"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[ding]

I think it was satellite readings...at night...after hours of cooling by air currents moving under, over and between the panels. They cool faster than the bare ground, because they're better at transfering heat to the air blowing over them.

Ding is afraid that'll cause an ice age.

The incrementally lower temperatures were recorded during daylight hours at six solar farms when the solar panels were converting photons into electricity.

 

[ReinyDays]

Again…. Even though the panels may reflect less solar radiation, the photons being converted into electricity more than offset the increased solar radiation absorbed by the lower albedo PV cells. Which is why there was less infrared heat emitted at the solar farms after the panels were installed.

There was less infrared radiation at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.

How many more times am I going to have to provide you this link? Do you have memory issues?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

Your math is wrong ... and that's why your citation doesn't bring that up ... (ETA: Worster then my spelting)

1,360 W/m^2 x 0.4 = 816 W/m^2
1,360 W/m^2 x 0.05 = 1,292 W/m^2 ... => ... 1,292 W/m^2 - 200 W/m^2 = 1,092 W/m^2

Sorry ding ... 1,092 W/m^2 at the solar panels will make the Earth hotter than with 816 W/m^2 we get with just desert ground with desert flora ... you're wrong even using average albedo of 0.3 ...

I think you're using Chick's definition of albedo and radiation ... that will make you wrong every time ... she's a total LIAR ... (ETA: Worster then my spelting)

=====

Do solar panels re-radiate ALL the radiation it receives? ... if not, we'll need to see the light curve ... does your paper provide that or do you have a link? ... you need to explain why thermometers at these site do NOT record any temperature changes ... see? ... you have no emperical evidence ... just computer models that DON'T reflect Real World™ conditions ...

This time of year, San Luis Obispo is a better place to be than anywhere east of the Rockies ... bar none ... take a vacation this summer, spend two weeks there, the place will be mostly empty with all the students gone home ... YOU will likely need a wetsuit to swim in the ocean, though this far south we might see the natives splashing around ... that's water straight from the ice fields lining the Gulf of Alaska, not that filthy bathwater there in the Gulf of Mexico ...

Bring your thermometers ... you can test your claims yourself at the solar farm listed in your citation ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again…. Even though the panels may reflect less solar radiation, the photons being converted into electricity more than offset the increased solar radiation absorbed by the lower albedo PV cells. Which is why there was less infrared heat emitted at the solar farms after the panels were installed.

Regardless of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels on global climate, other energy sources will become more important in the future because fossil fuels could run out by the early twenty-second century given the present rate of consumption. This implies that sooner or later humanity will rely heavily on renewable energy sources. Here we model the effects of an idealized large-scale application of renewable energy on global and regional climate relative to a background climate of the representative concentration pathway 2.6 scenario (RCP2.6; ref.). We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many more times am I going to have to provide you this link? Do you have memory issues?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

Regardless of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels on global climate, other energy sources will become more important in the future because fossil fuels could run out by the early twenty-second century given the present rate of consumption. This implies that sooner or later humanity will rely heavily on renewable energy sources. Here we model the effects of an idealized large-scale application of renewable energy on global and regional climate relative to a background climate of the representative concentration pathway 2.6 scenario (RCP2.6; ref.). We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

I didn't forget your links.......

 

[ding]

Your math is wrong ... and that's why your citation doesn't bring that up ... (ETA: Worster then my spelting)

1,360 W/m^2 x 0.4 = 816 W/m^2
1,360 W/m^2 x 0.05 = 1,292 W/m^2 ... => ... 1,292 W/m^2 - 200 W/m^2 = 1,092 W/m^2

Sorry ding ... 1,092 W/m^2 at the solar panels will make the Earth hotter than with 816 W/m^2 we get with just desert ground with desert flora ... you're wrong even using average albedo of 0.3 ...

I think you're using Chick's definition of albedo and radiation ... that will make you wrong every time ... she's a total LIAR ... (ETA: Worster then my spelting)

=====

Do solar panels re-radiate ALL the radiation it receives? ... if not, we'll need to see the light curve ... does your paper provide that or do you have a link? ... you need to explain why thermometers at these site do NOT record any temperature changes ... see? ... you have no emperical evidence ... just computer models that DON'T reflect Real World™ conditions ...

This time of year, San Luis Obispo is a better place to be than anywhere east of the Rockies ... bar none ... take a vacation this summer, spend two weeks there, the place will be mostly empty with all the students gone home ... YOU will likely need a wetsuit to swim in the ocean, though this far south we might see the natives splashing around ... that's water straight from the ice fields lining the Gulf of Alaska, not that filthy bathwater there in the Gulf of Mexico ...

Bring your thermometers ... you can test your claims yourself at the solar farm listed in your citation ...

tl/dr

Besides Todd just admitted there was an incremental cooling effect at six solar farms.

 

[ding]

Regardless of the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels on global climate, other energy sources will become more important in the future because fossil fuels could run out by the early twenty-second century given the present rate of consumption. This implies that sooner or later humanity will rely heavily on renewable energy sources. Here we model the effects of an idealized large-scale application of renewable energy on global and regional climate relative to a background climate of the representative concentration pathway 2.6 scenario (RCP2.6; ref.). We find that solar panels alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures which compensate the cooling effect. However, there are consequences involved with these processes that modulate the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes in regional precipitation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

So you admit there is a cooling affect at the six solar farms?

 

[ding]

I can’t think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle other than the widespread use of solar power in the middle of an ice age.

 

[Crick]

I can’t think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle other than the widespread use of solar power in the middle of an ice age.

Man are you stupid.

 

[ding]

Man are you stupid.

How far away do you believe our present temperature is from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation?

It’s almost as if you are completely unaware that the last 3 million years have been extremely cold. It’s like you think out present temperature is normal. It’s not.

The planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures.

 

[ding]

Man are you stupid.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you admit there is a cooling affect at the six solar farms?

I'm still waiting for you to understand the difference between net cooling and net warming.

IDGAF if the solar farms are 100 degrees cooler, the net effect is warming.
Lower albedo does that.

 

[ding]

I'm still waiting for you to understand the difference between net cooling and net warming.

IDGAF if the solar farms are 100 degrees cooler, the net effect is warming.
Lower albedo does that.

Says the guy who can’t comprehend what incremental means.

Solar radiation is the key component in earth’s energy budget. Waste heat from electricity usage isn’t accounted for at all in the energy budget.

Converting photons into electricity removes that energy from the earth’s energy balance and directly affects the earth’s energy budget.

 

[ding]

It would be idiotic to assume that covering 8% of the earth’s land surface area with PV cells would have no impact on the planet’s climate.

 

[Crick]

It’s almost as if you are completely unaware that the last 3 million years have been extremely cold. It’s like you think out present temperature is normal. It’s not.

The problem having any such conversation with you isn't what I may think of our locus in the glacial cycle, it's your irrational rejection of the greenhouse effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says the guy who can’t comprehend what incremental means.

Solar radiation is the key component in earth’s energy budget. Waste heat from electricity usage isn’t accounted for at all in the energy budget.

Converting photons into electricity removes that energy from the earth’s energy balance and directly affects the earth’s energy budget.

Converting photons into electricity removes that energy from the earth’s energy balance

Hilarious.

Let's look at the numbers. If the Earth's albedo is 0.40, the 100 watts of solar energy that hits our parcel turns into 60 watts of heat and 40 watts returns to space. If a fairly typical solar panel is on that parcel and has an albedo of 0.05, only 5 watts returns to space.

95 watts are left and let's assume the efficiency of the solar cell is 20%.
19 watts become electricity and 76 watts are heat.
I'll do the math for ding (because it looks like he needs the help).

Earth returns 40 watts to space, 60 watts remain as heat.
Solar panel returns 5 watts, 76 watts is heat and 19 watts is electricity.
I'm gonna say that most (or all) of the 19 watts will eventually turn into heat.

Which scenario results in more heat?
I'll give ding a hint........what's larger, 95 or 60?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would be idiotic to assume that covering 8% of the earth’s land surface area with PV cells would have no impact on the planet’s climate.

I agree. The extra heat retained from the lower albedo panels would have an impact.

 

[ReinyDays]

tl/dr

Besides Todd just admitted there was an incremental cooling effect at six solar farms.

Does Todd speak for me? ... your math is wrong ... therefore you are wrong ...

 

[ding]

Does Todd speak for me? ... your math is wrong ... therefore you are wrong ...

I don’t know does Todd speak for you?

It’s not my data and as near as I can tell this was done using data collected from satellites. Point to the math in the paper. Which page was it in?

 

[ding]

The problem having any such conversation with you isn't what I may think of our locus in the glacial cycle, it's your irrational rejection of the greenhouse effect.

I don’t reject the GHG effect. I reject the stupid concept of climate sensitivity and their lack of transparency in showing how much is attributed to CO2 and how much is attributed to climate sensitivity. Of course without climate sensitivity there are no gloom and doom projections to act as a political bell cow.

 

[ding]

The problem having any such conversation with you isn't what I may think of our locus in the glacial cycle, it's your irrational rejection of the greenhouse effect.

I focus on the reasons for the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet because it’s relevant to the topic and provides the proper context to discuss the earth’s climate and what has caused it to change. The earth is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and colder temperatures. Today’s temperatures are not representative of earth’s present climate. The representative temperatures of earth’s climate are much much colder. We are in a prolonged interglacial cycle because the last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular.