diy solar

diy solar

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

Truth can be difficult for some.

You're calling me low class and crass. Pot, kettle, black.

Let me know when they are willing to engage in an intellectually honest discussion. Until then I'll either call it out for the bullshit it really is or ignore it. You have the option to do the same.
Why don't you post some proof of catastropic climate change since we skeptics just don't seem to get it ?
If your side is based in science, why don't you embrace nuclear power ?
If the change in the earth's temperature has been alarming since 1850, please show me how they measured the earth's temp in 1850 ?
I'd love to know how they accomplished that.
You blew off the fact that there are only 4 molecules of CO2 in a 10,000 molecule sample of air.
And humans contribute only 4% of the total CO2 in nature ?
Sorry to be repetitive, but you only throw out your opinion, and never respond to these facts.


1634525061594.jpeg
 
Trust them .... they're right this time.
LOL :)

John Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel. He was a climate skeptic who fought the propaganda
that has influenced most of the posters to this thread.
He died almost 4 years ago but his logic defeats the nonsense being shoved at us today :

 
Last edited:
Trust them .... they're right this time.

Based on what? Have you studied the subject extensively?
Because I have. For the past 15 years. And it seems to me that anyone else who has - and is not an interested party - has come to the same conclusion. The "science" is a fraud.

You might be interested in some notes I wrote some eight years ago - well, some people here might, you seem to choose belief over proof...
.
 
was just in the '60s scientists were saying we were headed into an ice-age. I think it was those predictions not occurring that first made me jaundiced about a good fraction of scientific papers as being hogwash
few miles off the coast of where I live lies the Continental Shelf, a deep drop-off from 400' below the surface to much deeper.
10,000 years ago, the Continental Shelf was ocean-front property.
Both of these are worthy of consideration in my mind.

I think it was 6th grade science my teacher brought up smog and global warming (1976/77?) and made this statement (not an exact quote but what he said): “geology and anthropology both show us that radical warming periods of hundreds of years have preceded all the major and minor ice ages.”
This had the profound effect on me of causing me to think macro regarding changes to the earth’s climate instead of being more micro- or myopic. While I’m not a scientist, I do feel like I have the ability to think. Granted, the ‘warming’ curve is steeper in the 1900-2000 period, but surviving involves more than being CO2 neutral- there is the natural occurrence that has caused migration and population reductions with all animals and humans for thousands of years. Anyone ignoring that makes me distrust their other “facts.”
 
I'm just surprised to find this thread on a forum full of off-gridders! Maybe solar increases one's respect for the sun's role in all this? lol
 
...And humans contribute only 4% of the total CO2 in nature ?
Sorry to be repetitive, but you only throw out your opinion, and never respond to these facts....
Missed that one, but your other "facts" were shown to be incorrect in #150 if you'd like to discuss.

Your source on the "humans contribute only 4%" is way off ... from NASA the human contributed CO2 concentration in 2019 was 47%:
...This represents a 47 percent increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when the concentration was near 280 ppm, and an 11 percent increase since 2000, when it was near 370 ppm. Crisp points out that scientists know the increases in carbon dioxide are caused primarily by human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms, so it leaves a distinct “fingerprint” (ref)..
Considering the half-life it's undoubtedly up more by now. The current count is 409 ppm which would be a 68.4% increase, but unlike NASA's numbers, I didn't pull out CO2 from natural events (e.g., volcanic eruption), so it would be somewhat more than 47% and a lot less than 68% now.

...please show me how they measured the earth's temp in 1850 ...
I had the same questions at first, it's talked about in the thread with references if you're truly interested in the technical bits.

... a waste of time attempting to engage with such people....
Your time, you don't have to spend it engaging people if you don't want to. Keep in mind some attempts to get the truth out there can backfire and reinforce the other's belief:

The backfire effect is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs to reject that evidence, and to strengthen their support of their original stance. Essentially, the backfire effect means that showing people evidence which proves that they are wrong is often ineffective, and can actually end up backfiring, by causing them to support their original stance more strongly than they previously did. (ref)​
That's okay...I figure I get to believe what I want and they get to believe what they want. But I'm generally happy to discuss facts and point out things wrong in any argument... and hope others will do the same for me. Of course, not addressing fake facts tends to make them feel like they're right, e.g., my error in not addressing 100% of the issue that led to #161.

Veratasium's P-Hacks are still out there too, so for me it's good to hear alternate theories and ideas.

... it seems to me that anyone else who has [studied climate change] - and is not an interested party - has come to the same conclusion. The "science" is a fraud.
I'd have to disagree. I am fairly disinterested (old and won't live long enough to see the effects) and don't stand to make any money or fame by it. I also just looked into the science (what this thread ended up being about) and came to the opposite conclusion. I did review your post, it was interesting to see we started at a similar place. I invite you to review the thread and engage in discussion on it (but start at the beginning, the last 5 pages are more "opinions" than "science".

I thought your (our) best argument was #2, but (it's in the thread in detail so won't repeat much here) ran into some issues: the rate of change is far above normal from the past, climate change or not it makes sense to start to move to solar & wind with ESS because it will be cheaper to do so, and finally that slowing/halting the warming will reduce societal infrastructure costs by 1000:1 (not to mention those peaks on your graph correspond to mass extinction events). People get hung up on the man-made or not, but ultimately to me that's not what's important, it's the temperature rise and what it means in terms of costs.

I'm just surprised to find this thread on a forum full of off-gridders! Maybe solar increases one's respect for the sun's role in all this? lol
I only installed solar and bought an EV to save money. My change from being a climate skeptic/denier is very recent. I'd even go so far as to say I might be wrong, but so far the evidence seems to point the other way when you really dig in.

It takes at least 10 times the time and effort to refute a statement of disinformation / misinformation as it does to come up with the nonsense in the first place.
True enough. Doing real research (especially on this topic) rather than stating opinions is difficult.

The real question to me is are how open-minded are they? I've no issue with people stating their views/beliefs, power to them! They're entitled and I'm not going to argue with what they believe.

But, in regards to "facts" I hope folks are interested in honest dialog, things change and opinions should too. But if after debunking their "facts" they still argue without references or turn it into a character debate I tend to ignore them as trolls.
 
Last edited:
Missed that one, but your other "facts" were shown to be incorrect in #150 if you'd like to discuss.

Your source on the "humans contribute only 4%" is way off ... from NASA the human contributed CO2 concentration in 2019 was 47%:

If you are going to debate a topic, maybe you should know something about it ?
This is straight from the IPCC in the early 90's and things haven't changed.
Humans emitted 23,100 million metric tons of CO2 out of a total in nature of 793,100.


That's 2.91%

1634570739230.png
 
Last edited:
So look, Doing research is not reading papers. Doing research is what climatologists do when the sample the air trapped in ice cores. Doing research is what climatologists do when they count tree rings, sample material in earth cores, etc etc. What any of us do on the internet is not research. And the fact that one can find a person who publishes a paper in a non-peer reviewed journal who says its all nonsense, and you read it, does not mean you did any research. As a thermo fluids analyst, the fact that small constituent changes in the parts per million of even billion of a gas can significantly change its properties is just a fact of life. Add in that atmospheric heat retention is an INTEGRAL problem, and the output of the climatologists seems reasonable to me. Without and atmosphere this planet would have the roughly the same surface temperature swings as the moon. It would be a few degrees hotter due to the molten core, but not enough so you wouldn't still freeze to death at night, and not so much that the bursting into flames bit in the sun, would really be appreciably faster (at least to a human). Remember folks we are burning fossil fuels, all that CO2 used to be in plants and animals and they got it from the air. So now we are putting it back in the air. Until we started doing that the CO2 levels varied very very little. (ice cores etc)
 
But, you can do the opposite. ;)
Absolutely. See post #169 above

The hypocrisy can't get any funnier :
"UN Climate Conference Using Diesel Generators to Charge Teslas"

 
I'm just surprised to find this thread on a forum full of off-gridders! Maybe solar increases one's respect for the sun's role in all this? lol
I'm a mechanical engineer working at power plants on turbine/generators. Environmentalists have been attacking coal-fired plants for over 50 years, and I have watched how "science" has been politicized by $$$. If you want a certain result about climate research, just give enough grant money and you can get the result you want.
We have the best climate scientists money can buy. LOL
 
This is straight from the IPCC in the early 90's and things haven't changed... Humans emitted 23,100 million metric tons of CO2 out of a total in nature of 793,100.
Sure they have changed, but it's easy to see why you're confused about it. Let's see if I can explain it...

In 1990 the numbers show 23 billion tons of additional CO2 being man-made per year. Now we're over 51 billion tons per year (ref). Even if you just stick with the 23 billion and multiply by 30 years since 1990 you end up with an additional 690 billion tons in the atmosphere.

CO2 is stable, it has an "equivalent" half-life because there are natural capture mechanisms, but the half-life is really long. CH4 is about 10x more powerful than CO2 as a GHG, but its half-life is only about a decade (unfortunately it breaks down into CO2). So, 690 billion tons of additional CO2 is quite an accumulation if you ask me. But that's the problem with invisible gas, unlike a landfill you don't see the mountain of trash ever-growing.

What the 2019 NASA reference above is about is that originally we were at 280 ppm. Now it's over 409 ppm. PPM of CO2 is pretty easy to measure so there's really high confidence around that. After subtracting out natural sources (e.g., volcanos) the came up with the man-made contribution as 47%. But, that was a couple of years ago. Since then we've added another 100 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, so it'll be higher now. Even if we stayed at our current rate of 51 billion, by 2050 we'd add another 1,530 billion metric tons.
 
I'm just surprised to find this thread on a forum full of off-gridders!

I'm quite (pleasantly) surprised too.
Usually statements to the effect that the "science" in question is... rather dubious, tend to attract a lot of dogmatic hysteria to the tune of "denier" and "the science is settled, who are you to question it".

Obviously being sceptical of politicised pseudo-science is not incompatible with being pro-alternative-energy and doubtful of fossil-fuel long to medium term feasibility. Good :·)
.
 
Last edited:
What the 2019 NASA reference above is about is that originally we were at 280 ppm. Now it's over 409 ppm

Yeah well 409 ppm is still 0.04%.
And... can you please quote/find any scientific proof that any concentration of CO2 below, say 50% in a mixture of gases, increases greenhouse effect?
 
Based on what? Have you studied the subject extensively?
Because I have. For the past 15 years. And it seems to me that anyone else who has - and is not an interested party - has come to the same conclusion. The "science" is a fraud.

You might be interested in some notes I wrote some eight years ago - well, some people here might, you seem to choose belief over proof...
.
My reply was satirical ... guess I should have expected not everyone would get it.
 
Sure they have changed, but it's easy to see why you're confused about it. Let's see if I can explain it...

In 1990 the numbers show 23 billion tons of additional CO2 being man-made per year. Now we're over 51 billion tons per year (ref). Even if you just stick with the 23 billion and multiply by 30 years since 1990 you end up with an additional 690 billion tons in the atmosphere.
I'm confused ? Using your higher number means our contribution to the total CO2 is just over 6%.
What credibility do "scientists" who claim adding one more CO2 molecule to 10,000 molecules of air will cause catastropic problems ??
Most scientists don't agree with the catastropic scenairio.

Have you looked at their proposed solution to climate change ? It's not building lots of nuclear plants which is the obvious solution.

It's taxing the american middle class and giving "under-developed countries" (like China and Iran) money to help them out.
 
I'm confused? Using your higher number means our contribution to the total CO2 is just over 6%.
Apologies the earlier posts didn't help you. It might help if you said what thought was wrong or didn't understand from the prior explanations.

... can you please quote/find any scientific proof that any concentration of CO2 below, say 50% in a mixture of gases, increases greenhouse effect?
I don't know of any papers that say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, a real challenge would be finding a peer-reviewed paper that refutes it.
So pretty sure that's just trolling, but hey... John Tyndall, or just google it. Perhaps https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075?

What credibility do "scientists" who claim adding one more CO2 molecule to 10,000 molecules of air will cause ...
Try reading the Tyndall link above. Basically, it's just repeatable experimental evidence as to what concentrations change the temperature and by how much due to being a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere and CO2 cycle are a lot more complex than a greenhouse. The IPCC has a number of climate models that have proven to be very accurate, but you can read up on that in the earlier bits of this thread.

Most scientists don't agree with the catastropic scenairio.
You'd have to specify which catastrophe you meant. The IPCC 6 report has many and each has different levels of "certainty"; although I think you'd find that within the levels of certainty provided most scientists concur.

But if you just meant in terms of scientists that generally agree with climate change that's very high and can be found here.

Have you looked at their proposed solution to climate change ? It's not building lots of nuclear plants which is the obvious solution.
Yep, try to watch them like hawks... just because I believe in climate change now doesn't mean I trust the government to do what's best for me.

Nuclear might be obvious but the current LCOEs suck and the low "popularity" makes them hard sells. There's new tech in the works that might resolve that though. ESSes seem the most cost economical and some lab results have been fairly amazing, they're all in a race to come to market with a viable product and it seems like a big win for everyone economically to me.

...It's taxing the american middle class and giving "under-developed countries" (like China and Iran) money to help them out.
I'd appreciate a link to or the numbers on the house/senate bills for such a tax; if true I'd want to talk with my congressional representatives. I've been watching them pretty closely this year and haven't seen anything remotely close to this.
 
Last edited:
Basically, it's just repeatable experimental evidence as to what concentrations change the temperature and by how much due to being a greenhouse gas.

Yeah? And why hasn't anyone "repeated" it? Honestly, find yourself any experiment that even remotely suggests that a concentration of 0.0x% of CO2 in a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen changes... anything :·)
The IPCC has a number of climate models that have proven to be very accurate,

I believe none of them have. They predicted ice-free arctic by 2013, for Pete's sake.
How does this fit with any of those models? I mean, why is arctic (and antarctic, BTW) ice getting better? While CO2 is getting worse?

Screenshot_1018_214017.png
(source: Danish Meteorological Institute)
 
Back
Top