I must be a hard core denier because I am suspicious of even the current day temperature readings. What about the studies that have questioned the temperatures that are being taken?
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
It's good to ask questions and this is one of the most basic ones at the heart of everything.
Basically, satellites measure the temperature across the globe (ref on tech) and their readings are cross-referenced with numerous earth-based stations across varying types of terrain (e.g., snow, desert, ocean, grassland, suburbia) to ensure the satellites aren't reporting incorrectly due to abnormalities.
Despite that it seems fairly fool-proof to me... there are a number of youtube videos I've come across that say the satellite readings are either too low or too high (haven't seen one yet that mentioned cross-referencing with ground stations). At least the accuracy of measuring the global temperature to within a degree via satellite seems more doable the Pons and Fleischmann cautionary mini-tale in #32.
But, to me, the issue isn't the current day readings so much as the past readings. The repeatable thermometer wasn't even invented until ~1600.
Earlier temperatures are derived from Ice core samples by getting the CO2 concentration, that is the theory is temperature drove the atmospheric CO2 via oceanic heating.
But ... we don't have ice cores from everywhere and the earth was completely ice-free just 33 million years ago. Before that they go by the geological record which is even more inaccurate. Reading between the lines there are some real knock-down drag-out fights among scientists over past temperatures. But, it's hard to get excited about it, for the most part they're arguing less than a degree here or there. So that plus 30F rise in #78 that might only be +28F ;-) Either way, it was hot enough to wipe out 95% of the species.
Satellite data has been held up twice as "proof" that there is no climate warming. Unfortunately, both times the error in the system was eventually located. That's why ground measurements to validate are so important. There's a great video going talking about it here.
Last edited:
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,606
One of the big things we are overlooking is manufacturing. I spent a lot of time working to improve the efficiency of HVAC systems in manufacturing environments .... we installed systems that paid themselves back in 3 years or less .... but it was the tip of the iceberg.
Their were energy costs for one group of building that was more than a million dollars a month.
One building I spent quite a bit of time in had heat treat ovens spread thru an area that was easily 100 square yards eating up more natural gas in 1 second than I will use in my whole lifetime.
There were other buildings with smelting operations that melted gigantic crucibles filled with metal. Once all that metal was formed ... guess what, it had to go to that other building to be re-heated and hardened.
They would have to somehow start using completely different materials to have much effect on the energy required to build those products.
Some of the plants I worked in made large earth moving equipment .... some made farm equipment ... some made gigantic mining trucks. Can we get by without that stuff ... only if the population takes a radial nose dive and we go back to more primitive living that only uses the materials around us.
Their were energy costs for one group of building that was more than a million dollars a month.
One building I spent quite a bit of time in had heat treat ovens spread thru an area that was easily 100 square yards eating up more natural gas in 1 second than I will use in my whole lifetime.
There were other buildings with smelting operations that melted gigantic crucibles filled with metal. Once all that metal was formed ... guess what, it had to go to that other building to be re-heated and hardened.
They would have to somehow start using completely different materials to have much effect on the energy required to build those products.
Some of the plants I worked in made large earth moving equipment .... some made farm equipment ... some made gigantic mining trucks. Can we get by without that stuff ... only if the population takes a radial nose dive and we go back to more primitive living that only uses the materials around us.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Not overlooked, it's the 23% mentioned in the OP under Industry.
Seems like if we start now there's enough time (~30 years) in which they can be replaced as they wear out, sort of like what happened with CFCs. What seems important now is sorting it all out and coming up with a sensible across-the-board approach that multiple countries can follow. Ideally not an on/off every four years like NASA missions. Probably not though, we're bound to make all sorts of mistakes along the way regardless of how committed we are or who's running the show.
Still, I think the program to get energy storage to $16.20/kWh gets a lot of the job done for us in that it flips the economics away from fossil fuel, hard to argue with cheaper energy.
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
Yes, based on ‘measurements’ but even that particular conclusion is skewed by assumptions and preconceived notions.
I’m not arguing against you, btw.
I’m just frustrated with science becoming socio-political - makes it hard for a layman like me to trust the leadership. Covid acutely demonstrated that same thing just in a shorter time sequence: didn’t matter which news channel you listened to, you can’t trust them.
Facts should generally be absolutes whether I like them or not. Both the climate change champions and the scoffers quote their pet studies that ‘prove’ their own points; both cannot be simultaneously correct.
That’s all I’m saying. For better or worse.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
I may not be as skeptical as I was of the science, but to me, it's lunacy to blindly trust anyone. In a democracy, it's somewhat our obligation to educate ourselves on the issues lest we become donkeys braying for the wrong things or ostriches with our heads in the sand.
The science of climate change is particularly deep and nuanced. I don't understand a lot of it and I'm still working on it. I'll also most likely be long gone by the time the potentially big impacts roll around.
I've never really doubted the "global warming" part, what I was never sure of is if was man-made or natural, and was it bad? And yeah, ever since Al Gore said he invented the internet I flipped the bozo bit on him.
I've come to the conclusion that man-made or not is the wrong way to think about it. It's just not important. It's happening, like a bathtub filling up with water, we can measure it. Will the water-overflow keep it from making a mess?
The "certainty" on the consequences from the IPCC for the temperatures lines drawn are iffy. the IPCC is clear about that. But the geological record shows that the consequences listed are accurate for temperature rises and the models (which have been accurate) show those temperatures going up in relation to the greenhouse gases. So, the real uncertainty is when, not if.
The race for low-cost energy storage has always had my support because it's just common sense since it'll reduce energy costs across the board. That one technology (if we can get it) is such a game-changer. In terms of the bathtub, it is the equivalent of turning the water flow down - that gives more time before the bathtub overflows. More time gives more time for science to figure out how much more (if any) is needed. Having that change makes the first phase of recovery pretty painless and we might not need more. Similarly, a concrete replacement (it's too expensive now anyway) and beano for cows would also be great painless technologies that keeps things the way they are (assuming we even need to go that far) and slows (stops?) greenhouse gas emissions.
If we don't get reduce cost energy storage technology, then changes may not be so painless and we're going to need a whole lot more debate. But I might not make it that far or be senile by then (good news is I think Florida will keep letting me vote though).
Yes and no. What's amazing about covid (and climate change) is the vast amount of misinformation. But how can you know the truth about what's what without a degree in virology, immunology, and vaccine manufacture? Both parties in the U.S. supported the vaccine, yet a lot of people mistrust it to this day.
Well, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. In some cases both facts can be correct (e.g., photons are both a particle and a wave).
I guess the best we can do, is ignore it if it's not important, or look at both studies and review them with an eye towards what the other side says about them. A large number of "facts" or "questions" become irrelevant in light of greater truths and you have to be careful with the conclusions drawn from facts. For example, it's a true fact that the IPCC models don't include everything and aren't perfect (the IPCC even says so). But that doesn't invalidate them, they're the best we have and for the last decade have been pretty spot-on.
Last edited:
I offered $10/panel. They are considering it. I have some space left for a few.
Unfortunately Wattmatters is right. It is cheaper just to throw the old out since panels have become just a minor cost of the total system. but seeing perfectly good panels discarded is so wrong and justifies my opinion that we need more than solar & wind to fix things.
What to do with discarded panels? - convert them to 12v and you have a modular system with unlimited (cheap) expansion opportunities
wattmatters
Solar Wizard
Wind and solar with batteries can't fix everything. That will require a combination of many strategies. But they sure can make a lot of inroads and help to make this a better planet to live on.
No solution is perfect.
One thing that's in the favour of wind and solar is the tech is available now, it can be deployed very quickly, it is modular (at grid scale it can be continually added in small chunks) and costs are well understood.
No solution is perfect.
One thing that's in the favour of wind and solar is the tech is available now, it can be deployed very quickly, it is modular (at grid scale it can be continually added in small chunks) and costs are well understood.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Irreversibility, Tipping Points and Abrupt Changes
The present rate of response of many aspects of the climate system are proportionate to the rate of recent temperature change, but some aspects may respond disproportionately. Some climate system components are slow to respond, such as the deep ocean overturning circulation and the ice sheets. It is virtually certain that irreversible, committed change is already underway for the slow-to-respond processes as they come into adjustment for past and present emissions. The paleoclimate record indicates that tipping elements exist in the climate system where processes undergo sudden shifts toward a different sensitivity to forcing, such as during a major deglaciation, where one degree of temperature change might correspond to a large or small ice sheet mass loss during different stages. For global climate indicators, evidence for abrupt change is limited, but deep ocean warming, acidification and sea level rise are committed to ongoing change for millennia after global surface temperatures initially stabilize and are irreversible on human time scales (very high confidence). At the regional scale, abrupt responses, tipping points and even reversals in the direction of change cannot be excluded (high confidence). Some regional abrupt changes and tipping points could have severe local impacts, such as unprecedented weather, extreme temperatures and increased frequency of droughts and forest fires. Models that exhibit such tipping points are characterised by abrupt changes once the threshold is crossed, and even a return to pre-threshold surface temperatures or to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, does not guarantee that the tipping elements return to their pre-threshold state. Monitoring and early warning systems are being put into place to observe tipping elements in the climate system.
Tipping points, Impacts, Confidence levels
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
If the IPCC report snippets above are TL;DR, here's a video version (although he goes more into the "low certainty" outcomes which I skipped and focuses more on CO₂ and really it's all GHGs)
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
The opening remarks were a turn-off for me too.
Even though I started off as a denier/skeptic, I'm pretty convinced now we need to take some actions. That is those aren't all cherry-picked. Quite a few have "high confidence" or are "very likely" in the IPCC report (the really low confidence levels are the ones predicting exactly where draughts/flooding will occur).
I sure as heck wouldn't want to be J. Granholm (DoE director), the pressure must be phenomenal... think about it ... even if you don't believe, they do and if they screw it up... it's all their fault. Fortunately, I like what they have planned because it makes things relatively painless via an organic transition to better and lower-cost technologies ... but pulling it off still won't be easy. On the other hand, with the realities of her job she'll probably be replaced in 4 or 8 years, so any blame goes to the next director.
Not just her either.... I know a number of people don't like Bill... but man... ref
It would be nice if other "captains of U.S. industry" got on board like what happened in WWII. Wonder if any of that is happening in other countries?
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,535
Mission Accomplished on Earth.
Time for climate change on Mars.
www.bignewsnetwork.com
"Developing Country" my @$$
Time for climate change on Mars.
China's Mars rover accomplishes planned exploration tasks
ampcopy Provided by Xinhua BEIJING Aug 17 Xinhua -- China Mars rover Zhurong has accomplished its exploration and detection tasks as planned according t
www.bignewsnetwork.com
"Developing Country" my @$$
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,606
Mission Accomplished on Earth.
Time for climate change on Mars.
China's Mars rover accomplishes planned exploration tasks
ampcopy Provided by Xinhua BEIJING Aug 17 Xinhua -- China Mars rover Zhurong has accomplished its exploration and detection tasks as planned according t
"Developing Country" my @$$
To me it's an indication of how politicized the "Paris Accord" actually is. They are still letting them get away with that crap.
China clings to developing-nation status in climate talks
PARIS — Last week, China was trumpeting its arrival as one of the world’s great economic powers, as the International Monetary Fund elevated the renminbi to the ranks of leading currencies, alongside the dollar, euro, yen and British pound.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
You guys got me wondering ... if a lot of Americans are doubtful or think it's a hoax...what about other countries?
Other Countries
Turns out most countries have fewer doubters than we Americans. A poll from 3 years ago had China at 94.4% [ref]. Given those numbers, I'm a little surprised they're not taking a leadership role. For better or worse, I suspect a lot of countries are taking their cues from the U.S. I know Russia wants to be a world leader again, but was surprised (given comments by the current administration) to find we were partnering with them after they reached out. The U.K. seems to be the world leader in terms of setting aggressive goals. In a way, it's a remarkable thing in my lifetime to see so many diverse countries working together on something so big other than war. It would be making me misty-eyed, but I worry about what will happen in the middle east when the world has little need for oil.
Most of the big GHG emitting countries are on board with carbon neutrality by 2050. But...
Australia
#14 in terms of emissions. Given our politics, I'm sure not one to judge. The "official" stance is they're sticking with the existing pledge of cutting carbon emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels, by 2030. That's in line with the Paris climate agreement. [ref]. But then there's this:
China
As I understand it China "clings" to that world-bank classification because it's advantageous for them to do so for a number of reasons...it's based on the per capita income and they're under the threshold. It does allow them to drag their feet and be followers rather than leaders.
But if you're annoyed by it, think about how the rest of the world must feel about us (and other developed countries) for causing the crisis? Might as well be mad at the Australians. Okay, maybe not since China is #1 and Australia #14 for CO2 emissions [ref].
So, what about China? The U.S. (and most other countries) have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050. But in terms of climate change, China produces twice the CO2 we do and is the #1 GHG emitting country by a wide margin. They also have twice the solar installed as us (we're at ~100 GW). Getting to being carbon neutral is no easy thing to begin with, and they have twice what we have to clean up...
But those commitments are definitely not a free pass and yes they won't be carbon neutral by 2050.
Does it all stop at 2050?
Nope. Despite everyone slowing down, it's ~28 years until 2050 and the half-life is over 100 years, so GHG warming will continue to increase. Once we hit neutrality (probably a while after 2050), the temperature model will be locked in for a while as the CO2 slowly lowers. That's what worries those who are "alarmed", at those temperatures it means we have centuries of melting ice, rising waters, flooding, droughts, and weather patterns change.
Other
This was an interesting poll I came across while researching this...[ref]
The "alarmed" number has sure risen... no wonder politicians want to be seen doing something, that's a lot of votes!
Wonder how many of the "alarmed" have solar?
From this report, 80% of EV owners have them because of the environment, 67% also cited lower operating costs. But EVs only make 1.6% of the cars on the road. So poll-speak vs. action-speak? Or EVs are just to $$?
Conversely, the #1 reason people cite for installing solar is to save money, the #2 reason is the environment. [ref]
PV Magazine predicts by 2024 2.5% of all homes will have solar.
Couldn't resist... I checked on J. Granholm (DoE Director) and she drives an EV (Chevy Bolt) and has solar on her house. Way to go!
Other Countries
Turns out most countries have fewer doubters than we Americans. A poll from 3 years ago had China at 94.4% [ref]. Given those numbers, I'm a little surprised they're not taking a leadership role. For better or worse, I suspect a lot of countries are taking their cues from the U.S. I know Russia wants to be a world leader again, but was surprised (given comments by the current administration) to find we were partnering with them after they reached out. The U.K. seems to be the world leader in terms of setting aggressive goals. In a way, it's a remarkable thing in my lifetime to see so many diverse countries working together on something so big other than war. It would be making me misty-eyed, but I worry about what will happen in the middle east when the world has little need for oil.
Most of the big GHG emitting countries are on board with carbon neutrality by 2050. But...
Australia
#14 in terms of emissions. Given our politics, I'm sure not one to judge. The "official" stance is they're sticking with the existing pledge of cutting carbon emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels, by 2030. That's in line with the Paris climate agreement. [ref]. But then there's this:
China
They don't get a pass. That's just inflammatory propaganda. They signed before we did and still have commitments (but yes, at a lower rate).
As I understand it China "clings" to that world-bank classification because it's advantageous for them to do so for a number of reasons...it's based on the per capita income and they're under the threshold. It does allow them to drag their feet and be followers rather than leaders.
But if you're annoyed by it, think about how the rest of the world must feel about us (and other developed countries) for causing the crisis? Might as well be mad at the Australians. Okay, maybe not since China is #1 and Australia #14 for CO2 emissions [ref].
So, what about China? The U.S. (and most other countries) have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050. But in terms of climate change, China produces twice the CO2 we do and is the #1 GHG emitting country by a wide margin. They also have twice the solar installed as us (we're at ~100 GW). Getting to being carbon neutral is no easy thing to begin with, and they have twice what we have to clean up...
But those commitments are definitely not a free pass and yes they won't be carbon neutral by 2050.
Does it all stop at 2050?
Nope. Despite everyone slowing down, it's ~28 years until 2050 and the half-life is over 100 years, so GHG warming will continue to increase. Once we hit neutrality (probably a while after 2050), the temperature model will be locked in for a while as the CO2 slowly lowers. That's what worries those who are "alarmed", at those temperatures it means we have centuries of melting ice, rising waters, flooding, droughts, and weather patterns change.
Other
This was an interesting poll I came across while researching this...[ref]
The "alarmed" number has sure risen... no wonder politicians want to be seen doing something, that's a lot of votes!
Wonder how many of the "alarmed" have solar?
From this report, 80% of EV owners have them because of the environment, 67% also cited lower operating costs. But EVs only make 1.6% of the cars on the road. So poll-speak vs. action-speak? Or EVs are just to $$?
Conversely, the #1 reason people cite for installing solar is to save money, the #2 reason is the environment. [ref]
PV Magazine predicts by 2024 2.5% of all homes will have solar.
Couldn't resist... I checked on J. Granholm (DoE Director) and she drives an EV (Chevy Bolt) and has solar on her house. Way to go!
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,606
Sorry ..... but I think the propaganda about China .... is FROM China.
They can promise all they want and appear to be SO committed, but as long as they hold that developing country status, they can sign the Paris agreement, but there is no remedy to hold their feet to the fire .... they are exempt from the rules they supposedly signed up for. They take control of these type of international organizations .... WHO being another .... and turn them into propaganda shills for their purpose.
They are even controlling speech in this country from organizations like the NFL and NBA who are scared to death they will loose revenue from China ... Did you see the guy from professional wrestling organization groveling for forgiveness .... he made the "mistake" of calling Taiwan a country and they threatened to kill all revenue because of it.
They can promise all they want and appear to be SO committed, but as long as they hold that developing country status, they can sign the Paris agreement, but there is no remedy to hold their feet to the fire .... they are exempt from the rules they supposedly signed up for. They take control of these type of international organizations .... WHO being another .... and turn them into propaganda shills for their purpose.
They are even controlling speech in this country from organizations like the NFL and NBA who are scared to death they will loose revenue from China ... Did you see the guy from professional wrestling organization groveling for forgiveness .... he made the "mistake" of calling Taiwan a country and they threatened to kill all revenue because of it.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
ROFL. Yeah, I know... they only just stopped producing CFCs this year after signing the Montreal Protocol in 1991.
But, better to have signed then not signed as it gives us "legal" reasons to impose tariffs on their imports to pay the "carbon tax" (there is already legislation in the works for that, although not specifically aimed at China).
12VoltInstalls
life passes by too quickly to not live in freedom
Amusing guy I guess- or for those adults that find sponge bob entertaining.
The thing that stuck out to me was the time statistics were related to burning of fossil fuels- correlation- and his presentation of ‘renewable’ as solar… without the “carbon cost” of manufacturing and delivery of solar and wind; without mention of how to fertilize, plant, or harvest of non-cattle or poultry foods and not use machines; and no idea of the cultural impacts of diet change on world populations; without mention of the HUGE energy impact of air conditioning and heating that even if the power derived to operate these systems is from “renewable energy” it still is a heat source. CO2 emissions are not the only component: human lifestyle is a factor.
Humans survived cold and hot periods in the historical past but they had to work for it. Today we have the vast majority who force industrial-level farming and food supply. In developed societies they just want to show up at a store and have whatever they want in a few minutes and go home to - perhaps merely by heating a prepared item- consume it with the least effort possible so their netflix and media screen time isn’t interrupted.
Even the woke progenitors and climate change evangelists lead this consumption lifestyle by and larg
No doubt- world climates are changing. Global warming on the other hand seems to be presenting an encased position - a mindset- that while it doesn’t come right out and say it- that implies human life will end as temperatures rise.
I find it difficult intellectually to buy the global warming package when the promo kit is missing not only so many elements but also centuries-old common sense.
Any solution needs to be more than merely platform-dependent on societal, social, cultural, political, or personal convictions.
The thing that stuck out to me was the time statistics were related to burning of fossil fuels- correlation- and his presentation of ‘renewable’ as solar… without the “carbon cost” of manufacturing and delivery of solar and wind; without mention of how to fertilize, plant, or harvest of non-cattle or poultry foods and not use machines; and no idea of the cultural impacts of diet change on world populations; without mention of the HUGE energy impact of air conditioning and heating that even if the power derived to operate these systems is from “renewable energy” it still is a heat source. CO2 emissions are not the only component: human lifestyle is a factor.
Humans survived cold and hot periods in the historical past but they had to work for it. Today we have the vast majority who force industrial-level farming and food supply. In developed societies they just want to show up at a store and have whatever they want in a few minutes and go home to - perhaps merely by heating a prepared item- consume it with the least effort possible so their netflix and media screen time isn’t interrupted.
Even the woke progenitors and climate change evangelists lead this consumption lifestyle by and larg
No doubt- world climates are changing. Global warming on the other hand seems to be presenting an encased position - a mindset- that while it doesn’t come right out and say it- that implies human life will end as temperatures rise.
I find it difficult intellectually to buy the global warming package when the promo kit is missing not only so many elements but also centuries-old common sense.
Any solution needs to be more than merely platform-dependent on societal, social, cultural, political, or personal convictions.
Similar threads
