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

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
449
Yeah? And why hasn't anyone "repeated" it? Honestly, find yourself any experiment that even remotely suggests that a concentration of 0.0x% of CO2 in a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen changes... anything :·)


I believe none of them have. They predicted ice-free arctic by 2013, for Pete's sake.
How does this fit with any of those models? I mean, why is arctic (and antarctic, BTW) ice getting better? While CO2 is getting worse?

View attachment 69313
(source: Danish Meteorological Institute)

Mr Svetz pretends his mind is open but I believe he was never a skeptic.
CO2 is a trace gas and our contribution to the total CO2 is small.
And the solution ? Give other countries more money.


Straight out of the NY Times in 1987 :

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of
Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures
or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.


While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and
drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no
trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in
the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings
taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.
 

Attachments

  • No warming for 100 years.pdf
    104 KB · Views: 1

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
449
The Paris Climate Agreement is to tax the american middle class and give "under-developed countries" (like China and Iran) money to help them out.
appreciate a link to or the numbers on the house/senate bills for such a tax; if true I'd want to talk with my congressional representatives. I've been watching them pretty closely this year and haven't seen anything remotely close to this.
Biden signed the Paris Climate Agreement that Trump refused. Nice to know our tax dollars are being given to Communist China.

Article 10 of the Paris agreement states that developed countries shall provide "support, including financial support," to developing countries for technology development and transfer.[3]
Additionally, developed countries were "strongly urged" to increase their financial support for developing countries, (China and India) building on a joint goal of $100 billion per year by 2020, and to increase that goal before 2025.[10][3]
 

12VoltInstalls

Solar Addict
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Messages
1,374
Location
Vermont
would be a few degrees hotter due to the molten core,
that’s always confused me. Once the earths crust gets thick enough, I’ve always wondered why the upper layers don’t pull opposite from the core enough to reduce the pressure to non-molten.

So is climate change going to make the molten core more molten? Isn’t…there gravity in more than one direction at the center of mass? Is the earth secretly plotting to be a black hole?!
 
Last edited:

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
Didn't read your own fact check?
The "truth" in the conclusion wasn't the U.S. giving $100 billion to India and/or China. It was:
Developed countries have pledged to provide $100 billion annually to assist developing countries in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The agreement does not specify how much developing countries will receive.
India is considered a "developing country" so it is likely they are eligible. How much they get compared to other developing countries is unknown.

The U.S. has removed China from that list (ref) so I do not believe they are eligible.

As there are a number of developed countries, the burden on any one country is quite small.

...Straight out of the NY Times in 1987 ...
Wow, had to go back to 1987 to find someone that said there was no temperature change? Even when I was a skeptic I agreed with that.

That's the problem with cognitive bias ... if you look hard enough you can always find someone to support your beliefs. It cuts both ways of course, so always good to verify.

So is climate change going to make the molten core more molten?
No. But you might like this on the science.

Isn’t ...there gravity in more than one direction at the center of mass? Is the earth secretly plotting to be a black hole?!
ROFL....
 

AndyRonLI

Solar Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
62
Yeah well 409 ppm is still 0.04%.
And... can you please quote/find any scientific proof that any concentration of CO2 below, say 50% in a mixture of gases, increases greenhouse effect?
Its not proof, its math.
Its called radiation heat transfer from a grey body in a participating medium.

Grab a radiation heat transfer book. Its a grad course so you might need to polish your math a bit.
Do the integral calc of a column of air 100 miles high with the appropriate (yes you can do it one -dimensionally as a check)
Calculate the ground temp in thermal equilibrium with a black body at say 2 degrees kelvin for a mixuture of O2 and N2.
Now do it with 100ppm of CO2, 200ppm of CO2, 300ppm and 400ppm
It will show a curve.
Now the temps you get will not be representative of ground temp at night, there is a lot of 2nd order stuff to think about, but you will see the clear signal that small amounts of something when integrated over the entire air column are observable.

Small forces, concentrations, currents, magnetic fields can have humongous effects when integrated over large volumes.

Analogy.
Weigh yourself when the moon is overhead. Now weigh yourself 12 hours letter when the moon is essentially under foot.
You dont own a scale sensitive enough to measure the difference in that weight. But...... The tides man! The tides.!!

IT IS AN INTEGRAL PROBLEM
 

Don B. Cilly

Energetic energy padawan
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
198
Location
Ibiza, Spain
And that would be scientific proof?
rolleyes.gif

That is just theory. One can theorise anything.

I mean actual experimental hard evidence. As in like, scientific proof.
icon_smile_firuli.gif

.
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
And that would be scientific proof?
rolleyes.gif

That is just theory. One can theorise anything.

I mean actual experimental hard evidence. As in like, scientific proof.
icon_smile_firuli.gif

Don, I'm sure that you're aware that trolling and can have consequences on the forums.

You've asked this a couple of times now and responses have been provided in good faith (#179, #185).
Repeatedly asking the same question while providing no proof and ignoring facts presented by others is disruptive to the discussion.

I'm sure you know the definition:
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. (ref)

As the experimental evidence matches the theory of black body radiation, the theory is both well known and accepted.

If you believe the greenhouse effect is false and would like to participate in the thread, please state the alternate theory and show or provide links as to how it fits experimental evidence and contradicts climate change. The onus isn't on others to "prove" what is commonly held to be true. With extraordinary claims, the onus is on you.
 

AndyRonLI

Solar Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
62
Don,
We measure these effects in the lab all the time. We can use that data to calculate performance of furnaces, glass reservoirs, rocket plumes and 1000's of other thermo-fluid systems that involve radiation heat transfer. I don't need to prove that if I increase the insulation thickness in the wall of my house the heat loss goes down. And I can actually calculate the effect with a fair degree of accuracy. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is known. The behavior of radiant heat transfer is known. That's the proof. I kinda get pissed off, that folks get in planes, use cell phones, watch digital TV, plug into power grids, use solar panels, use LiFePo batteries but somehow when the same math is applied to macroscopic behavior that they go all "well prove it" How do you prove electron tunneling. How do you prove the photo-electric effect. I define a theory with a mathematic model, I verify that theory in the lab, I can then use that math and that theory outside the lab. Can you prove the tides are caused by the moon?

Oh, and do you understand the statement... "It is an integral problem"

Andy
 

Don B. Cilly

Energetic energy padawan
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
198
Location
Ibiza, Spain
the theory is both well known and accepted.

Slightly funny, considering the "Works in theory! Practice? That's something else" blurb in your profile :·)
The responses you mentioned, I obviously was not satisfied with... still, far from me to be trolling or annoying anyone, I'll just leave it at that, you're satisfied it works in practice, I'm not.
.
 

AndyRonLI

Solar Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
62
Slightly funny, considering the "Works in theory! Practice? That's something else" blurb in your profile :·)
The responses you mentioned, I obviously was not satisfied with... still, far from me to be trolling or annoying anyone, I'll just leave it at that, you're satisfied it works in practice, I'm not.
.
Don,
I flat out asked you a question.

Do you understand what is meant by.
"It is an integral problem"

So I suspect you dont. Demonstrate you do. Or are you simply a Sea Lion, or a Troll.

A
 

Don B. Cilly

Energetic energy padawan
Joined
Aug 24, 2021
Messages
198
Location
Ibiza, Spain
Do you understand what is meant by.
"It is an integral problem"

No. I don't. I also fail to understand the correlation between not understanding that and sea lions, trolls, or... anything else, actually, but then, as long as you do, I really don't care. I was trying to reason about actual facts. Not really interested in picking any fights, thank you very much.
 

AndyRonLI

Solar Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
62
So would you like me to explain what is meant by "it is an integral problem" and why that is germane to your question about how 400ppm can alter climate? It is relatively simple, but if you have your mind made up (and you appear to), I would prefer not to waste my time. The troll comment was an unfortunate choice of word on my part and I apologize. A sea lion (and occasionally I do become one myself) is someone that simply likes to prolong an internet argument for the shear entertainment of it. On has to be very bored or easily amused to succumb to the temptation and I am sometimes both.

However, my offer to teach you about the necessity of understanding integral problems is legitimate.
As if you don't understand that, other information is less likely to be understood.
 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
449
So would you like me to explain what is meant by "it is an integral problem" and why that is germane to your question about how 400ppm can alter climate? It is relatively simple, but if you have your mind made up (and you appear to), I would prefer not to waste my time. The troll comment was an unfortunate choice of word on my part and I apologize. A sea lion (and occasionally I do become one myself) is someone that simply likes to prolong an internet argument for the shear entertainment of it. On has to be very bored or easily amused to succumb to the temptation and I am sometimes both.

However, my offer to teach you about the necessity of understanding integral problems is legitimate.
As if you don't understand that, other information is less likely to be understood.
Your arrogance can't hide the fact that
1) there is almost no CO2 in the atmosphere ( 0.04% ) and
2) humans contribute very little CO2 to the total in nature (4 to 5%)
3) Some of us learned that plants benefit from CO2. Many scientists believe that excess CO2 is beneficial.
While the fear-mongers tell stories of impending doom, we have had record crop production the past few years.

The climate is EXTREMELY COMPLEX, and when these pin-heads try to tell me they understand and can explain it ?
When they can't predict the weather further out than 7-10 days ?
 
Last edited:

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
4,920
Location
Key Largo
Name Calling & Forum Rules
First, I'd like to ask folks to follow the forum rules and lay off the name-calling, insults, and innuendo. It is trollish behavior by definition and disruptive to the thread. If you're not adult enough to discuss something and honor that others are entitled to differing opinions then please go. Argue facts and theories, not their characters.

Secondly, repeatedly stating the same opinions with nothing new and disregard to prior responses is also considered trolling as it brings nothing new and is disruptive to the thread.

Finally, the burden of proof is on the poster, the more outrageous the claim the more proof you're going to need if you want anyone to take you seriously. If you think climate change is an outrageous claim, start from the beginning of the thread and read all the posts to find the proofs.

1) there is almost no CO2 in the atmosphere ( 0.04% ) and
I know 409 ppm doesn't sound like a lot. If this explanation doesn't help I suggest googling it, there are a lot of links that probably explain it better.

Let's look at CO2's mirror cousin SO2. Humans can detect SO2 between .3 and 5 ppm (ref), how is that possible with so few molecules in a million? Conjunctival irritation begins at 8–12 ppm and is severe at 50 ppm (ref). Breathing in higher concentrations will kill you.

Just as there is evidence that proves the case for SO2, there is easily found evidence of the greenhouse effect for all greenhouse gases (see prior posts with reference links). Every molecule of CO2 is like a tiny mirror transparent to solar wavelengths, but reflective of Earth's heat. Just as each solar panel you put on your roof adds up, so does each molecule of CO2.

Let's take a look at a square of air as the "front face" of a cube of air.
Let the yellow circles be CO2 "reflectors" as depicted in the image to right.

From the diagram, you can see that as little as 5 out of 25 make a perfect reflective layer. That is a concentration of 20% (5x5 / 5x5x5) is the minimum needed for 100% reflectivity.
1634816903824.png

It's a bit crude as models go as the yellow spheres would be more randomly placed. But hopefully, the next steps will prove the point.

If you bump it up to a cube 10 molecules on a side, it's 10x10/(10x10x10) or the minimum concentration is 10%.
If you bump it up to 1000 it's 1000 x 1000 / (1000 x 1000 x 1000) it becomes .1%. If you go to 10,000 on a side it's .01%.

Fortunately for us, the current 0.04% concentration is distributed randomly, so a great many of the yellow circles are over each other rather than side-by-side. Also fortunate for us, CO2 is the least powerful greenhouse gas (e.g., not a perfect reflector). Unfortunate for us, there's a number of other greenhouse gases too and they are far better reflectors. As was mentioned in #150, 10,000 molecules of air is practically nothing, far smaller than the head of a pin.

Finally, there is a large body of experimental evidence that demonstrates the increase in heat based on the concentration.

2) humans contribute very little CO2 to the total in nature (4 to 5%)
As you stated in #169 back in 1990 the IPCC said there were 770 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and humans were adding 23 billion tons per year. It's been 30 years since then and humans are now adding 51 billion tons per year. The half-life of CO2 is very long (centuries) as it is very stable and requires a carbon sink to be removed from the atmosphere. So, if every year we're adding 4 to 5% and removing less and less, how many years until the CO2 concentration doubles?

3) Some of us learned that plants benefit from CO2.
Yes great for plants! Up to a point, then it kills them. See #154.

Climate change is just change, some things will thrive, some will die.

The IPCC has studied the changes and come up with various scenarios based on various actions humans might take. The stance of all the countries that signed the Paris Accords is that the impact of those scenarios is too severe and they are therefore taking actions now to try and lessen the impacts. It also has a side benefit that electricity prices will decrease, so a win-win (currently costs are going up as fuel prices are going up, I'm paying 60% more this year than last due to fuel prices).

While the fear-mongers tell stories of impending doom
A lot of people do cry wolf. But, sometimes it's because there is a wolf.

When they can't predict the weather further out than 7-10 days ?
They can predict the weather beyond 7-10 days. Farmers' Almanac for example goes out two years. I'm even willing to go out on a limb and say if you're north of the equator the next few months will be colder.

The IPCC temperature predictions have never missed the predicted temperature within the envelope accuracy range since it started (ref). It's discussed more earlier in the thread and invite you to read it.
 
Last edited:

summit

New Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
34
thank you for such an engaging and informative thread, I am learning quite a bit and I thought I was informed. Ultimately life and the planet will go on, just not in the current form and with a lot of suffering. My current concern is that "change is coming", how to best live/deal with it ? It's getting to a point that there's only so much one can do on an individual level.
 

12VoltInstalls

Solar Addict
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Messages
1,374
Location
Vermont
current concern is that "change is coming", how to best live/deal with it ? It's getting to a point that there's only so much one can do on an individual level.
❤️
That is a kind of thinking that creates solutions.
Prevention only goes so far and draconian prevention with climate change (or as demonstrated more recently with Covid) creates other kinds of ‘suffering’ that may be as distasteful as the disease, just different or longer term or perhaps not as readily apparent. (That’s were the saw from age-old comes from: don’t throw the baby out with the bath water).

Should we give up? No! But we need more effort with our intelligence towards survival (without ignoring the actual problem) rather than playing the prevention game which may be not enough anyway according to some opinions as are reflected here in many posts.

What’s going on worldwide is generally either a draconian mindset or posturing; a position statement mentality. From both sides.
I’m just glad Portsmouth NH didn’t go under water by 2003 or whatever it was that was stated in the? 1980s?
 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
449
When they can't predict the weather further out than 7-10 days ?
Svetz :
They can predict the weather beyond 7-10 days. Farmers' Almanac for example goes out two years. I'm even willing to go out on a limb and say if you're north of the equator the next few months will be colder.

The IPCC temperature predictions have never missed the predicted temperature within the envelope accuracy range since it started (ref). It's discussed more earlier in the thread and invite you to read it.
-------------------

Now I see why you believe higher taxes will make hurricanes and extreme weather go away. (y)
You used to be a skeptic ? Really Svetz ?

Here's the latest science from our current administration :

White House Wants Easier Path For "Climate Migrants"​

 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
449
Dr Jordan Petersen worked for 2 years for the UN on Sustainable Economic and Ecological Development.

He explains why there is currently no solution for climate change in a short 6 min video.

And don't forget the majority of scientists don't believe the warming is a serious problem anyway.....

 

time2roll

Photon Sorcerer
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
2,222
I am ok focusing on pollution alone. At least the 120 degree days will clear air.
 

BMcL

Solar Addict
Joined
Sep 5, 2021
Messages
449
I am ok focusing on pollution alone. At least the 120 degree days will clear air.
This graph from the EPA should make your day.
It shows the HUGE progress we have made in the USA at fighting pollution :





Comparison_of_Growth_Areas_and_Emissions_1980-2015_US_EPA.png
 
Top