• Have you tried out dark mode?! Scroll to the bottom of any page to find a sun or moon icon to turn dark mode on or off!

diy solar

diy solar

Thoughts on this article?

“... melt all the ice from Greenland and West Antarctica and raise sea level by around 60 feet”

If we melt all the remaining ice, how much can it be raised from today's sea level?

I did an estimate of Antarctic ice and thought that could raise it 3 feet, so the projections I've heard seemed plausible (unlike Biblical version of the great flood.)
 
Once we figure out exactly how far it will raise the sea levels, let's collectively purchase all that future coastal land on the cheap. Then, let's turn on all our heaters and melt that ice. Once the price goes up sell it. Use that money to buy all the old underwater land on the cheap and with all the extra money, start desalinating and freezing water again. You've now accumulated all the valuable coastal land in the world for pennies on the dollar. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary to own everything, everywhere. If anybody questions / interferes with our plan, just call them "woke tree hugging socialists" and they will back off / be laughed at.
 
The sun is bad for you. Not only that, it's going to run out at some point. Then you'll wish you had some nuclear power.
Vitamin D for dummies. I wish I had some nuclear power now. It's been 4 days since my batteries have seen a full charge.

... The last sunlight disappears...
 
Billions of tons of petrochemicals have been sequestered well below surface for many millions of years, not participating in the carbon cycle and not affecting atmopheric chemistry.
During a very short time in the last 200 years, humans have removed that stored material from deep deposits and released it to the surface, oceans and atmosphere.
Why anyone would believe this will have "no impact at all" is illogical.
What the full impacts will be and how long that will take is unknown.

if you believe 400ppm of a chemical is 'too little' to affect anything, mix up some KCN in a glass of water, at 400ppm and drink up.
Or start up a ICE engine in your garage with the door shut and let the CO build up to 400ppm while you sit in the garage pondering the effects that 'so little' chemical could possibly have on you.

Drinking water is disinfected with 1 to 2ppm NaOCl, a pool with 3-4ppm.
Very small amounts of chemical can have very large impacts on a system.
Don't be fooled by the 'small amounts'.
Burning petrochemicals brings many things into the air and water beyond 'carbon' that are far more hazardous to your health.
 
Billions of tons of petrochemicals have been sequestered well below surface for many millions of years, not participating in the carbon cycle and not affecting atmopheric chemistry.
During a very short time in the last 200 years, humans have removed that stored material from deep deposits and released it to the surface, oceans and atmosphere.
Why anyone would believe this will have "no impact at all" is illogical.
What the full impacts will be and how long that will take is unknown.
Today we have the tools to make good models of what is about to come but the climate scientist are fighting with a hand tied behind their backs.
They just dont have the computer power necessary to make good models of the climate. There is no money in it i guess.
 
Personally, I have no doubt that humans can and have affected the climate. As noted above there's no way that we can do industry at the level we do and not have an impact. However, I do believe there's a huge amount of alarmism with the climate crowd. In the early 70s, they said we were headed for a Malthusian catastrophe and there would be no food by 1986. In the late 70s, they said their was going to be another ice age. In the 80s the ozone layer was seconds from disappearing. In the 90s global warming was about to kill us all. In the early 2000s a cooling trend caused them to start calling it "climate change" so that no matter what they'd be right. Now ocean acidification is starting to become the buzz. Some climate alarmists want to start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Ocean alarmists want to use nuclear reactors to make lime and dump it in the oceans to bring the pH back up. The idea of using space reflectors to cool the planet is being studied.

My problem with all those schemes is that any active measure to reverse any perceived damage that humans have caused is very likely to have unintended consequences far worse than the problems they're trying to fix, simply because we don't know all the variables involved. We know the sun has an 11 year cycle. But what if there's a 500 year cycle? Or a 20 million year cycle? Our best bet is to stop polluting and let the system rebalance itself. Anything else is going to be a disaster.
 
Personally, I have no doubt that humans can and have affected the climate. As noted above there's no way that we can do industry at the level we do and not have an impact. However, I do believe there's a huge amount of alarmism with the climate crowd. In the early 70s, they said we were headed for a Malthusian catastrophe and there would be no food by 1986. In the late 70s, they said their was going to be another ice age. In the 80s the ozone layer was seconds from disappearing. In the 90s global warming was about to kill us all. In the early 2000s a cooling trend caused them to start calling it "climate change" so that no matter what they'd be right. Now ocean acidification is starting to become the buzz. Some climate alarmists want to start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Ocean alarmists want to use nuclear reactors to make lime and dump it in the oceans to bring the pH back up. The idea of using space reflectors to cool the planet is being studied.

My problem with all those schemes is that any active measure to reverse any perceived damage that humans have caused is very likely to have unintended consequences far worse than the problems they're trying to fix, simply because we don't know all the variables involved. We know the sun has an 11 year cycle. But what if there's a 500 year cycle? Or a 20 million year cycle? Our best bet is to stop polluting and let the system rebalance itself. Anything else is going to be a disaster.
There are a lot of ideas being proposed. The alarmism created by the media is an old version of the modern 'clickbait'. Creating alarmism generates attention, attention generates more revenue for those outlets.
 
Today we have the tools to make good models of what is about to come but the climate scientist are fighting with a hand tied behind their backs.
They just dont have the computer power necessary to make good models of the climate. There is no money in it i guess.
Pretty sure it really comes down to the fact that they can't get the results they want.
 
And so few people able to review the numbers.

First clue is usually that they are too good.
 
The ice is melting! We're all gonna die!
You cannot compare co2/temperature data of tens of millions of years ago with today.
The earth was too different. Even the sun was different, 5-10 percent less energy coming from the sun for example.
Only more recent data should be taken to show the potential impact.
 
Ah, good old climate alarmism.
Reminds of you another hoax they pulled off


On thread topic - my take is that any tech has a chance to exist as long as its supported by free market forces. Under no circumstances should it be subsidized or forced on anyone.
As for panel efficiency - i would say between 20 and 80% sounds about right, depending on weather and panel age ofcourse
 
I'm convinced. I'm going to smash my panels and drag the diesel generator out of storage.
I'm going to rip the mini split off the wall fire the coal stove up early, then I'll scrap the panel frames and rails and burn the ground mount down. Just kidding I love solar (and said it was dumb 5 years ago ?)
Hopefully that ground mount gets me through December...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20231010_182642.jpg
    IMG_20231010_182642.jpg
    481.1 KB · Views: 3
Today we have the tools to make good models of what is about to come but the climate scientist are fighting with a hand tied behind their backs.
They just dont have the computer power necessary to make good models of the climate. There is no money in it i guess.
I suspect there is pleanty of money, but not enough accurate data.
We humans have a very short window of recent accurate information about a very complex system we clearly do not completly understand.
Remember that experiment where the sensitivity of the data was so high, that re-running the model resulted in completely different results. (aka the butterfly effect according to Lorenz).
To understand the 'base line' we would need accurate data that spans a lot longer period of time than we have, and we would want to be able to test impacts of one parameter at a time on a complex system, but instead we have rapid changes to innumberable parameters all at once, making it impossible to sort out 'cause' from 'effect' and 'base line' from 'alterered'.
I worked seven years in the Canadian Arctic, some of my collegues keep in touch, they show me +35 degree days in the high arctic (unheard of temperatures) and I do worry. If you ever see a valley of permafrost, that normally only thaws down a few inches per summer max, now flowing like a river of mud you would worry too. If these frozen soils hold the volume of methane and decaying ancient vegatation that some are reporting, we may have already set the stage for a lot of GHG's entering the atmosphere - no telling how long this will take, or the effects, but it seems change is already in progress.
I doubt the political will, nor the scientific understanding will be sufficient in time to make much difference, that said, I have my own plans, my bit as 1/8billionth of the population. So my wife and I spent 22 years now building up our own 'homestead' ditched the propane - heat with wood off our own property, raise our own food/trade with neighbours, deep well for our water, good septic for our wastewater, now solar for the electrical part. EV for trips to the City, one day retire my 3/4 ton for F150 Lightning/or similar. Will this 'save the planet' - nope not a chance. Will it negatively impact the planet more than if we did nothing 22 years ago? I don't believe so. Will we be perfectly fine if the entire system were to colapse in a Mad-Max event - nope. Do we feel like we are in control, and have some measure of self-reliance over the critical items (shelter, water, food, heating, security) yup sure do.
It seems to us, that major changes in the world never occur because some government ordered it, major changes always come about from average people making change happen. I for one, try to do what I can on my own, and influence and help others that express an interest. Seeing the size of this forum leads me to believe I am not alone in this ideal.
 
Well the most computer effort is being given to model the climate with data from the last 50 years. The key question is to how to model the climate of the earth to know what is going to happen in the future.

For what the climate scientist doing the models say, they cannot produce an accurate model unless they increase the number of points of the grid simulation to a maximum of 1km. But they cant do it, requires just too much computing power. So what they do is to 'invent' certain variables in the grid in key points to try to approximate the data the best they can. Institutions running simulations use grid points separated more than 10 km, but is very challenging for them because having to parametrize or 'invent' variables on extra points generates too much uncertainty.

I am sure that if in the us they put a bunch of the 'white shirt and black tie engineers' they used to have (they designed the sr71 using pencils and rulers ffs) well funded and motivated with all the resources they need they would crack the problem very very quickly. Today we have amazing AI tools.

But you know, ukraine needs some more billions i guess
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top