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

[Hedges]

The science isn't easy, but it's pretty clear with a lot of evidence as to what greenhouse gases do to a planet's temperature.

According to science, greenhouse gasses and man-made global warming will raise average temperatures 1 (?) degree and raise sea levels 3'.

10,000 years ago, the Continental Shelf was ocean-front property. Today it is 400' under water.

CO2 levels are very close to all-time record lows. Plants are poisoning the environment and themselves. Helping to reverse plant made global cooling could save the Earth.

Historic cycles are far greater than anything attributed or projected for human contribution.

We are told it is changing far faster than ever before.
But I have my doubts about accuracy and resolution of methods for temperature and gas concentration over geological time.
Any time you change measurement methods, the data usually changes.

I also doubt that extrapolation of anything is correct. It assumes nothing happens outside the data range you have that takes over driving results.

 

[aenyc]

@svetz
Watch the entire video i posted.
Lots of facts with links to official sources attached to the presentation.
Among many other things, carbon is not the issue. Pollution is. But noone talks about it because it does not benefit the narrative.
I dare anyone to dispute the facts presented in the video.

 

[Bob B]

Hmm, hydrogen fuel cell cars with small battery would reduce need for conflict minerals.

I used to think fuel cells would be the next big thing .... but then it never happened.
It would be kinda nice to have a fuel cell sitting behind the house for independent power also. There is a guy on YouTube that is using solar to generate hydrogen instead of using a big battery bank and powers all his vehicles and his house with hydrogen .... I haven't watched his videos for a while, so don't remember his channel name.

Musk is thoroughly convinced that batteries, not fuel cells are the way to go. I've never heard the details of why he thinks that.

I personally tend to give Musks's opinion more weight than I do Gates .... I really don't like Gates.
It was kinda funny to me when Gates tried to get on Musk's good side and then Musk just dismissed him and asked why he kept shorting Tesla stock.

 

[Hedges]

Chevy Volt was obviously able to do much more to reduce carbon emissions than Tesla.

But Musk is the new Jobs. He knows what people will buy, or how to market to them.

So long as most of the EV market is people interested in a vision/appearance, rather than analyzing their needs, the "pure" product is what sells.
For some people, Tesla or another pure EV may be a great fit. For most who will have only one car, lots of local commuting and occasional long trips, hybrid is better. And smaller battery capacity allows 6 times as many drivers to go electric that way.

I certainly respect Musk's ability to get things working. Rockets flying back to the launching pad and landing on their own feet! He said he was interested in rockets from comic books. He then brought them to life.

The self-driving, which Musk says is majority of Tesla's value, is not interesting to me. But I can see where robot vehicles replacing human drivers (and pilots) has considerable financial value to businesses.

 

[svetz]

Why again, can't Gates fly Coach? Or First Class?

Why would anyone care? Seems like an unhealthy obsession. $9 billion is a lot of walking the talk to me.

10,000 years ago, the Continental Shelf was ocean-front property. Today it is 400' under water.

Good point!
10,000 years ago it was about 150 ppm CO2 and it was so cold for so long nearly all the humans died.
See what a small change can make? Thanks for bringing that point to light.

CO2 levels are very close to all-time record lows. No, the last half million years it's cycled between 175 and 300 ppm. We're at 420ppm now (the graphic is a bit old). Yes, it was a lot higher when the crust was molten. As you can see, we're way above recent past cycles by a fair margin. For perspective, Homo Sapiens emerged ~300,000 years ago. I suspect that myth got propagated as it is common for graphs to switch scales to millions of years which can throw perspective off.

...have my doubts about accuracy and resolution of methods for temperature and gas concentration over geological time...

There is a lot of debate about that, but when you dig into it the difference in the numbers is actually fairly small and (not positive, but ) believe the IPCC factors them into the range of probability.

I also doubt that extrapolation of anything is correct. It assumes nothing happens outside the data range you have that takes over driving results.

True enough, but they've been doing this for decades now and their temperature predictions have ALWAYs fallen into the predicted range. See post #32 for more. This is from one of their older reports, I added the red dots to show the actual measurements. The outer lines are their range of predicted accuracy, the inner lines are from various models.

Where people think they were wrong is from non-scientists that looked at the curved and printed all sorts of horror stories by extrapolating and without any real understanding of the science. Scientists at the time explained why that was wrong, but only sensational news gets air time.

@svetz...Watch the entire video i posted...I dare anyone to dispute the facts presented in the video...

I could watch the video and probably dispute everything even with my limited knowledge, but it wouldn't change anything so ultimately a waste of time.

I will say James Corbett is not a climate scientist, he does have a degree in public policy (e.g., spinning things to sound good) and did the interview to push his book. Who said look at the money trail? You can always find something on the internet that says anything you want. You have to wade through it with an open mind and look at the math as this thread attempts. But, if you have a specific concern, by all means bring it up.

Honestly, if all the major oil corporations admit to the IPCC being correct, that should shake your disbelief just a little.

 

[wattmatters]

The surface temperature of Venus is 467°C, but if you removed all the CO2 from the
atmosphere it would be -42°C. Venus's ppm of CO₂ is only 71x greater than ours.

I'm not entering a debate on the topic because people are going to believe what they want and little will change minds.

Correcting denier's "facts" is a pointless game of whack a mole. It's just a waste of time.

But for those who are interested in what we know, it helps to point out obvious errors so they can continue on with valid information.

While you are correct to point out the greenhouse potency of CO2, the quote above about relative concentration of CO2 on Venus v Earth isn't correct. It's more like 2400 times that of Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is ~96% CO2. The Earth (sadly) is now above 0.04% and climbing far too quickly.

The climate change impacts are happening now, manifesting at this stage in more frequent and more serious weather related disasters (storms, cyclones, floods, wildfires, coastal degradation events etc) fuelled by the increase in overall energy in the system.

Try getting insurance in many regions. You can't, either because they just won't offer it anymore, or they've increased the premiums so far that people can no longer afford it. Where I am premiums have risen so high (between 3-6 times more than a handful of years ago) it's now my single highest annual expense. It's depressing and it's entirely because of the significantly increased risks being induced by climate change.

While many of us have shared experience of reducing our energy costs through solar PV etc, there is SFA I can do about the cost of insurance.

 

[D71]

I don't think any amount of tax will end the pollution. I think in most cases it is always tracked back to money ventures and grabs. HOWEVER Only a crazy person would say they do not want to end pollution. But a sane person knows you can't buy your way out. We had a problem with propellants in hair sprays and we did away with them. Women were pissed off. We have had problems with every sort of refrigeration coolant that has been - literally released. We required all kinds of license to do this and do that to deal with pollution.

Here are some facts:
We have a country the size of China in the USA. They have at least our population plus a billion more. India is around a ~third of our size WAY OVER POPULATED they like to procreate vs the USA land size. They have our population plus a billion more. We can't be the only ones to change and make the difference and they are allowed to pollute. We will green our self right into non-existence.
Am sure
What am finding - Americans like to live a lie. We are going to pay for it with Globalism. Most everything you mention comes from somewhere else or is so expense the average person can't afford it. Those idiots on TV that chant USA USA are the worse ones.

Do you think there is anyway to get the ppl in india to stop screwing so much? How about china. Why is the burden to save the Planet focused on white countries? Let those other 2 pay their fair share and we can sit down and talk about it. Several rounds of well placed nukes on both would stop global warming. Lose about 2 billion ppl. You are not well studied if you deny Bill Gates has not talked about global population - size reductions.

I agree india and china: to put it blunt need to stop fucking so much or use rubbers shoot that shit on the ground blow jobs whatever. With 2 billion ppl gone we would see a lot less green house. Without china and india to make all our shit we will have to manufacturer things cleanly. No more calling a tech line for hodgie to pretend like he or her are in the USA with their broken english. Again drop those bombs and we can get our nuclear winter on and chill things out. Give all the preppers something to smile about

Am sure that will make someone mad .... but we can't keep paddling the life boat .....

If you guys want man titties like bill gates eat more soy. Your estrogen will rise and you can cry on the pillow with your wife until she leaves you over another man that doesn't need a blue pill to get half erect lil soldier..... science - men should avoid soy. Bill Gates does not deny being pals with Jeffery Epstein. In an interview Gates smugly said "Epstein is dead." He is not the kind of strange guy you want around your kids. Matter of fact you are best to keep everyone away from your kids.

Al Gore might still be selling his climate change vhs for $40 a whoop. His monthly residential electric bill was thousands of dollars a month back then. No telling how much it is now. I wonder if he went green?

Watching some green ppl is about watching ppl wear a covid mask in a car all by themselves - usually one in the same.

Pay attention to the attached migrant chart .... paul revere needs to ride around screaming the immigrants are coming the immigrants are coming

 

[svetz]

I'm not entering a debate on the topic because people are going to believe what they want and little will change minds.

Folks can believe whatever they like, I just want to clear up things when I have good evidence to contrary.
There's a lot of bad data out there on both sides and if something I have said is wrong hope folks will correct it as you did!

...the quote above about relative concentration of CO2 on Venus v Earth isn't correct. It's more like 2400 times that of Earth....

Earth Is around 420 ppm, Venus is 30,000 ppm. 30,000 ÷ 420 ~= 64. ref

But NASA agrees with you that Venus is ~96.5% CO2., so that should be 965000 ppm or 2300x.
Thanks for the correction!!!

 

[aenyc]

@svetz I still challenge you to dispute anything discussed in the video. I also suggest people research the links to normie-credible institutions.
I do not buy "you are not an expert" counter argument. What matters to me is logical facts that tie to each other and make logical sense, and this is where James Corbett excels. He simply points out the evidence, instead of stating HIS opinion. Everything that has been going on has been obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention, and the hypocrisy exhibited by the very people that push the agenda is very telling. Almost classic. And the fact that they have been wrong about almost everything, climate included, in the last 100 years.

How They airbrushed out the Inconvenient Pause • Watts Up With That?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley In November 2015, just before the faithful gathered around their capering, gibbering witch-doctors and shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of thanks and praise, hugs and back-slapping, the Inconvenient Pause lengthened to 18 years 9...

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[wattmatters]

@svetz I still challenge you to dispute anything discussed in the video. I also suggest people research the links to normie-credible institutions.
I do not buy "you are not an expert" counter argument. What matters to me is logical facts that tie to each other and make logical sense, and this is where James Corbett excels. He simply points out the evidence, instead of stating HIS opinion. Everything that has been going on has been obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention, and the hypocrisy exhibited by the very people that push the agenda is very telling. Almost classic. And the fact that they have been wrong about almost everything, climate included, in the last 100 years.

How They airbrushed out the Inconvenient Pause • Watts Up With That?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley In November 2015, just before the faithful gathered around their capering, gibbering witch-doctors and shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of thanks and praise, hugs and back-slapping, the Inconvenient Pause lengthened to 18 years 9...

wattsupwiththat.com

Anything referencing Monckton is immediately to be ignored. He's a complete quack and is paid by vested interests specifically to give an air of credibility to climate denialism and to spread FUD.

I still challenge you to dispute anything discussed in the video.

Why bother? Will it change your mind? Or will you just go find some other crackpot to play whack a mole.

The nonsense sprouted by these people has been debunked plenty of times, by specialists in the field.

If you are being intellectually honest you would have already done enough reading to know these guys are crackpots.

 

[aenyc]

Anything referencing Monckton is immediately to be ignored. He's a complete quack and is paid by vested interests specifically to give an air of credibility to climate denialism and to spread FUD.


Why bother? Will it change your mind? Or will you just go find some other crackpot to play whack a mole.

The nonsense sprouted by these people has been debunked plenty of times, by specialists in the field.

If you are being intellectually honest you would have already done enough reading to know these guys are crackpots.

So another strawmen argument and pointer (not even a pointer) to the "debunkers" and "experts" that have been proven wrong again and again. Yes very predictable indeed. Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message! Classic!
Why don't you "debunk" the entire logical chain presented on the Corbett episode? Why dont you dispute the pointers to the official sites of organizations such as the WEF, various "scientific experts" and govt organizations that are stating these things outright, in the open? Ofcourse it is not being advertised in the main stream media, but that is expected, yet it is all there. They are not really hiding it if you are willing to research on your own and using your own critical thinking skills.

Climate "lockdowns" that are already being advertised, 15 minute cities, ESG agenda, Digital ID and CDBCs..... All conspiracy theories right? And vaccines are safe and effective yes? Experts told us right? Tony "The Science" Fauci. The entire scientific community has been completely coerced into following a political agenda in the last several years (and probably way way earlier it seems), and we are supposed to trust them? Govt officials who have been caught lying and lying and lying and tripling down on lying?

Let me guess, if I told you in 2018 that they would lock down the world for a minor respiratory bug and force experimental injection into you for keeping your job and going to the groceries you would 100% say "tin foil hat" and yet here we are.

 

[svetz]

@svetz I still challenge you to dispute anything discussed in the video...What matters to me is logical facts...He simply points out the evidence...

Well, if you're seriously interested in the "facts" and have an open mind I challenge you to take the "evidence" you like from the video and present it here so they can be discussed. Along the path, perhaps you might discover how someone you admire is abusing your trust. You might check the thread recap, a lot of the discussion points in the threads came from debunking "facts" in similar videos.

...I do not buy "you are not an expert" ....

That's certainly different! But trust me, I'm really not an expert. I'll make mistakes along the way, but trust that others on the forums will keep me honest.

 

[aenyc]

I have been researching the climate topic for quite a bit. Enough to realize that the main stream message being fed to us is complete baloney. I am well aware of all the "facts" and all the "counter facts" from both sides and before 2020 i would at least give your "Facts" benefit of a doubt, but since then, there is no doubt in my mind that every narrative that has been pushed is there to control us and limit us in various ways.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

I started in the denier camp and only changed my tune after wading through the BS (there's tons on both sides) and digging into the models & math. Start with the OP and work your way through and you can see how I slowly realized there really was something to it.

I CAN see how you changed your tune. 100% understand how you arrived.

I did not start out in the denier camp, and I’m still not a denier.

I started out in the inquisitive camp, and yet to a somewhat lesser degree I’m still in the inquisitive camp.

After the Al Gore Climate Alllegory I did a lot of reading and that’s how I became a bit of a scoffer- a scoffer at the broken science on both sides. However, it’s becoming easier to be a scoffer on the contemporary ’climate change’ postures because what @Hedges said: extrapolation.

Statistics can be remarkably accurate using calculations to come up with numbers that reflect reality. The whole insurance underwriter industry is based on that kind of statistics, for example.

Climate Change Theorists on the other hand are predominantly relying on models and averaging the most favored models to make their case. This ignores the ancillary possibilities that other science disciplines suggest. In fact, many ‘anti climate change’ scientists - called deniers in msm- often are arguing for studious considerations of other factors and observations from the scientific disciplines; they want real science not consensus.

Additionally, cookie-cutter modeling logically favors an outcome because the creators are looking for something instead of trying to discover something. This is pure intellectual malfeasance, but that’s the trend these days (even evident in the covid vaccine world: the CDC still has recommendations on their website regarding ‘boosters’ when in fact the currently circulating covid variation is 100% immune escaped. How does one arrive at the conclusion to recommend “vaccination” for variants that are in the past?

So I scoff at the supposed “science” (sic) because as an observer the conclusions cannot possibly be cognified when they are proponents of conclusions which were formed without a consortium study that seeks to discover rather than conclude. The outcome is potentially skewed, and in my opinion is highly suspect when my limited intellect as a lay observer can’t apply critical thinking and develop a rational confidence in what I’m being told. I don’t scoff at science- I scoff at supposed science that is broken.

So I will continue being a scoffer until I can rationally believe what we’re being told. If there’s obvious ongoing intellectual malfeasance I can’t advocate one way or another.

 

[LeoThomson]

According to science, greenhouse gasses and man-made global warming will raise average temperatures 1 (?) degree and raise sea levels 3'.

I think you need to do some homework on the science.

 

[CJM]

OK let’s go back to 120 vdc uninterupted ......

 

[wattmatters]

So another strawmen argument

Wrong logical fallacy.

Again there is little point. People who post nonsense to be debunked are time wasters. The subject matter is irrelevant. They have no interest in having an intellectually honest debate as they have an entrenched position and given what they believe nothing will change their minds. It's just a game of whack a mole. Facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter. Expertise doesn't matter. It's just one piece of cherry picked confirmation bias after another.

If you had done sufficient research then you would have found ample resources already which have debunked all this nonsense. It's not up to me to demonstrate this. It's up to you to demonstrate why any of these people and what they say/write has any credibility.

 

[D71]

I think you need to do some homework on the science.

Which middle of the road or far right side would you reference?

rhetorical

 

[12VoltInstalls]

Which middle of the road or far right side would you reference?

rhetorical

That’s the essence of the issue right there! Science is not left, right or center; politics is.

 

[12VoltInstalls]

OK let’s go back to 120 vdc uninterupted ......

I only support a tenth of that logic…with short runs, of course.