diy solar

diy solar

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

Sorry ... you lost me.

"So, 340.4 - 77 - 22.9 - 239.9 = 0.6 W/m² gain"

Doesn't take much error in any of the numbers being subtracted to swing the answer between positive and negative.
Subtraction of two large numbers tends to give a result with large error.
 
"So, 340.4 - 77 - 22.9 - 239.9 = 0.6 W/m² gain"

Doesn't take much error in any of the numbers being subtracted to swing the answer between positive and negative.
Subtraction of two large numbers tends to give a result with large error.
With 4 numbers the round off error would be only .4. But, to get to the yearly average temperature increase of 0.18°C it's off by 10x and you need to use the full weight of the atmosphere. That is 0.06 W/m². Could just be a typo I suppose.
 
Like what John Di Liu, Allen Savory and others have lots of videos about. Those guys really understand that we simply need to get the Earth as a whole more green again, and rejuvenate natural eco-systems
Deserts are natural ecosystems lol
Global stability is a myth as much as global warming / climate change(as proffered) is a myth.

One can’t logically take a millions-of-years scientific mindset (not saying that’s wrong or right) and all we know as little as it is and then apply a 100-year or 500-year ‘climate change’ idea to it. There’s so much more going on that we know so why take a plausible short-term idea snd call it “truth” if it requires checking your brain at the door?

It’s myopic to envision deserts as a heat source that should be curbed. Hilarious to think that is an idea; to ‘green’ them… what other consequences occur?

If human behavior has anything to do with global temperatures it’s our own choices to adapt to 70*F. How exactly did humans survive before heated cars, air conditioned homes, and climate controlled malls?

Energy consumption and its heat byproduct would be way down if we humans hadn’t gone soft. You can’t cherry-pick at culprits sitting at your computer in your climate-controlled enclaves and not be intellectual hypocrites , now can we?
 
I suspect there's an error in this bit: 1628335829982.png Primarily because most clouds normally occur in the troposphere as shown.

But, in the last decade, the world has been amazed by the larger number of Noctilucent clouds which occur ~80 km up. First discovered in 1895 as they used to only appear over the poles. Now they form in the Mesosphere at much lower latitudes.

...NASA researchers have found that the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) data reveals that it is a cold and wet year up in the mesosphere. MLS can sense conditions 83 km high in the atmosphere where NLC clouds form.... [ref]

So, some heat from evapotranspiration is obviously bypassing the troposphere and stratosphere layers. These clouds also increase reflectivity even though you can't see them during the day.

Seems pretty obvious that global warming is making the Mesophere wetter and it acts as some kind of buffer. Probably why the initial estimates from the turn of the century said Florida would be underwater.

I still think we need to go to Carbon Zero or negative on post #9, but also think the energy balance needs a lot more work if we're to believe the timeline predictions.
 
Deserts are natural ecosystems ... to envision deserts as a heat source that should be curbed. Hilarious to think that is an idea; to ‘green’ them… what other consequences occur?
Deserts are slightly more reflective than crops. The average albedo of Earth is .3. Snow is .4 to .85, clouds .4 to .8, dessert .3, Crops .2, water .1
 
... This article claims that earth's energy budget has doubled from 2005 to 2019 now (2 months ago)....
It doesn't seem possible to me that our greenhouse gas output has increased that radically in 14 years.
I believe their computer model showed it doubling, which seems to say to me the model needs some more work.

I still believe from post #9 we should be concerned about our contributions, but all this easy-to-find dumbed-down poor science and apparently poorly constructed models that fall apart so easily. Using labels like "deniers" is a way to shut down a discussion you don't want to have. But not a way to come to consensus about climate change.
 
Last edited:
It's all the dirt/rock insulation. From ref

Wrap all the insulation you want around a heat source (fission reactor in this case.)
If power dissipation remains constant, temperature rises linearly (or otherwise, in case of expansion, phase changes, and the like.)
The temperature will not stop increasing until it either reaches the point that heat flow through insulation matches production, or power dissipation changes.

Insulating something (e.g. one of our electronic gizmos) doesn't change how much thermal energy it puts into the world around it. Only its operating temperature. (We can of course reduce how much heat reaches a particular neighbor with insulation, by having the temperature rise drive more thermal energy through a different path. That doesn't help when fully insulating a sphere, of course.)
 
I believe their computer model showed it doubling, which seems to say to me the model needs some more work.

I still believe from post #9 we should be concerned about our contributions, but all this easy-to-find dumbed-dumb poor science and apparently poorly constructed models that fall apart so easily. Using labels like "deniers" is a way to shut down a discussion you don't want to have. But not a way to come to consensus about climate change.

I think you're onto something here. They most likely don't want a consensus, but to force their bad science on us. I suspect a good part of the whole thing is politically motivated, at least in the US.
 
Wrap all the insulation you want around a heat source (fission reactor in this case.)...
My bad, still the only number I've seen is .1 W/m² - probably more to do with the large surface area the heat is dispersed over.
But given the 510 trillion m² of surface area, that's 51 TW of energy.
 
But given the 510 trillion m² of surface area, that's 51 TW of energy.

A Drop in the bucket.

Up until 1960, could have met all our needs.
But probably most is diffuse and low-grade at the surface. Geothermal isn't even shown in this graph unless under "other renewables" (it isn't) or "nuclear".


Hey, shouldn't we be concerned about the global warming caused by nuclear energy, which delivers 5000 TW/year according to the graph. Probably far more including cooling towers; I think the chart is electrical energy delivered to grid.

Although, it is in units akin to "e-MPG".
How would our government rate efficiency if we returned to horse-and-buggy days?

"Primary energy is calculated based on the 'substitution method' which takes account of the inefficiencies in fossil fuel
production by converting non-fossil energy into the energy inputs required if they had the same conversion losses as
fossil fuels."
 
... force their bad science on us.... I suspect a good part of the whole thing is politically motivated, at least in the US.

I'm okay with scientists raising concerns about their findings and sure don't want to berate them for it; that's their job. Also, I believe Science should drive politics where it makes sense and climate change seems like a good candidate. What I don't like is being shut down when science is challenged. Without review and fact-checking you can't have good science.

As I said in the OP, I don't want to be the idiot that causes the end of life on the planet (possibly the universe), so I'm trying to keep an open mind. There are some things I think we have reasonably good evidence of:
  • Global average temperatures are increasing
  • Mankind is dumping 51 trillion tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere a year
  • CO₂, CH4, N₂O, and CFCs are greenhouse gases and should all be considered in the energy equation.
There are a ton of debatable things, for example, the half-life of CO₂ being less than 100 years is probably debatable (depends on deforestation and ocean algae health).

I see posts every so often that it's hard to imagine mankind is even big enough to make a dent in the average planet temperature. To me it's all one big ecosystem, so everything affects everything. The real question to me is are we tilting it enough to an inexorable landslide that wipes us out? How bad is bad? Mad Max type desolation where we survive, or like the surface of venus where it's hot enough to melt lead and zero chance of survival?

I see a lot of focus around CO₂, but seems like we ought to ask China to stop emitting CFCs (which are 23,000x worse than CO₂) like most other countries have done. As consumers, we should stop buying any products made with CFCs (which are primarily foam insulation and packing materials).

Most of the CH4 is indirectly man-made, basically, we raise cattle that belch/fart - seems like the scientist that comes up with
the "beano pill for cows" ought to get a Noble prize or something. Not a popular idea, but we could also cut back on beef.
1628350907256.png

Perhaps its a Zen thing leftover from the '60s, or the camping axiom to leave no trace that was once drilled into me, but it seems we shouldn't produce anything more than there is an appropriate sink for. So I'm on board with going carbon neutral or negative. I like the DoE focus on reducing battery costs because once battery prices fall renewable energy will be the cheapest source of energy.

But mostly I want great climate science because after this climate crisis (imaginary crisis or not) is the for-sure global cooling crisis with the next impending ice age.

You know what's really frightening? Evolution.

Check out this timetable... 3.8 Billion years since life first appeared.

It took 2.6 Billion years of evolution to get to multi-cellular.

Simple mammals only appear 178 million years ago.

The first primates appeared only 65 millon years ago.

Homospaiens only 300,000 years ago.

Evolution isn't just speeding up, it's gone wild.
184812_2_En_6_Fig1_HTML.gif

Two of the last 5 catastophic events (mass extinctions) have been due to global warming, the Permian and Triassic. You'd think we'd know more about global warming from that.

1628352576023.png
(Wow... that's a lot of rambling!)
 
So .... are they going to have to install some sort of methane monitor on cows at birth to prove that their methane production is under control? LOL
 
Probably just something that goes into the feed.
 

A Drop in the bucket.
There was another paper I came across that found a correlation between global
warming and heat from the earth. As I recollect it went something along the lines
of inner hot magma flows circulating to the outside. It was part of the magnetic
field reversals and such. For example, here's a paper estabishing a link between
magnetic field reversals and climate.

Seem to be a player, albeit a smaller player.
1628356758153.png
 
Last edited:
I'm okay with scientists raising concerns about their findings and sure don't want to berate them for it; that's their job. Also, I believe Science should drive politics where it makes sense and climate change seems like a good candidate. What I don't like is being shut down when science is challenged. Without review and fact-checking you can't have good science.

As I said in the OP, I don't want to be the idiot that causes the end of life on the planet (possibly the universe), so I'm trying to keep an open mind. There are some things I think we have reasonably good evidence of:
  • Global average temperatures are increasing
  • Mankind is dumping 51 trillion tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere a year
  • CO₂, CH4, N₂O, and CFCs are greenhouse gases and should all be considered in the energy equation.
There are a ton of debatable things, for example, the half-life of CO₂ being less than 100 years is probably debatable (depends on deforestation and ocean algae health).

I see posts every so often that it's hard to imagine mankind is even big enough to make a dent in the average planet temperature. To me it's all one big ecosystem, so everything affects everything. The real question to me is are we tilting it enough to an inexorable landslide that wipes us out? How bad is bad? Mad Max type desolation where we survive, or like the surface of venus where it's hot enough to melt lead and zero chance of survival?

I see a lot of focus around CO₂, but seems like we ought to ask China to stop emitting CFCs (which are 23,000x worse than CO₂) like most other countries have done. As consumers, we should stop buying any products made with CFCs (which are primarily foam insulation and packing materials).

Most of the CH4 is indirectly man-made, basically, we raise cattle that belch/fart - seems like the scientist that comes up with
the "beano pill for cows" ought to get a Noble prize or something. Not a popular idea, but we could also cut back on beef.
View attachment 59162

Perhaps its a Zen thing leftover from the '60s, or the camping axiom to leave no trace that was once drilled into me, but it seems we shouldn't produce anything more than there is an appropriate sink for. So I'm on board with going carbon neutral or negative. I like the DoE focus on reducing battery costs because once battery prices fall renewable energy will be the cheapest source of energy.

But mostly I want great climate science because after this climate crisis (imaginary crisis or not) is the for-sure global cooling crisis with the next impending ice age.

You know what's really frightening? Evolution.

Check out this timetable... 3.8 Billion years since life first appeared.

It took 2.6 Billion years of evolution to get to multi-cellular.

Simple mammals only appear 178 million years ago.

The first primates appeared only 65 millon years ago.

Homospaiens only 300,000 years ago.

Evolution isn't just speeding up, it's gone wild.
184812_2_En_6_Fig1_HTML.gif

Two of the last 5 catastophic events (mass extinctions) have been due to global warming, the Permian and Triassic. You'd think we'd know more about global warming from that.

(Wow... that's a lot of rambling!)

No argument that people (not just scientists) should be allowed to question results, but from what I have seen, most folks that toss out the "climate denier" mantra seem to be willing to take the data we are questioning at face value and seem to be from one particular political party. That's why I said it seems to be politically motivated; they act as if we can't see how bad things are and don't want to admit we are part of the problem.
 
TL;DR: you won't need to worry about Earth becoming like Venus anytime soon.

If you were wondering where that stuff above about the Permian came from... it was trying to figure out how bad is bad.

It looks like the Permian era (250 million years (MY) ago) was 10°C to 30°C warmer than now and it wiped out 95% of the existing species. Climatologists are predicting a 3 to 5°C rise by 2100; so it's not quite on the same scale. Seems like there's some time to figure stuff out. It looks like evolution can handle slow climate change, mass extinctions seem to occur during rapid climate change.

The species that got wiped out were probably cold-adapted since the period before then is similar to the previous ice age except it lasted 100 million years.

The first dinosaurs appeared just after that event, about another 20 million years of evolution from the Permian survivors. Then came the Triassic extinction event. In post #72 it's listed as global warming. But the Smithsonian temperature chart below shows it as a cooling climate change (warmer than the average, but hotter than it is now). The dinosaurs survived that, but 75% of the existing species didn't didn't survive the 25°F temperature drop, they were probably heat-adapted.

About 178 million years ago the first mammals arrived, and both the dinosaurs and mammals survived cretaceous hot greenhouse, about 13°C hotter than now.

The Dinosaurs survived until the KT event about 65 million years ago, a cold climate change (although still warmer than today), which wiped out the dinosaurs and 85% of the existing species.

graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png

About 40 million years after the KT event, the first hominids appeared ( precursor to apes). Not to worry you, but none of our ancestors have been through a global warming event.

Our human ancestors have seen multiple ice ages though, they first appeared 300,000 years ago (note the scale on the chart below is the rightmost dip (a millimeter or so) of the chart above):

ice_ages2.gif
During the Toba catastrophe some 70,000 years ago the human population was nearly wiped out. While we didn't like a 10° drop, we seemed to thrive on a 10° increase and seemed to do well 120,000 years ago when it was +10°F of the current temperature.

So rising sea-levels, desertification, and vastly different weather patterns all seem likely as the temperature increases. But the planet shouldn't go full tilt into an unrecoverable state.
 
Last edited:
Seems like there's some time to figure stuff out. It looks like evolution can handle slow climate change, mass extinctions seem to occur during rapid climate change.
"Rapid" climate change is still relative to geological times scales, except for singular mass extinction events such as Chicxulub.

The rate we are currently warming the planet is orders of magnitude faster than what occurred during the Permian->Triassic extinction. The current warming trend is closer in rate to Chicxulub than the end of the Permian.
 
The rate we are currently warming the planet is orders of magnitude faster than what occurred during the Permian->Triassic extinction. The current warming trend is closer in rate to Chicxulub than the end of the Permian.
Not quite as fast as an asteroid hitting, but agree our current trend is not slow enough for evolution to build a counter. Not sure about the Permian, it sounds like the volcanos pumped 6x the current CO2 (we won't his 2x until 2100 supposedly) and a lot of methane into the atmosphere...sounds like it went downhill fast.

Still, the rate of change in evolution is just boggling my mind...all of a sudden X-Men don't look so far fetched ;-)
 
Back
Top