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

[svetz]

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.

 

[bladetoyshop]

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.

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.

View attachment 59171​

(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.

 

[svetz]

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.

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):

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.

 

[wattmatters]

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.

 

[svetz]

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 ;-)

 

[Bob B]

Not quite as fast as an asteroid hitting, but agree it's not slow enough for evolution to build a counter. Still, the rate of change in evolution is just boggline my mind...all of a sudden X-Men don't look so far fetched ;-)

I may be in the minority ....but I still thin it's "intelligent design" ... not evolution.

I don't doubt that evolution is a factor, but there is no way it explains the sudden appearance of a completely different species with completely different types of biological systems.

 

[svetz]

It's an interesting topic.. the whole Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago was something else (Panspermia?), but then there were 5 extinction events. Even so, from what I'm reading evolution isn't slowing down and it wasn't a one-time thing, it's still going on and it's going faster. It's like the line from Jurassic Park, Life finds a way... possibly all those extinctions favored faster evolution.

 

[NwCali]

I'm of the belief that humans will not harness the morality to overcome the burden we put on the planet for us to fix the wrongs we've created...

Does that mean will we cause the end to it all?

No idea. Some believe a warming earth will benefit the planet....

For me, I could care less about the politics of those discussions. For me its about making the most out of what you do have to make your (humanities) impact on the world as little as we can. If we do that, what more could we do?

But if we let the politics/money override that simply cause someone is making money/power from what they are selling (which is mostly what we have now) despite it harming us more (not less) in the way we can change (making the most out of what we have) then...

I hope that all made sense.

Basically said unless we get a grip on our usage we are f#@%@#d. And we seem to have no (real) interest in doing that.

 

[Bob B]

These folks seem to be biased in the direction that we aren't causing the warming.
No matter ... the environment in general is going to be way better off if we can get "off" of fossil fuels.

Geothermal heat, internal climate responsible for Antarctica ice melting – not man-made climate change

Climate change alarmists love to point to ice melting in Antarctica as proof that humans are destroying the planet, but research shows that this may not have the link to man-made climate change that they would like to have us believe. Radar readings taken by aircraft flying across the continent...

www.climate.news

 

[wattmatters]

sounds like it went downhill fast.

Yes, but over a period of about 100 thousand years give or take, with some of the extinctions taking millions of years. On geologic time scales that's still a blink of an eye. The current Holocene mass extinction event is occurring way faster.

 

[svetz]

...we seem to have no (real) interest in doing that... But we are interested in maximizing profits! The program to decrease battery costs by 90% will more than flip electrical power economics to solar/wind. Combine that with EVs (because solar is cheaper than gasoline) and other sectors from the chart and that's probably ~80% of the 51 Billion tons of greenhouse gasses emitted annually. The climatologists say there's already so much CO2 slowing down isn't really good enough, we have to hit zero. So, while batteries take us a long way and will flip the economics naturally, we still don't have answers for other sectors.

Not that it'll be painless. I'm hoping it's somewhat gradual and easy (e.g., the proposal to ban gasoline/diesel engines by 2035). That gives us 15+ years (the "plus" as ICE cars bought in 2034 will still be running in 2045) to build out a replacement infrastructure and find suitable replacements.

We'll also need high-density carbon-neutral fuel sources for airplanes and probably long-haul trucks, a replacement for concrete, beano for cows, a ban on products made by releasing CFC into the atmosphere (putting them out of business is the only way to get some countries to stop) and a lot of other things.

Ideally, all the big $ items for consumers (e.g., cars) have a lower price tag (deflation) with the new "green" technology to help the transition along.
Of course, I'm an optimist!

 

[svetz]

IPCC Report: Code red for humanity​

(excerpts from a synopsis of the Friday report)

The world’s leading climate scientists on Monday delivered their starkest warning yet about the deepening climate emergency, with some of the changes already set in motion thought to be “irreversible” for centuries to come.

I've already seen other click-bait reports just saying it's irreversible and concluding we're all doomed. They just means it'll take several generations to unwind the mess that's been two hundred years in the making.

... panel warns that limiting global warming to close to 1.5 degrees Celsius or even 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels “will be beyond reach” in the next two decades without immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

We're at 1.3°C now, and with a .18°C rise per year we should be there in no time (estimates aref 2030 to 2052). So, yeah - pretty much nothing we can do now will stop that (short of nukes to blow dirt into the atmosphere or any of the other novel methodologies suggested over the years). It's not really a surprise though and certainly nothing new.

... the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold is a crucial global target because beyond this level, so-called tipping points become more likely. Tipping points refer to an irreversible change in the climate system, locking in further global heating.

I think what this means is that when Ice melts we lose the reflectivity bonus so it'll get even hotter quicker. Probably worth some research to understand what tipping points are at what temperatures and their impacts. For example, we know from the NASA graphic in #57 the maximum impact of losing all the ice is < 30W/m².

At 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, the report says heat extremes would often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health.

Agriculture? I thought warmer weather and more CO2 was good for plants? That might be worth looking into too.

Well, the IPCC report is about 4,000 pages...guess I should get crackin!

 

[svetz]

A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, for example, medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result:

• virtually certain 99–100% probability
• extremely likely 95–100%
• very likely 90– 100%,
• likely 66–100%,
• more likely than not >50–100%
• about as likely as not 33–66%
• unlikely 0–33%,
• very unlikely 0–10%
• extremely unlikely 0–5%
• exceptionally unlikely 0–1%

What's the first thing they say?

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.

Hmmm, unequivocal isn't even on the list! I'll take that to mean 100% certainty.

...concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 ppm for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1866 ppb for methane (CH4), and 332 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O) in 2019 . Land and ocean have taken up a near-constant proportion (globally about 56% per year) of CO2 emissions from human activities over the past six decades, with regional differences (high confidence)

NASA says the CO2 concentration in 5/21 was 419 parts per million. Bugs me that the data is two years old. That 56% is interesting, that's far more than expected from #9.

High confidence? What's that mean anyway? Well, here's a note on it from the AR4 report:

Okay, starting to get the hang of it...

It is likely that well-mixed Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to 0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to 0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979, and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.

Mid-latitude storm tracks have likely shifted poleward in both hemispheres since the 1980s, with marked seasonality in trends (medium confidence)

It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades, but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss.

There is high confidence that oxygen levels have dropped in many upper ocean regions since the mid-20th century, and medium confidence that human influence contributed to this drop.

Global mean sea level increased by0.15 to 0.25 m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence).

the growing season has on average lengthened by up to two days per decade since the 1950s in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics (high confidence).

Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years...warm periods were caused by slow (multi-millennial) orbital variations...

But there are faster warming periods in our history before then.



I like this graph, illustrates how important it is to get rid of methane. Interesting that sulfur dioxide's impact is so large, it's one of the benefits of burning coal. Well, up to page 10 ;-)

...the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward...

It is very likely that heavy precipitation events will intensify and become more frequent in most regions with additional global warming. At the global scale, extreme daily precipitation events are projected to intensify by about 7% for each 1°C of global warming (high confidence). The proportion of intense tropical cyclones (categories 4-5) and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones are projected to increase at the global scale with increasing global warming (high confidence).

At 2°C global warming and above, the level of confidence in and the magnitude of the change in droughts and heavy and mean precipitation increase compared to those at 1.5°C. Heavy precipitation and associated flooding events are projected to become more intense and frequent in the Pacific Islands and across many regions of North America and Europe (medium to high confidence). These changes are also seen in some regions in Australasia and Central and South America (medium confidence). Several regions in Africa, South America and Europe are projected to experience an increase in frequency and/or severity of agricultural and ecological droughts with medium to high confidence; increases are also projected in Australasia, Central and North America, and the Caribbean with medium confidence. A small number of regions in Africa, Australasia, Europe and North America are also projected to be affected by increases in hydrological droughts, and several regions are projected to be affected by increases or decreases in meteorological droughts with more regions displaying an increase (medium confidence). Mean precipitation is projected to increase in all polar, northern European and northern North American regions, most Asian regions and two regions of South America (high confidence).

Based on paleoclimate and historical evidence, it is likely that at least one large explosive volcanic eruption would occur during the 21st century. Such an eruption would reduce global surface temperature and precipitation, especially over land, for one to three years, alter the global monsoon circulation, modify extreme precipitation...(medium confidence). If such an eruption occurs, this would therefore temporarily and partially mask human-caused climate change.

Overall, there is high confidence that the global energy budget is 19 closed for 1971–2018 with improved consistency compared to AR5

From their table the Earth's energy imbalance (2006-2018) is 0.79 [0.52 to 1.06] W m-2

SROCC concluded that there has very likely been a net loss of oxygen over all ocean depths since the 1960s linked to global ocean deoxygenation at a range of 0.3–2.0%, and that the oxygen levels in the global upper 1000 m of the ocean had decreased by 0.5–3.3% during 1970–2010 (medium confidence), alongside an expansion of oxygen minimum zones (OMZ) by 3–8%. For the surface ocean (0–100 m) and the thermocline at 100–600 m, the very likely range of oxygen decline was assessed to be 0.2–2.1% and 0.7–3.5%, respectively. Multidecadal rates of deoxygenation showed variability throughout the water column and across ocean basins (high confidence).

...clouds remain the largest contribution to overall uncertainty in climate feedbacks (high confidence)

 

[svetz]

Up to page 60, I swear the report would be a third of it's size if they took out the phase Human influence has. What's interesting is that they don't claim humans are the only factor, just influencing other things going on. I get why they drag the point on, we started it and only we can halt/reverse it. Not like the dolphins have a plan (they should, that deoxygenation of the ocean sounds bad for their food supply).

In the end, it really doesn't matter. If we want the sea level and weather patterns to stay where they're at regardless of long-term natural cycles, then we need to do some planetary engineering/terraforming (other than the accidental ones we've done making electricity, concrete, and cows).

Might not be too much more to report from it, the section I'm in now is "what if" based on how much we curtail emissions and is all low probability so not much reason to report it.

Also looks like I owe China an apology. They signed onto the Montreal Accords and banned CFCs in 1991. The CFCs that have been spewing out of their country are rogue operations. If you're into the Tom Clancey stuff, it's an interesting read of government denial/acceptance. Not sure why the U.S. just wouldn't share satellite imagery of where it was being produced ;-). Anyway, it quietly got stopped... ref... so kudos to the Chinese investigators and authorities that took action. Can't help but think there's a movie that should be made from it (Steven Soderbergh?).

 

[svetz]

Easy-to-read NASA report on what the hoopla about the 1.5°C and 2.0°C. They're somewhat non-exact temperatures, but the rallying cry is essentially to not pass the 1.5°C mark.

 

[curiouscarbon]

stop buying any products made with CFCs (which are primarily foam insulation and packing materials).

is neoprene foam like this? i like it’s physical properties but would like to begin searching if production requires excessive GHG potential

 

[svetz]

is neoprene foam like this? i like it’s physical properties but would like to begin searching if production requires excessive GHG potential

Probably not, as I discovered/reported in #89 products aren't made with CFCs anymore (it was old data, prior to 2021).

 

[svetz]

​

So does this mean I've become a believer?
Doesn't seem to make a difference what we believe. Climate change is natural, but it's also expensive and the global temperature is going up.
The bottom line is if we like our coastlines and weather, want to avoid famine, war, refugees, and diseases; then the only way is to control the climate.

 

[svetz]

About that Ocean Warming... Warm-water fish usually survive for short periods at dissolved-oxygen concentrations as low as 1.0 m/L, while cold-water fish normally survive at 2.5 to 3.5 mg/L dissolved oxygen. However, fish and other aquatic animals are stressed, susceptible to diseases and grow slowly at low dissolved-oxygen concentrations. ref If I'm reading it right, healthy levels look to be around >7 mg/L for cold-water fish. Seems like fish "migrate" to cooler waters, but a localize temperature spike (e.g., like a land heatwave might catch them to where they couldn't swim away).

 

[svetz]

A graphic from the IPCC report shows possible weather changes based on temperature increases. So, for example, 10% more intense hurricanes at 1.5°C. Interestingly, the more powerful portion of the storm is expected to move northward too.

 

[curiouscarbon]

A graphic from the IPCC report shows possible weather changes based on temperature increases. So, for example, 10% more intense hurricanes at 1.5°C. Interestingly, the more powerful portion of the storm is expected to move northward too.

View attachment 59719

all the people saying these ground mount wind turbines aren’t going to generate their rated power will be wrong oh wrong! ?

 

[wattmatters]

all the people saying these ground mount wind turbines aren’t going to generate their rated power will be wrong oh wrong!

Turbines don't operate at high wind speeds, they have to shut down.

 

[curiouscarbon]

well, there goes my hurricane VAWT hurricane 1.21 jiggawatts crackpot theory.?

trying to gently crack a joke about how people around the forum say if you install a close to ground wind turbine it won’t produce anywhere near the rated power output

 

[HRTKD]

well, there goes my hurricane VAWT hurricane 1.21 jiggawatts crackpot theory.?

trying to gently crack a joke about how people around the forum say if you install a close to ground wind turbine it won’t produce anywhere near the rated power output

Gotcha covered. I caught the humor. Everyone else may be laughing as you, but I'm laughing with you.

 

[Bob B]

The bottom line is if we like our coastlines and weather, want to avoid famine, war, refugees, and diseases; then the only way is to control the climate.

The biggest thing I'm concerned about is that in our rush to try to "control the climate" we will make some HUGE errors .... try to do some BIG things to make a difference.
Humans may be a little too arrogant in thinking they can engineer the climate.

There were some scientists who thought there was a possibility that setting off a nuclear explosion might cause a chain reaction that would destroy the earth .... we did it anyway.