All so called Natural Generation methods have consequences …

[Miranda]

Not my diagram.

my conclusions differ from yours. That’s fine.

 

[Miranda]

There are some interesting and conflicting theories on this, some are convinced that high levels of CO2 trap heat from the sun that would normally bounce back into space, others believe that it actually diffuses the sun and protects us. When 911 kicked off in Urmerica and all aircraft were grounded aircraft contrails plummeted and record temperatures there were recorded,here we are again with a massive downturn in contrails due to Covid witnessing the same phenomenon over the entire planet. Some of this CO2 would appear to be protecting us

Bob

Yep. There is no exact science on this yet.

if I had the time, it would make an interesting PhD topic.

 

[Gareth J]

Most of the suns energy is absorbed by the atmosphere before it even reaches the ground, so even if we reflect it with a perfect mirror, it's not going to make much difference to the overall energy supplied by the sun. Secondly, PV arrays are not perfect mirrors, nor are they perfect transducers converting only 10% of the suns energy into an electric charge. The rest one assumes is either dissipated as heat or reflected back into the atmosphere.

I think the whole idea that a PV array can contribute significantly to the heat either absorbed or reflected by planet Earth is a non sequitur. It will be the same as any man made object, car roof, building, swimming pool etc. i.e. negligible.

Definite "significantly" and "negligible" I'm pretty sure that's all the disagreement is about. We all agree the system is wonderfully complicated and that the panels will have a non zero effect.

I can't begin to estimate the size of the effect therefore think it hubristic to rule it out. Can you can do at least a back of the envelope calc to put some sizes on the figures and put some size on your negligible?

For what it's worth, I suspect the non zero effect is small but in the scale were expecting solar to get to, non negligible. But that compared to releasing both energy and CO2 from fossil fuels, much, much less bad.

 

[Screwdriver]

Not my diagram.

my conclusions differ from yours. That’s fine.

Which is fine of course except you are also arguing against the person who wrote the very article you quote:

"Overall, the energy that exits the Earth in different forms, when added together is equal to the energy that is absorbed by different parts of the Earth."

Note there is no mention of PV arrays "trapping" energy or stopping it from being reflected. In fact the article goes on to explain how the cycle works as the net energy input is dissipated by any number of avenues, typically reradiated as heat. Maybe you should read the article...

 

[Screwdriver]

Definite "significantly" and "negligible" I'm pretty sure that's all the disagreement is about. We all agree the system is wonderfully complicated and that the panels will have a non zero effect.

I can't begin to estimate the size of the effect therefore think it hubristic to rule it out. Can you can do at least a back of the envelope calc to put some sizes on the figures and put some size on your negligible?

For what it's worth, I suspect the non zero effect is small but in the scale were expecting solar to get to, non negligible. But that compared to releasing both energy and CO2 from fossil fuels, much, much less bad.

That's a big ask. Yes I could but no I won't is my gut reaction. I have a tax return to fill out and it is filling me with dread.

I'm only here for the displacement activity. My thumbnail seat of the pants reaction is that 10% of one millionth of the total energy budget is 0.000001% of the energy falling daily on the planet has to wait until some tree hugger flicks on a light in his Yurt. It is then (eventually) reradiated as heat energy and rejoins it's chums in an orgy of entropy.

Compare that to the "negligible" 2-3% additional CO2 that is arguably having an effect on climate change (aka AGW) and yet is oft quoted by CC deniers as evidence it does nothing for the climate because it's next to nothing. Given the extraordinary position that this excess greenhouse gas is "negligible" in the eyes of some, you're going to have a much tougher job with 0.000001%

 

[Miranda]

Which is fine of course except you are also arguing against the person who wrote the very article you quote:

"Overall, the energy that exits the Earth in different forms, when added together is equal to the energy that is absorbed by different parts of the Earth."

Note there is no mention of PV arrays "trapping" energy or stopping it from being reflected. In fact the article goes on to explain how the cycle works as the net energy input is dissipated by any number of avenues, typically reradiated as heat. Maybe you should read the article...

I’ve read it. As I’m sure you will understand, it was their picture I was appropriating. Not their conclusions !!

 

[Screwdriver]

my conclusions differ from yours. That’s fine.

I’ve read it. It was their picture I was appropriating. Not their conclusions !!

Which is fine of course except you are also arguing against the person who wrote the very article you quote:

Ok. You've lost me. You are quoting from an article which also refutes your position and using it to support your conclusion.

<edit> ok I'm outta here. This was fun but y'know, pointless.

 

[Gareth J]

That's a big ask. Yes I could but no I won't is my gut reaction. I have a tax return to fill out and it is filling me with dread.

I'm only here for the displacement activity. My thumbnail seat of the pants reaction is that 10% of one millionth of the total energy budget is 0.000001% of the energy falling daily on the planet has to wait until some tree hugger flicks on a light in his Yurt. It is then (eventually) reradiated as heat energy and rejoins it's chums in an orgy of entropy.

Compare that to the "negligible" 2-3% additional CO2 that is arguably having an effect on climate change (aka AGW) and yet is oft quoted by CC deniers as evidence it does nothing for the climate because it's next to nothing. Given the extraordinary position that this excess greenhouse gas is "negligible" in the eyes of some, you're going to have a much tougher job with 0.000001%

If it's a seat of the pants guestimate, then fine. That's not a good enough reason to dismiss someone though. Does nothing to qualify your assertions of what is or isn't negligible. Unless you happen to be a climate scientist or somehow relevantly qualified?

A link to a study on the subject by some people who genuinely are well qualified to do so would be interesting either way

We all agree there's a non zero effect, just no one here knows how much or how little. Why not agree and say it's interesting? The internet doesn't have to be a battleground.

 

[Gareth J]

A link to a study on the subject by some people who genuinely are well qualified to do so would be interesting either way

The albedo effect

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Here we go. Not a proper study but a nice simple back of the envelope calc by someone who seems to be reasonably well versed on the subject.

In short, Miranda is not wrong. There's a non negligible effect but as I felt might be the case, definitely less bad than burning fossil fuels.

 

[Screwdriver]

If it's a seat of the pants guestimate, then fine. That's not a good enough reason to dismiss someone though. Does nothing to qualify your assertions of what is or isn't negligible. Unless you happen to be a climate scientist or somehow relevantly qualified?

A link to a study on the subject by some people who genuinely are well qualified to do so would be interesting either way

We all agree there's a non zero effect, just no one here knows how much or how little. Why not agree and say it's interesting? The internet doesn't have to be a battleground.

You mean like this:

It is interesting to see some of these "conflicting" "theories". Unfortunately they also tend to conflict with some rather basic science without offering any actual science to back up their claims.

There is some merit to the argument that large PV arrays can and will produce highly localised affects. It certainly made me look at the issue.

An interesting website thanks but your conclusions are invalid for the reasons stated.

I try to be polite but my primary objective is to reply with my understanding of the currently accepted scientific view and not support a contentious statement by accepting it at face value without questioning it's authenticity.

If we are not allowed to refute an unsupported statement then what is the point of discussing anything in a forum?

 

[Screwdriver]

The albedo effect

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Here we go. Not a proper study but a nice simple back of the envelope calc by someone who seems to be reasonably well versed on the subject.

In short, Miranda is not wrong. There's a non negligible effect but as I felt might be the case, definitely less bad than burning fossil fuels.

View attachment 301801

Yes but did you read the article? That exact statement is discussing the result of what would happen if a gigantic solar array 200km square was set up so that it would power the entire United States of America. He goes on to say in that unlikely scenario he "estimates the albedo forcing to be about 0.01 W per square meter".

In other words, bugger all.

 

[Gareth J]

Yes but did you read the article? That exact statement is discussing the result of what would happen if a gigantic solar array 200km square was set up so that it would power the entire United States of America. He goes on to say in that unlikely scenario he "estimates the albedo forcing to be about 0.01 W per square meter".

In other words, bugger all.

I did read it. That isn't the authors quote.

The author is quoting someone else; Gavin Schmidt. He doesn't say 0.01 W/m^2 is bugger all. He suggests it's roughly the equivalent to 1ppm CO2, which the US adds to the atmosphere in roughly 3yrs. 3yrs worth of the 'States CO2 emissions is not "bugger all" to me. Is it to you, really?

 

[mtt.tr]

Having been looking over the last day, There are actually a number of peer reviewed scientific papers out there in internet land which have raised just this concern over solar when deployed on industrial scale upon the energy balances both local and terrestrial.

It is not “ loony off the wall stuff“ but is currently under serious study with competing arguments made.

One has to be aware that even though seemingly peer reviewed, there are very few totally independent studies…

It was a topic which crossed my mind whilst combining two days ago and looking across at acres and acres of ground under PV.

It wasn’t meant to generate ( ha ha ) angry polarised responses, it was more intended as a general thought provoker……

I haven’t yet mentioned wind/wave/tidal etc and their unintended consequences lol.

xx

Links please

 

[mtt.tr]

I love the notion of we need a war or natural disasters to cull our numbers.

Be interested to know if you would put your name down for the cull??

A more rational reaction would be have one child not multiple, as I expect the same people to praise the cull will also believe that they are higher beings with some bizarre arrogance to feel that the world needs more of them?

 

[Gareth J]

I love the notion of we need a war or natural disasters to cull our numbers.

Be interested to know if you would put your name down for the cull??

A more rational reaction would be have one child not multiple, as I expect the same people to praise the cull will also believe that they are higher beings with some bizarre arrogance to feel that the world needs more of them?

Fear not! We are already at (or very near to) peak child. Any further increases in population are down to less people (particularly children) dying. It'll take a few years (an a few billlion more people) for deaths to match or exceed births but turning the tide on the number of kids born is the first step. As well as being about less frowned upon than deliberately killing people!

 

[mike os]

Enough said ...

 

[Munkul]

Oh. Right so again some hand waving general waffle which still manages to be hopelessly incorrect.

Please explain how "humans have had a bad impact on the world in energy terms". Are you suggesting humans have been creating energy here?

No, just releasing naturally stored energy that has been dormant for millenia, and messing with great heat sinks (forests) and releasing greenhouse gasses which trap further solar energy.
You know, the normal stuff that is perfectly obvious and accepted as fact by anyone who has half a brain, that's why I didn't try to spoon feed anyone. It wasn't my point anyway, my point is that the energy WE release/redirect is nothing compared to the huge equilibrium reached by the sun and earth every single day.
I'm not denying we need to do something about our impact on the earth.

Do you need spoon fed?
Obviously the only thing you'll agree with is your own opinion, so have fun with that

 

[mike os]

Here we go again ...