Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame

[COLGeek]

I just read an article that talked about how, in Germany, so many folks have solar panels to drive down their energy costs (I realize it takes energy to build these devices). Imagine if just 10% of homes, globally, had these...

Cost would go down and they would have an appreciable impact of power generation.

Where I live in the US, the cost is prohibitively expensive (on the verge of gouging, IMHO). Still is is something I am considering because I can afford it. Many others can not.

Prior to my retirement, I traveled a lot (including internationally) and I do recall solar panels in abundance in Germany. I also got to see vast expanses of large flat roofs in buildings near airports all over the place. Prime real estate for solar panels. I really don't understand why businesses aren't taking advantage of this.

It it not atypical for solar panels to over produce for a given installation. Imagine the impact on the bottom line, as well as the benefit to the greater good.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Solar panels are only half of the solution. The other half is energy storage. California already has so many solar panels that they need to "curtail" electric power production from some of them during the day, because they can't even export it to other states on the power grid. But, at night, they don't have solar power. Storage batteries are expensive, too.

There is research being done on making less expensive batteries with sodium instead of lithium, and solid state instead of wet. See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240411130248.htm .

I have hope that we will eventually get to the point where we have a very distributed power system that is still interconnected. That is, local solar cells generate most of the power used locally, with storage for night time and/or peaks in demand, but still connected to a grid so that local problems do not cause local outages because nearby sources can still provide power.

The technology seems nearly in-hand to do that.

And, I agree that there is already plenty of roof area, or area that could be roofed over in big parking lots, etc., and used for solar cells instead of taking farm land out of service (which is what is happening near me).

California is already realizing that it can put solar cell "roofs" over water irrigation canals and get 2 benefits: power from the solar panels and shade from the solar panels that reduces the water loss due to evaporation from the open canals. In California's case. the water is more important than the electric power.

Similarly, putting solar roofs over parking areas would allow charging EVs while parked and would also shade them in summer so that they would not need so much air conditioning power when they leave the lot. AC power is a big deal for EV range reduction.

 

[COLGeek]

Solar panels are only half of the solution. The other half is energy storage. California already has so many solar panels that they need to "curtail" electric power production from some of them during the day, because they can't even export it to other states on the power grid. But, at night, they don't have solar power. Storage batteries are expensive, too.

There is research being done on making less expensive batteries with sodium instead of lithium, and solid state instead of wet. See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240411130248.htm .

I have hope that we will eventually get to the point where we have a very distributed power system that is still interconnected. That is, local solar cells generate most of the power used locally, with storage for night time and/or peaks in demand, but still connected to a grid so that local problems do not cause local outages because nearby sources can still provide power.

The technology seems nearly in-hand to do that.

And, I agree that there is already plenty of roof area, or area that could be roofed over in big parking lots, etc., and used for solar cells instead of taking farm land out of service (which is what is happening near me).

California is already realizing that it can put solar cell "roofs" over water irrigation canals and get 2 benefits: power from the solar panels and shade from the solar panels that reduces the water loss due to evaporation from the open canals. In California's case. the water is more important than the electric power.

Similarly, putting solar roofs over parking areas would allow charging EVs while parked and would also shade them in summer so that they would not need so much air conditioning power when they leave the lot. AC power is a big deal for EV range reduction.

Great points.

 

[Atlan0001]

Dream on utopia (Gk.: No place ("nowhereland"))! Build your utopia until you are blue in the face as the closed world system entropic costs of it continue to balloon to infinity and mass destructions! An Iron Curtain bubble of countless invisible but active and effective iron curtain bubble chains everywhere in and on everything!

You have not a clue as to the reality of an inexorable entropy iron curtaining off everything into invincible isolating bubbles of feet-in-cement-drag in a closed world system. The nature of an ever more massive millstone weighing around every neck in the closed world system!

Not a chance, not a single chance, of attaining unity (once more, there is no such thing as 'One World' without two or more worlds, and one can be an outside frontier) much less the rest of the closed world systematic utopian dream. Stephen Hawking's 1,000-year prophecy to extinction will stand as more and more wealth is taken away from a frontier future and poured into a bottomless sinkhole pit in the universe. Dream on Earth Utopia and keep on wondering why Murphy's law just keeps on applying in full everywhere in a sadly angry sinkhole of Earth Utopia (Orwellian / Huxleyan Dystopia)!
---------------------

"Aim at heaven (the heavens) and you get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither." -- C. S. Lewis, 'The Abolition of Man'.

 

[Gibsense]

Fascinating article. It never occurred to me that the equatorial region would have deeper water! This stands alongside increases in earthquakes and volcanic activity due to stresses in the earth's crust caused by weight distribution.

Tipping points are being crossed. Some are not even considered; disturbances to the stability of Super Volcanoes. Even those that are, are not always included in 'models'.
One landslip problem the Eastern USA should worry about is the Atlantic tsunami awaited (geological time scale or imminent?)

The real problem now is the speed of change. It appears to be already too late to halt. The stability of politics is already iffy with increased migration which has only just got going. Our civilisation is not as stable as we may think. If there was a Gaia, World War 3 would be a good solution; oh, er, maybe Gaia exists (lol the way events are building up)

I am amazed by the complacency - even here - sorry folks but if you are young (below age 80) you should be in a state of fear and panic and be preparing to move to New Zealand's South Island (small population and loads of sheep) - from there, it's an easy hop to Antarctica.

 

[Gibsense]

I just read an article that talked about how, in Germany, so many folks have solar panels to drive down their energy costs (I realize it takes energy to build these devices). Imagine if just 10% of homes, globally, had these...

Cost would go down and they would have an appreciable impact of power generation.

Where I live in the US, the cost is prohibitively expensive (on the verge of gouging, IMHO). Still is is something I am considering because I can afford it. Many others can not.

Prior to my retirement, I traveled a lot (including internationally) and I do recall solar panels in abundance in Germany. I also got to see vast expanses of large flat roofs in buildings near airports all over the place. Prime real estate for solar panels. I really don't understand why businesses aren't taking advantage of this.

It it not atypical for solar panels to over produce for a given installation. Imagine the impact on the bottom line, as well as the benefit to the greater good.

England's green and pleasant land is just starting to be covered in solar panels because farmers' supposedly frugal life can be very profitable. I exaggerate but it is happening

 

[Ken Fabian]

England's green and pleasant land is just starting to be covered in solar panels because farmers' supposedly frugal life can be very profitable. I exaggerate but it is happening

Done well farming and solar co-exist well together, even enhancing agricultural production and the total areas of solar are never going to come anywhere close to what agriculture uses.

And yes, the loss of climate stability, of climate changing, is what matters most, not achieving any particular global temperature range. For species doing well at the time changing things is unlikely to improve their prospects.

As I noted in a previous comment we are not adding warming to a glacial minimum that returns the world to some previous, more biomass rich state - even aside from each iteration being different - but are adding exceptionally rapid warming to a glacial maximum, one that was unusually stable and long lasting and unlike anything in at least 100,000 years.

I expect the best we will manage will be to slow the pace of change and prevent potentially much worse outcomes - and still vitally important we do make the effort.

 

[COLGeek]

Done well farming and solar co-exist well together, even enhancing agricultural production and the total areas of solar are never going to come anywhere close to what agriculture uses.

And yes, the loss of climate stability, of climate changing, is what matters most, not achieving any particular global temperature range. For species doing well at the time changing things is unlikely to improve their prospects.

As I noted in a previous comment we are not adding warming to a glacial minimum that returns the world to some previous, more biomass rich state - even aside from each iteration being different - but are adding exceptionally rapid warming to a glacial maximum, one that was unusually stable and long lasting and unlike anything in at least 100,000 years.

I expect the best we will manage will be to slow the pace of change and prevent potentially much worse outcomes - and still vitally important we do make the effort.

I grew up on a farm. There are a multitude of locations we could have installed panels having zero impact on our productivity.

Farmers tend to be smart about such things. I believe the whole notion of impacting food production is grossly overstated.

Any farm that transitioned from food to power was struggling anyway. In those cases, good on them for producing something else.

 

[Gibsense]

Done well farming and solar co-exist well together, even enhancing agricultural production and the total areas of solar are never going to come anywhere close to what agriculture uses.

I grew up on a farm. There are a multitude of locations we could have installed panels having zero impact on our productivity.

Farmers tend to be smart about such things. I believe the whole notion of impacting food production is grossly overstated.

Any farm that transitioned from food to power was struggling anyway. In those cases, good on them for producing something else.

The key phrase: "Done Well". Good but not prime, arable land in patches of about 40 acres covered. Bear in mind this is England where land is very expensive and only supports about 40% of food demand.
Our supermarkets ensure thin margins and solar panels represent an easy profit. According to private farmers, the whole lifestyle is a struggle on good land. I have no idea what our Farming Companies policy might be.

The economic profile of USA v England is probably not comparable. We are surrounded by wind and tide. Scotland has loads of potential including hydro.

Our planning needs attention - lol our power grid is at capacity - and we are supposed to take Climate Change seriously. I don't think so.

 

[Ken Fabian]

The key phrase: "Done Well". Good but not prime, arable land in patches of about 40 acres covered. Bear in mind this is England where land is very expensive and only supports about 40% of food demand.
Our supermarkets ensure thin margins and solar panels represent an easy profit. According to private farmers, the whole lifestyle is a struggle on good land. I have no idea what our Farming Companies policy might be.

The economic profile of USA v England is probably not comparable. We are surrounded by wind and tide. Scotland has loads of potential including hydro.

Our planning needs attention - lol our power grid is at capacity - and we are supposed to take Climate Change seriously. I don't think so.

Failure to take it seriously at the individual level is a personal choice, an unwise and a socially and economically damaging one in my view, but for governments to treat it as a choice is negligence; the actions to take can be up for dispute but the seriousness of the climate problem is not.

Promoting alarmist economic fears of renewable energy - and I do think it is alarmist (as in false) - to save fossil fuels from global warming by holding hard to presumptions that energy abundance and prosperity are irrevocably dependent on them and that can't be changed contributes nothing to any better outcomes.

We are still in the early stages of a transition to low emissions; I don't expect everything to work perfectly and all problems solved as the starting point, that is the end goal and it is not a simple or easy one but I am not seeing signs of economic ruination from the step changes involved where large scale RE is being adopted, just incitement of fear of it. Here in Australia electricity reliability remains high as the proportions of wind and solar continue to grow. Our worst outages are from fossil fuel plant and weather related transmission line failures.

 

[ZZTOP]

New studies, which utilized AI to monitor the effects of climate change on Earth's spin, have shown that our days are getting increasingly longer and that our planet will get more wobbly in the future. These changes could have major implications for humanity's future.

Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame : Read more

Climate change began 5 billion years ago, how did humans cause it?

Be detailed please

 

[Atlan0001]

Once upon a time, geologists say, the Earth's day-night cycle was 14 hours long rather than 24 . . . and spinning even faster in its rotational evolutions and revolutions in periods before. One full orbit of the sun probably much faster, too. The universe, though, seems to have been accelerating in its expansion a whole lot slower in those seeming long bygone local-relative accelerated eras.

 

[Atlan0001]

NOT going to let this go at this moment!

The Earth slow to form, then fast in middle-Earth period, now slowing again in time!

The universe fast to form, then slow in middle-universe period, now speeding up again in time!

Amazing how that worked . . . is working . . . works. You'd think the whole "observable universe" is based on our contracted, compacted, light cone 'point' of local relativity in it.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Climate change began 5 billion years ago, how did humans cause it?

Be detailed please

With "logic" like that your rejection of decades of top level science about the future of the world is safe and secure, totally resistant to any evidence or reason. But wrong.

Climate change by natural causes does not mean it cannot be by unnatural (anthropogenic) causes. The high natural susceptibility of the climate system to change is what makes it so susceptible to change from human activities; it would take climate naturally resistant to change for human activities at industrial scales to have no effect.

 

[ZZTOP]

With "logic" like that your rejection of decades of top level science about the future of the world is safe and secure, totally resistant to any evidence or reason. But wrong.

Climate change by natural causes does not mean it cannot be by unnatural (anthropogenic) causes. The high natural susceptibility of the climate system to change is what makes it so susceptible to change from human activities; it would take climate naturally resistant to change for human activities at industrial scales to have no effect.

22000 years ago and ice age ebbed and it began to warm. Please explain how humans caused this.

I'll get some popcorn and await your answer

 

[Atlan0001]

22000 years ago and ice age ebbed and it began to warm. Please explain how humans caused this.

I'll get some popcorn and await your answer

We've had ice ages and global warming interludes for millions of years. All caused by life and human activity of course, per environmentalism. We need to get rid of both life and human activity and learn to love the tomb of Utopia on Earth. One good war in a blackhole-like closed world system of massive tyrannies and anarchies and countless impenetrable Iron Curtain "bubbles" that won't burst, and massively growing resistance to the same, will do the trick of ridding the Earth of life, including life' ebbs and flows and firestorms, and human activity. One last least littlest straw piled on to the camel's back finally breaking the camel's back, will do the trick in an increasingly combustible closed world system of Earth.

 

[ZZTOP]

We've had ice ages and global warming interludes for millions of years. All caused by life and human activity of course, per environmentalism. We need to get rid of both life and human activity and learn to love the tomb of Utopia on Earth. One good war in a blackhole-like closed world system of massive tyrannies and anarchies and countless impenetrable Iron Curtain "bubbles" that won't burst, and massively growing resistance to the same, will do the trick of ridding the Earth of life, including life' ebbs and flows and firestorms, and human activity. One last least littlest straw piled on to the camel's back finally breaking the camel's back, will do the trick in an increasingly combustible closed world system of Earth.

LOL please explain how "We've had ice ages and global warming interludes for millions of years. All caused by life and human activity of course, per environmentalism."

Human activity caused the last ice age in your opinion.

Please continue as I have my popcorn

 

[COLGeek]

Lets maintain our civility and decorum, please. Just a gentle nudge.

Thank you.

 

[CryptoCraig]

The topic of climate change and are humans influencing climate change should all be the same.

Are we not causing climate change? Are humans actually causing climate change?

The answer should be "who cares".

Not as in who cares let's not even worry about the consequences of industrialization.

But "who cares", if we are or not influencing climate change, we only have 1 Earth! Let's strive to be the most efficient as possible. Doing so will only HELP in the long run. Reducing emissions in vehicles alone has shown HUGE differences to the local atmospheres of large cities. We should be striving to be net zero emissions by "x" date. Not because we are or are not influencing climate change, but because we CAN.

Reducing emissions, or at least having goals to do so, makes our future better, and more breathable, in either scenario:

1. We are influencing climate change.
2. We are not influencing climate change.

On another note, if you feel strongly about #1 or #2 above, think about the following:

If our solar system has been around for, let's say, a year. The few humans on this planet who study climate have only been here to observe the last few seconds of December 31st. Accurate recording of climate/weather for the last 100 milliseconds or so.

Sure, we can somehow predict what's happened 65 million years ago, but was it actually 65 million years ago? What if 65 million years ago was August 8th? Does that change anything? Everything?

 

[ZZTOP]

The topic of climate change and are humans influencing climate change should all be the same.

Are we not causing climate change? Are humans actually causing climate change?

The answer should be "who cares".

Not as in who cares let's not even worry about the consequences of industrialization.

But "who cares", if we are or not influencing climate change, we only have 1 Earth! Let's strive to be the most efficient as possible. Doing so will only HELP in the long run. Reducing emissions in vehicles alone has shown HUGE differences to the local atmospheres of large cities. We should be striving to be net zero emissions by "x" date. Not because we are or are not influencing climate change, but because we CAN.

Reducing emissions, or at least having goals to do so, makes our future better, and more breathable, in either scenario:

1. We are influencing climate change.
2. We are not influencing climate change.

On another note, if you feel strongly about #1 or #2 above, think about the following:

If our solar system has been around for, let's say, a year. The few humans on this planet who study climate have only been here to observe the last few seconds of December 31st. Accurate recording of climate/weather for the last 100 milliseconds or so.

Sure, we can somehow predict what's happened 65 million years ago, but was it actually 65 million years ago? What if 65 million years ago was August 8th? Does that change anything? Everything?

The climate began changing before the Earth had a climate 5 billion years ago. How do we know this? Simple because the Earth had no climate, or life and yet a climate formed, the formation is a period of change that began without any life at all much less humans

 

[CryptoCraig]

The climate began changing before the Earth had a climate 5 billion years ago. How do we know this? Simple because the Earth had no climate, or life and yet a climate formed, the formation is a period of change that began without any life at all much less humans

How do we actually "know" the Earth formed 5 billion years ago?

I want to express how little we may actually know about the past... by making 5 billion years the length of a single year.

If this is actually fact, January 1 is 5 billion years ago. Recorded history, let's say 500 years, would be just over 3 seconds on December 31st. So, within this 3 seconds, do you REALLY think we can accurately predict what happened January 1st?

If you were living life, for 1 year, and could only feel, touch and see for 3.2 seconds of that year, would you have a clue what happened that year?

 

[ZZTOP]

How do we actually "know" the Earth formed 5 billion years ago?

I want to express how little we may actually know about the past... by making 5 billion years the length of a single year.

If this is actually fact, January 1 is 5 billion years ago. Recorded history, let's say 500 years, would be just over 3 seconds on December 31st. So, within this 3 seconds, do you REALLY think we can accurately predict what happened January 1st?

If you were living life, for 1 year, and could only feel, touch and see for 3.2 seconds of that year, would you have a clue what happened that year?

Carl Sagan invented that line of thinking. It was silly then and is silly now

 

[Unclear Engineer]

To try to keep this conversation on the rails, let's be clear that there is a difference between predicting the future and looking at evidence to understand what happened in the past.

While there were no humans around in the distant past to write history for us to read, Mother Nature has left us some historical notes written in her own "language". That language includes fossil bones, magnetism and the results of radioactivity in rocks, bubbles of air trapped in ice and even in fossil tree sap (amber), etc.

Predicting the future requires us to understand why what we have learned about past conditions happened as it appears to have happened. That is a far more complicated process. And, our experience in doing it is that we really should not have much confidence in predictive models until we have gone through at least several sessions of making predictions and then comparing them to what really happens, usually with model adjustments after each cycle.

But, we are often in situations where we need to make the best predictions that we can with what we know at the time, and act on (or against) the results, because waiting to see what happens is not an option.

When we do have to make decisions based on untested models, we need to carefully consider the uncertainty in the predictions. Most people are not good at that. And, most modelers understate the amount of uncertainty in their models. So, public discussions usually do go off the rails when the issue is what to do in the face of dire but uncertain predictions.

However, in the case of human-induced changes to our environment and global ecosystem, there are many issues in addition to climate change. Some of us have been worried about them for decades.

So, I strongly suggest that we not let the uncertainty about how much of climate change is due to human activities distract us from the obvious evidence that humans are destroying much of our ecosystem in other ways, too, and that all of us on Earth, humans and every other species, is going to be faced with some substantial climate changes in the not so distant future, no matter what is causing it.

 

[justoffal]

Here we go again, blame humans with that old chestnut 'climate change'. It's getting rather boring now.

There's only one thing that the climate myth does, and that's increase the cost of living for ordinary folk.

This one in particular is rather odd....4b years ago the earth started out with a 4 hour day and it's been getting longer ever since. Not sure how the author overlooked that or why.

 

[justoffal]

I respectfully disagree. There is no doubt that human activity exacerbates natural climate cycles. The science is conclusive on this fact.

The evidence is literally all around us and cannot be ignored. Else, it will be at the peril of future generations.

What is wrong with being responsible stewards of our environment? Don't get me wrong, making a buck is fine, but if we can't breath the air, drink the water, grow our food, what is the point of that dollar?

What was the original rotation time in terms of comparative hours? 4 hours no?