diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

How are we doing?​

It's an enormous challenge.

Was looking at the climate action tracker, and it's depressing....basically, with the current policies &
actions, the world might be at +2.7°C by the end of the century. Even in the "optimistic" scenario,
we'll be at +1.8°C.

We have <7 years to meet the 2030 target of a ~43% reduction in emissions. The U.S. plan targets
50-52% reduction, but our policies still lack in a number of areas as shown in the table to the right.

Some of the data to the right is misleading. For example, Norway looks bad in it. But, that's
because they have different needs from other countries; in practice, they're doing quite well:


CAT_2022-12u_Graph_SplitSummary_Norway.width-1110.png
There will be many problems we're going to have to overcome, it's not going to be easy.
The best minds in the world all say we have the technology and resources, we know the
solutions, we just need to act with urgency to get the word out and enact them.
CAT_2022-11_Graph_NetZeroTable--ABDEFG.width-1110.png

Keep in mind It's not the End of the World
Climate change will probably not have sudden catastrophic events like a Hollywood movie; there's a difference between urgency and panic. We should move forward; but with well-thought-out plans that are flexible to reduce economic risks and burdens. Human-kind won't be wiped out because of this. But if we don't eliminate the problem and adapt to a changing world it can be incredibly costly in a multitude of ways.

Humans can survive higher temperatures, but that doesn't mean it will be comfortable or easy to do so. Changes to the climate from global warming will be a slow set of changes and shifts causing more and more problems such as drought, flooding, and spells of severe heat. It'll be unprecedented upheaval, meaning the hardening or abandoning of some cities, moving farmland to where crops can get water, and redefining countries.
 
Last edited:
"Climate Change" is scam. It is designed as a powergrab by oligarchs who desire to control everything and for the first time ever, digital tech advances allow then to achieve their "forever" wet dream of total control over everyone.



If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
Not so green: Renewable energy’s land use problem
California Blackouts Have Begun. Thank ‘Green Energy’ | National Review
The Environmental Impact of Lithium Batteries
"Green" Energy Is a Scam. It Isn't MEANT to Work.
Why California’s Climate Policies Are Causing Electricity Blackouts
Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.
Explained: Why Is Electricity So Expensive In Norway Right Now?


Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order
This link should be required reading for anyone who is paying attention. Covers a lot of reasons for the seemed crazyness we have been experiencing in the last several years.



Manmade climate change is completely made up BS, and even mainstream pundits are forced to start admitting it for fear of public revolting!





(Fake data everywhere).

 
Looks like all we need to do for 20kw is do what is in this video.
think it will work? ???


on the day that all scientist agree will be the real day of change. Science is ever evolving and sadly influenced. …. POWER MONEY GREED
 
Has any of that worked...
Yes!

Quite a few people I talk to (mainly Republican circles) get spun up by the "sensational" news. As a conservative Republican when I hear something "sensational" I typically have to dig into it because while my friends are outraged; I'm just confused (usually it's WTF, why would the dems do that... that's crazy even for them). It also helps that I have a high degree of credibility with my friends (pretty sure some are just humoring me ; -).

Most denial strategies depend on triggering emotion to generate belief and promote denier activism (e.g., tell their friends). Once you find out what the emotion is and deal with why that's false they're usually more open to listening to other views, hopefully with more science. Definitely just telling them they're wrong makes them feel stupid and causes them to backlash by digging deeper into the false narrative.

It doesn't work well on the forums as members don't like talking about their fears or specific issues. There is also an endless amount of fake "proof" and attacks on science from the internet that can easily be found to reinforce their position. Fake experts are a lot more believable than any average joe from the internet, but then they typically have a PR or psychological degree. But deniers have a tough time with specific issues because jerks like me point to 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong and reference a specific number as to why they're wrong.

There are at least two types on each side. The first are deeply entrenched and spend all their time trying to prove their point, they have no room to be open-minded and cannot discuss the science behind the topic - anything that contradicts their worldview is just wrong and must be smashed. Obviously, that type isn't interested in discussion on the topic; they want the whole thing to go away.

The other are opened mined people like @Bob B & @LeoThomson who have said with compelling evidence they'd change their mind. They're interested in true understanding and form their own opinions. Conversation with them is typically very interesting in that it brings new ideas and bits of information to the table. For example, your link on thermokarsts was very interesting.

I suspect there are a lot of folks, like you, that understand climate change is real and always on-going process; but are worried about the costs as compared to the benefits (if any). Those costs are frequently shouted from the rooftops. What's not obvious are two things:
  1. They're replacement costs. What's the difference between paying for fossil fuel power plant and solar farm with battery power plant? These are well understood with LCOEs. When that existing power plant needs to be replaced you would have to spend the money anyway. Truth is, renewables save us money in the long run. From 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong, see number 235 ("Climate change solutions are too expensive").
  2. The other is not looking at the enormous costs associated with climate change. What happens to the people whose homes are destroyed and the insurance company goes under because it's too massive? It's already happened in Florida. In 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong see number 234 ("Climate change isn't increasing extreme weather damage costs").
...on the day that all scientist agree will be the real day of change.
That consensus occurred in the last century and the UN moved from studying Global Warming to studying Climate change. Other than stepping up PR machine that it was a hoax, the world would have to wait until 2015 for countries to start signing on to actually doing something. The longer we delay, the more expensive it becomes as we'll need more adaptation and have to pay for more carbon capture.
 
Last edited:
Climate change is scam. Dont fall for it


Watts is not the only scientist raising important concerns about the databases at the heart of the political campaign to promote panic about rising temperatures. Recent work by Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville found that up to a fifth of all warming reported across the planet by around 20,000 weather stations is invalid due to corruption from non-climatic data. The stations form part of the Global Historical Climate Network and are an important constituent of all global datasets. Interestingly, the two scientists noted that the U.S. weather service NOAA claims to remove urban heat distortions, but they found that on average it is “spuriously warming station temperature data trends when it should be cooling them”. The detailed reasons are given in a note published by Dr. Spencer, where he asks why NOAA adjustments are going in the wrong way. “To say the least, I find these results … curious”, he adds.

Lopping off chunks of recent warming at a time when very little ‘heating’ is occurring would be unwelcome in Net Zero extremist circles. Scientists such as Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen point out that the warming since the ending of the Baroque mini ice age is already tiny. Evidence continues to accumulate that recent periods were much warmer than the present. In February, a group of bio scientists (Brozova et al., 2023) presented evidence showing that the Arctic around Svalbard was 6°C warmer in the early Holocene around 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. Further scientific evidence showing past warming can be found here, here and here.

Global surface temperatures recorded and compiled by government agencies are said by Watts to be a mishmash of rounded, adjusted and compromised readings, rather than being an accurate representation of Earth’s temperature. “Given the Government’s monopoly on use of corrupted temperature data, questionable accuracy, and a clear reticence to make highly accurate temperature data from the USCTN available to the public, it is time for a truly independent global temperature record to be produced,” Watts concludes.
 
...Watts is not the only scientist raising important concerns about the databases...Recent work by Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville found that up to a fifth of all warming reported across the planet by around 20,000 weather stations is invalid
This is both a great example of how science works, and how it gets twisted. Here's a link to Dr. Christy's paper that was referenced. What the paper is actually about is fine-tuning the CMIP6 model, specifically in the tropospheric layer. They've been worried about it for decades.

Christy is saying it's about .13, the "standard" value is ".18", either way, there's warming.

Why it's controversial science is their analysis of the satellite data didn't match the other measuring bodies. It's talked about here (really good video). For example, balloon data is typically higher, .21.

But science doesn't like discrepancies, so scientists kept looking into the issue. In 2005 the discrepancy in their analysis was tracked down to orbital changes that hadn't been properly accounted for. When they factored this in, they found the rate was .19; so in other words, slightly more warming per year.

There's nothing about 1/5th of all reported data as being wrong in that paper either. But Watts was referenced:
Global surface temperatures recorded and compiled by government agencies are said by Watts to be a mishmash of rounded, adjusted and compromised readings, rather than being an accurate representation of Earth’s temperature. “Given the Government’s monopoly on use of corrupted temperature data, questionable accuracy, and a clear reticence to make highly accurate temperature data from the USCTN available to the public, it is time for a truly independent global temperature record to be produced,” Watts concludes.
Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for Fox news & climate denier blogger. His blog on the data being inaccurate is here, and he is specifically saying the COOP data is inaccurate and provides a link here.

Here's a link to the COOP program... it's a volunteer program the National Weather Service established in 1890. Because it depends on everyday ordinary citizens, that most likely fail to calibrate their instruments, the data isn't that great. While the COOP program was great two centuries ago, technology has improved since then.

In 1967 we started measuring by satellites, and we spot-checked at various stations across the Earth to ensure accuracy. Organizations across the world (e.g., NASA) also put instruments on ships and planes to collect even more data, and yes, scientists also float meteorological balloons (seriously, not spy balloons but with actual meteorological packages). But this isn't volunteer data like COOP, it's very high-quality data (the video talks about the plot twists with satellite data).

That's not to say the COOP data isn't used at all anymore. Prior to satellite measurements it was the most accurate source available.

See also:
 
Last edited:
Svetz, all your arguments come down to "my sources are better then your sources" essentially dismissing anyone that disagrees, even when solid data is resented. This is exact same strategy as Covid and Covid "vaxxes" aka untested genetic slurries (For which the truth is starting to come out at record speed and the establishment is still trying to double and triple down on stupidity, luckily almost no one is believing them anymore)

Thats a poor argument, in fact thats no argument.

The climate-change theory is baseless: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

The climate-change argument is pseudoscience: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391

The establishment has been lying to us on just about everything, AT least for the last 20 years (at least). Anything they say, especially on Climate Change is not even worth consideration, ESPECIALLY considering that all the pundits are the biggest hypocrites imaginable. And full well - THEY know that the entire thing is BS, designed for gullible sheep to swallow without thinking.

 
Last edited:
What is the scam?
All it takes is a little common sense to see the scam. There have virtually been 100's of failed predictions since the 70's regarding dire things that were going to happen to the planet.
Those predictions were all designed to scare us in VARIOUS ways .... beginning with ice age warning ... then to global warming ... then to simply climate change.

It is obvious that the forces driving these climate scares is NOT driven by science .... or, if it is, it is the crappiest science the world has ever seen since ALL those dire prediction have NOT come true. These "climate scientists" have been caught altering the data .... they go back to their web pages and erase or change the predictions they made that never happened. It is a mechanism of controlling peoples behavior thru fear of some dire catastrophe. You can bet that those pushing the fear are positioned to make money from it.

"They" have been trying to scare us into believing the planet is on the brink of extinction for over 50 years. NONE of what they predicted has actually happened .... Whatever is behind it all ... it isn't science ... but .... we are evil climate deniers if we don't buy into the latest scare tactic.
 
All it takes is a little common sense to see the scam. There have virtually been 100's of failed predictions since the 70's regarding dire things that were going to happen to the planet.
Those predictions were all designed to scare us in VARIOUS ways .... beginning with ice age warning ... then to global warming ... then to simply climate change.

It is obvious that the forces driving these climate scares is NOT driven by science .... or, if it is, it is the crappiest science the world has ever seen since ALL those dire prediction have NOT come true. These "climate scientists" have been caught altering the data .... they go back to their web pages and erase or change the predictions they made that never happened. It is a mechanism of controlling peoples behavior thru fear of some dire catastrophe. You can bet that those pushing the fear are positioned to make money from it.

"They" have been trying to scare us into believing the planet is on the brink of extinction for over 50 years. NONE of what they predicted has actually happened .... Whatever is behind it all ... it isn't science ... but .... we are evil climate deniers if we don't buy into the latest scare tactic.
Bob don’t bring up all those past scams we are only focused on their one scam right now…… those others don’t matter. Don’t cha know? ??? Don’t make them go all rainbow up in here. ??
 
So .... The fear campaign is working on people with no common sense?
Bob, I am trying to be nice to you, what I am saying that the argument of "common sense" is a fallacy in general and in your case, clearly uncommon.
 
Svetz, all your arguments come down to "my sources are better then your sources" essentially dismissing anyone that disagrees,
Except, it was your source (Dr. Christy) that agreed with the miscalculation and recanted. He also originally said it was warming at .13 instead of .18, not that climate change was a hoax. After correcting for satellite orbits the numbers came to .19.

All it takes is a little common sense to see the scam.
Have to disagree Bob. I think I have at a least a little common sense and it's not obvious to me. Let me explain.

"They" have been trying to scare us into believing the planet is on the brink of extinction for over 50 years.
There are some doom-sayers out there, but nowhere in the IPCC reports does it say we're going extinct from climate change. People saying that are fringe elements and you're wise not to buy into it. The whole issue is about how the climate is likely to change because of global warming. That means flooding some places, droughts in others, etc. It's really no different than what's been happening forever. The whole bit about reducing GHGs is to minimize the changes as they can be rather expensive, it's far more expensive to do nothing than it is to convert.

There have virtually been 100's of failed predictions since the 70's regarding dire things that were going to happen to the planet.
Why give credence to predictions from journalists that half-read something and then print crazy headlines (e.g., clickbait)?
If you look at the actual scientific predictions, they are startlingly accurate (#32 accuracy of the IPCC temperature models).

.... beginning with ice age warning ...
I can understand that one, if you look at the normal climate cycles, we're due and it was published around the middle of the last century. It was the contradictions between the observed results and the cycle data that started people looking into the issue.

then to global warming ... then to simply climate change.
That's not really a change.
Once global warming was proved at the end of the last century the focus shifted as to how the climate would change based on it. That is, global warming never went away, it's a cornerstone. (see more)


These "climate scientists" have been caught altering the data ....
Do you have links or evidence that can be discussed? I haven't seen anything that would suggest that. I do see models and analysis, and conclusions change as mistakes (e.g., like Dr. Christy) or new proofs bubble up.

We don't know everything, but typically when there are questions and debates it's not about if global warming is real, it's about the rate of change. If you look at the different scenarios in the IPCC models, there's a lot of future variance.

It is a mechanism of controlling peoples behavior thru fear of some dire catastrophe.
Or, like the warning on cigarettes, it's real.

You can bet that those pushing the fear are positioned to make money from it.
I agree there are those that will find ways to make money off it and scam people. In fact, the EPA recently testified:

...the Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog warned lawmakers that the agency's recent surge in funding — part of President Biden's climate policy spending — comes with "a high risk for fraud, waste and abuse... ref
That doesn't mean it's a hoax, just that there are a lot of crooks out there.
 
Last edited:
Except, it was your source (Dr. Christy) that agreed with the miscalculation and recanted. He also originally said it was warming at .13 instead of .18, not that climate change was a hoax. After correcting for satellite orbits the numbers came to .19.


Have to disagree Bob. I think I have at a least a little common sense and it's not obvious to me. Let me explain.


There are some doom-sayers out there, but nowhere in the IPCC reports does it say we're going extinct from climate change. People saying that are fringe elements and you're wise not to buy into it. The whole issue is about how the climate is likely to change because of global warming. That means flooding some places, droughts in others, etc. It's really no different than what's been happening forever. The whole bit about reducing GHGs is to minimize the changes as they can be rather expensive, it's far more expensive to do nothing than it is to convert.


Why give credence to predictions from journalists that half-read something and then print crazy headlines (e.g., clickbait)?
If you look at the actual scientific predictions, they are startlingly accurate (#32 accuracy of the IPCC temperature models).


I can understand that one, if you look at the normal climate cycles, we're due and it was published around the middle of the last century. It was the contradictions between the observed results and the cycle data that started people looking into the issue.


That's not really a change.
Once global warming was proved at the end of the last century the focus shifted as to how the climate would change based on it. That is, global warming never went away, it's a cornerstone. (see more)



Do you have links or evidence that can be discussed? I haven't seen anything that would suggest that. I do see models and analysis, and conclusions change as mistakes (e.g., like Dr. Christy) or new proofs bubble up.

We don't know everything, but typically when there are questions and debates it's not about if global warming is real, it's about the rate of change. If you look at the different scenarios in the IPCC models, there's a lot of future variance.


Or, like the warning on cigarettes, it's real.


I agree there are those that will find ways to make money off it and scam people. In fact, the EPA recently testified:


That doesn't mean it's a hoax, just that there are a lot of crooks out there.
You’ve already admitted it went from global warming to climate change. Al Gore and his panels of experts were WRONG. wise up… it is a scam.
 
You’ve already admitted it went from global warming to climate change.

Nope, I said it never went away:
Once global warming was proved at the end of the last century the focus shifted as to how the climate would change based on it. That is, global warming never went away, it's a cornerstone. (see more)
Click the "see more" link if you're still bothered by it.
 
Except, it was your source (Dr. Christy) that agreed with the miscalculation and recanted. He also originally said it was warming at .13 instead of .18, not that climate change was a hoax. After correcting for satellite orbits the numbers came to .19.


Have to disagree Bob. I think I have at a least a little common sense and it's not obvious to me. Let me explain.


There are some doom-sayers out there, but nowhere in the IPCC reports does it say we're going extinct from climate change. People saying that are fringe elements and you're wise not to buy into it. The whole issue is about how the climate is likely to change because of global warming. That means flooding some places, droughts in others, etc. It's really no different than what's been happening forever. The whole bit about reducing GHGs is to minimize the changes as they can be rather expensive, it's far more expensive to do nothing than it is to convert.


Why give credence to predictions from journalists that half-read something and then print crazy headlines (e.g., clickbait)?
If you look at the actual scientific predictions, they are startlingly accurate (#32 accuracy of the IPCC temperature models).


I can understand that one, if you look at the normal climate cycles, we're due and it was published around the middle of the last century. It was the contradictions between the observed results and the cycle data that started people looking into the issue.


That's not really a change.
Once global warming was proved at the end of the last century the focus shifted as to how the climate would change based on it. That is, global warming never went away, it's a cornerstone.



Do you have links or evidence that can be discussed? I haven't seen anything that would suggest that. I do see models and analysis, and conclusions change as mistakes (e.g., like Dr. Christy) or new proofs bubble up.

We don't know everything, but typically when there are questions and debates it's not about if global warming is real, it's about the rate of change. If you look at the different scenarios in the IPCC models, there's a lot of future variance.


Or, like the warning on cigarettes, it's real.


I agree there are those that will find ways to make money off it and scam people. In fact, the EPA recently testified:


That doesn't mean it's a hoax, just that there are a lot of crooks out there.
Doesn't it concern you even a little bit that they have made dire predictions over and over again that haven't come true?
They have discovered that climate change ..... which has happened naturally over eons .... is something they can use to scare control people. They are just getting more and more clever with the ways they muddy up the science to try and make it believable.
One thing is for sure .... radical climate change has happened before and will happen again .... sooner or later they will be able to claim .... see, we told you so.

Gretta Thunberg was the latest one to get caught quietly changing her website predictions that didn't come true. I'm sure you can find evidence of that.

Al Gore had to make another movie because nothing in the original came true .... but people still believe everything he says in the 2nd one.

Several times now they have predicted that arctic ice would be gone in the summer time.

They have just found that the company doing the energy credits is a scam.

Polar bears are flourishing .... and 100's of other things that weren't even close to true .... but ... now we are supposed to believe they finally know what they are talking about.

What was it that prompted them to start making these dire predictions in the 70's? It has been one thing after the other ever since .... it CANNOT be science that is driving this hysteria.
 
Even Snopes .... "some people's" favorite fact checker .... acknowledges she deleted a tweet stating we are doomed if we haven't gotten completely off fossil fuels by now .... they just nit pick the assertion to make it appear not to be true.

 
Back
Top