for him. They haven't been able to shoot his results down either so the deniers just pretend he doesn't exist and continue the criticisms of IPCC.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

Scott, I have no reason to dispute any peer reviewed paper, whether they do or don't support the notion of man caused climate change. I am not an idealogue. I am one who believes there is enough information for and against that the science is not settled. As I have said previously I am keeping an open mind. I hope to be around to experience the Maunder Minimum in 15 years or so.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Dan,

So then, if you don't dispute peer reviewed papers, you accept that some papers on global warming are flawed (your links), but that better done papers that preserve the original data, show their statistical methods for processing the data are also valid and thus that paper's hockey stick graph is accurate. And based upon it and other, not flawed papers, that man caused global warming is real.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year ago

Hey Scott, thanks for the offer but I think I will pass on the idea that you are the final arbiter as to which peer reviewed papers are "better". As I mentioned previously, it appears to me that there is enough good data to suggest that the whole idea of "global warming" is not settled science.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year ago

Dan,

I am not saying which peer reviewed papers are better. I am just saying that if you accept all peer reviewed papers then you can reach a logically consistent position that IPCC, Hadley and such have released results using poor methods and techniques (the claims made in the peer reviewed papers you cite), but that peer reviewed papers that use better methods and technique are also valid.

So Hadley and IPCC papers can have bad techniques and not actually prove what they claim, but that BerkeleyEarth can do it right and thus be accepted.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.