diy solar

diy solar

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

Ran across the Wikipedia page on climate deniers (didn't see a corresponding page for the other side). It's the same length as the Climate Change page. They have a lot to say about how deluded deniers are and surprising little detail on the science page. Interestingly, they said:

A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]

That's pretty different than the 67%. How do you get 100% of people to agree to anything, even if it was all in hindsight I can't get 100% of people to agree to anything. So I looked at where the reference and it's:

based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.

So what about the report of 67%, where did it come from? That was from fair.org, unfortunately, the link takes you to the main page I haven't found search criteria that identify the article to get to there so don't have anything on it.

Wikipedia has two pages, one a survey of scientists and the other scientific concensus that both say the same thing: all participating climate scientists now agree 100% - both are really about published papers. Saw it twice... so it must be real!

That it's 100% speaks to me of a tragedy where any dissenter was ostracised as a denier and probably can't even get published regardless of the accuracy of their science; possibly like Pons and Fleischmann they may have lost their jobs. I love how the scientific community works. Dr. Becker, had a lot to say about that in his book, The Body Electric....but it's too frightening to go into.

So, the argument is over and if you don't believe the extensive body of evidence (which is amazingly hard for a non-climatoligist like myself to find) then you're a denier and idiot. Way to make friends & influence people. Excuse me for thinking for myself and not believing every talking head. At least I can console myself that my cheapskatedness with solar and energy efficiency means I'm probably doing more for the environment than most believers are. ;)

But just because one group is silencing another doesn't mean their science is bad or evil. In fact, it's often good to suppress dissenting views in the scientific community so political entities get a clear message (doesn't seem to work though). However, all the side-band noise is making it hard for me at least to understand the science for myself.

So, that's the afternoon rant... a lot of searching, nothing particularly new.
 
I just don't believe 100% number. I doubt there is ever 100% agreement on anything.
It may be that 100% of those allowed to express their opinion are in agreement .... or maybe just that 100% agree that there is global warming .... excluding possible causes.

But .... it looks like the moon is going to come into play play also .... apparently there is wobble of the moons axis that is going to start causing a lot higher tides around about 2030. Could be a major double whammy for coastal areas.
 
.... it looks like the moon is going to come into play play also .... apparently there is wobble of the moons axis that is going to start causing a lot higher tides around about 2030....
It's not like the moon suddenly developed a wobble, seems like it can't do anything it hasn't done in the past so how can it cause new flooding?
I'll have to read that one, makes zero sense to me (of course, said the same thing about DDWFTTW ;-).
 
Somewhere earlier in the thread (when speculating about the 100,000 year ice-age cycle) I mentioned the theory of the sun's up/down motion as it orbits the galactic core causing perturbations in the Oort cloud which causes big objects to come sunward like Hale-Bopp and it's that time of the cycle. Well, we have a mega-comet incoming: https://www.space.com/giant-comet-bernardinelli-bernstein-activity-beyond-saturn.

I don't think it's expected to come close to us.
 
It's not like the moon suddenly developed a wobble, seems like it can't do anything it hasn't done in the past so how can it cause new flooding?
I'll have to read that one, makes zero sense to me (of course, said the same thing about DDWFTTW ;-).

What they are saying that the large increase in the tides in conjunction with higher sea levels expected by that time will cause major flooding of costal areas.
 
What they are saying that the large increase in the tides in conjunction with higher sea levels expected by that time will cause major flooding of costal areas.
So, more flooding because the sea level is rising? Isn't that a given? How's a lunar wobble work into it...just more to slosh about? It's not like gravitational forces vary much from a wobble (again, know zilch about it, just seems intuitively nuts).

I just don't believe 100% number. I doubt there is ever 100% agreement on anything.
It's definitely not 100%, you can go to amazon and find books published in the last year by meteorologists and PhDs that are "denier books".
They just cherry picked the votes and we have no idea what the "real" number is. Actually, I'm afraid they did a lot worse than cherry-pick; but that's speculation on human nature.
 
So, more flooding because the sea level is rising? Isn't that a given? How's a lunar wobble work into it...just more to slosh about? It's not like gravitational forces vary much from a wobble (again, know zilch about it, just seems intuitively nuts).


It's definitely not 100%, you can go to amazon and find books published in the last year by meteorologists and PhDs that are "denier books".
They just cherry picked the votes and we have no idea what the "real" number is. Actually, I'm afraid they did a lot worse than cherry-pick; but that's speculation on human nature.
Yeah, they are saying the moon orientation will cause higher tides .... so higher tides + higher sea level.

Regarding the 100% number .... the try to force feed us this kind of "information" and wonder why so many are skeptical about whether anything they are saying is true.
If it is true, the zealots who believe anything is justified are ruining it.
 
I don't have a problem with reducing carbon (or other greenhouse gases) by any means. What I have a problem with is the heavy hand "We know best and if you disagree with how we want to do it, you're a climate denier" attitude so many people involved at multiple levels display. Nice to see a reasonable bunch of folks trying to find out what the details really are.
 
At one time the consensus of so called informed / ruling people said the Earth was flat. Sail to far out and you’d fall off. They also said that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The Earth was the center of the universe….. Deniers were killed for not believing these things. Today we know better but we still want to do harm to those who don’t go along with the establishment. My how far we’ve progressed and yet have not changed one iota at all. Consensus says…. is just mob mentality / group think. Prove it with facts and experiments, well now you have science. Are we still burning ? witches?
 
From what I've seen of the models, they divide the Earth into both atmospheric and ground grids. Obviously, they can't use average ground temperature because that's what they're trying to predict.

So, they do an energy balance based on the amount of incoming solar energy and outgoing energy for each grid. They probably even add in the .3% generated by the Earth. They use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate the outgoing energy based on temperature.

That seems like a logical and well-thought-out approach.
350px-Global_Climate_Model.png


Wien’s law is wavelength = 2.98x10-3 / T, that is you get the frequency at which
black-body radiation is emitted for a given temperature.

A volume of matter has an average temperature, that is each individual
molecule has a different temperature above or below that on a bell curve
and therefore the actual wavelength from Wien's law is the center frequency
of the IR emission and the width of the frequency band is the temperature
range of the molecules.

I've seen other (a.k.a. "denier") claims that model's don't account for Wien's law,
and it's true I've seen "college" level papers of "simplified" models that don't
1626619469999.png
include it (or clouds), but am hard-pressed to believe reputable peer-reviewed models from the IPCC wouldn't include it (still working my way up to the IPCC models and those other models). Another concern over models is the assumption they don't include anti-greenhouse gases.


Troposphere
The temperature of the troposphere is highest near the surface of the Earth and decreases with altitude. On average, the temperature gradient of the troposphere is 6.5°C per 1,000 m (3.6°F per 1,000 ft.) of altitude. The temperature varies greatly with the day/night cycle and amount of humidity. Practically all water vapor is confined to the Troposhere. This layer has between 75 to 80% of the air mass.

CO2 = 410 ppm
N2O = ?
CH4 = 1.68 to 1.61 (pole to equator) ppmv
O3 = ?
CFCs = 300 ppt
H2O = .2 to 4% (poles to tropics)
S2O = 711 pptv

As the Tropshere has the lion's share of the mass compared to other layers, or even surface of the earth, most of the action probably occurs here. In addition to radiating heat, the Earth's surface also has convective and conductive heat transfer to this layer.


Stratosphere
In the stratosphere, temperature increases with altitude due to UV absorpbtion by ozone. What is the heat source for the stratosphere? The direct heat source for the stratosphere is the Sun. Air in the stratosphere is stable because warmer, less dense air sits over cooler, denser air. As a result, there is little mixing of air within the layer. The stratosphere contains ~9.9% of air mass over the Earth.

CO2 = 350 ppm
N2O = 310 ppb
CH4 =1.0 to 1.8 (pole to equator) ppm
O3 = 5000 ppb
CFCs = .1 to 100 ppt
H2O = ? ppm
S2O =

Ozone Layer

The ozone layer is found within the stratosphere between 15 to 30 km (9 to 19 miles) altitude. The thickness of the ozone layer varies by the season and also by latitude. Ozone is important to life as it absorbs UV and is one of the prime generators for heat in the stratosphere. Ozone is about 5,000 ppb


Mesosphere
The mesosphere is extremely cold, especially at its top, about -90°C (-130°F). The mesosphere contains ~0.1% of air mass over the Earth.

CO2 = 300 ppmv?
N2O = 10 to 40 ppbv
CH4 = 400 to 700 ppbv
CFCs = N/A
H2O = 7 ppm

You'd think such important data would be easy to come by. I'm not sure how accurate the compositions are as I gathered them out of dozens of sources, trying to curb the searches to only get data from the last two years. I'll try to update this post with better information if I find it, and hopefully some additional information on anti-greenhouse gases and surfaces.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so worried about the so called CO2 crisis (if anything, if it's something real, it would just be a symptom of a much bigger problem). I am more interested about de-desertifying Earth, getting her more green again, restoring natural eco-systems, I am going to start with my property and work outward...

1626631158590.jpeg

I think the Earth has the ability to heal itself, if we protect it by getting the natural eco-systems back in balance. Otherwise we'll eventually just have another Mars...
 
I'm not so worried about the so called CO2 crisis (if anything, if it's something real, it would just be a symptom of a much bigger problem). I am more interested about de-desertifying Earth, getting her more green again, restoring natural eco-systems, I am going to start with my property and work outward...

View attachment 56768

I think the Earth has the ability to heal itself, if we protect it by getting the natural eco-systems back in balance. Otherwise we'll eventually just have another Mars...I agree
Wow you have grass so a good starting point. I’m in Northern Nevada and we have lots of rock and ”young” soils. About the only thing that grows well out here is Tumble Weeds aka Russian Thistle.

I agree whole heartedly with you. I too would like to create mini oasis / patches of life in the desert. There was a fellow DIYer on this forum out of Peru or was there for awhile. After reading his postings here, I had to do some searching but found his video and then his book on growing sustainable plants in the desert/low rainfall areas.

Here’s a link to book. (FYI- I did purchase his book but off eBay.)

Video link:

I like his ideas on how to take one plant, get it going and the plant another in the initial plant to give the desired tree/shrub a root hold. He documents various plant species that work and so on. Too much to go into here. The only issue would be how do I obtain these plants and get them here. I’m afraid the government ag guys would see them as an invasive species and confiscate/incinerate them if I tried to import them. But using these plants and techniques one could create an patch of life in the desert.
 
Nasa’s GISS GCM Model II climate simulator

Started looking at the NASA simulator as it's one of the IPCC models and figured it would be easy to get data on. You can download it, less than 27 megabytes of FORTRAN: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

There's a very impressive description of what's included in the model here. The documentation for the radiative part, completely reproduced is:
The radiation code is based on the k-correlation methodology using 33 correlated spectral intervals in the solar and long wave bands (Lacis and Oinas, 1991, Oinas et al, 2001)
Joy... more references to look up. The 2001 worried me a first, but while the concentrations at altitudes are different than two decades ago, the base calculations shouldn't have changed. Mercifully easy to find too: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1991/1991_Lacis_la01100t.pdf. So, from scanning the paper this is why people think Wein isn't in there... instead what's in there is something to reduce the overall number of calculations that is accurate to within 1%. They also say the generalization is needed as there is no data for much of the world.

Even at a glance I can see the model is incredibly complex. There are a ton of tuning parameters and they get good output although some of the decisions are a bit odd (e.g., they used a lower value for solar energy input than the current actual). Perhaps that's why they're not worried about the 1% in the radiation model.

The model does account for altitude of various gases, that is it recognizes that water is acting in the troposhere and CO2 in the stratosphere. Also includes N2O and CH4. But, it doesn't seem to consider anti-greenhouse gases like SO2, which might be important as industry pumps more into the air (e.g., burning coal). The half-life of SO2 is just a few days, so it's probably not a big impactor unless a volcano belches it into the stratosphere.

While searching around I found a few papers with updated k-correlation models from the 2001 model, surprised they hadn't been incorporated.
 
Check out this NASA image... seen it a few times and it freaked me out as I like 1000 W/m2 hitting my panels and know the strength in Earth's orbit is around 1360 W/m2:

reflected_radiation.jpg

Took me a while to figure it out... that 340 W/m2 is the average over the entire curved surface facing the sun sans eclipses. ;-)
 
What about some of the alternatives not already covered? I'm skipping over arguments like global warming is actually good for us as I just don't enough about that and the thread hasn't delved into it. Instead it's more about the science behind climate change. If you know of some not covered please post them. Here's my thoughts so far on the other ones I've come across....

Global Warming is caused by Ozone depletion
Ozone absorbs UV so if there was a depletion it would hit the Earth and warm the earth; that sounds plausible. But, the ozone levels are higher now than in preindustrial times and even the hole over the pole has closed; so this one doesn't seem likely.

We're always in a state of warming until a Volcano blows or we get with a rock
This seems plausible If you look at the history of ice ages we know they're cyclic and at we are at the "historic" cusp of where you would expect warm weather.
What's a concern though is each year humans are dumping 51 Btons of greenhouse gases into 5,750,000 Bton pool and some of those don't break down for a long time, seems like every billion tons must add some heat. Even if it's not a player in global warming seems like something we should try to reduce/reverse.
 
Everything you were afraid to know about P-Values:

 
This beautiful graphic comes form a NASA article: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langle...gy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg


I can see why people think more heat means more clouds which means more reflected (e.g., the system maintains a balance), except the measured data still shows an increase over the last decade so the increase in heat isn't making enough clouds to balance the system.

So, 340.4 - 77 - 22.9 - 239.9 = 0.6 W/m² gain.
Seems small, but the Earth's surface area is some 510.1 trillion square meters so it adds up?

How much?
We know the weight of the air from the top of the atmosphere to sea level is 10,335 kg/m² (14.7 psi). The heat is probably concentrated in the troposphere which is roughly 75% of the mass, so 7,751 kg/m².

The specific heat capacity of air is ~1 kJ/kg.K, and a KJ =.278 Wh. Over the course of a year .6W/m2 x 24h/d x 365 d/y = 5256 Wh/ym², or 5256 Wh/y/m² x (KJ / .278 Wh) = 18906 kJ/ym².

So, 18906 kJ/ym² / (1 KJ / KgK) / 7,751 kg/m² = 2.44°K/yr? Even if you take the full atmospheric weight that's 1.8°K/yr. Possibly just some simple math error or oversimplification, but offhand, I'm disinclined to believe the numbers in the graphic. Pity there's no one you can ask that will take you seriously where you went wrong (just another climate denier :cry: ).
 
Last edited:
... This article claims that earth's energy budget has doubled from 2005 to 2019 now (2 months ago).... and of course it is all due to human activity generating greenhouse gasses.
It doesn't seem possible to me that our greenhouse gas output has increased that radically in 14 years.

Maybe it's too many vegans with increase flatulence .... LOL

 


Uh oh!
"Net absorbed 0.6" - that's going to produce a linear ramp of ever increasing Earth temperature.
Doesn't even include heat production from the nuclear power plant in Earth's core.

... This article claims that earth's energy budget has doubled from 2005 to 2019 now (2 months ago).... and of course it is all due to human activity generating greenhouse gasses.
It doesn't seem possible to me that our greenhouse gas output has increased that radically in 14 years.

Have you ever tried subtracting two large numbers?
 
Back
Top