How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[ding]

Do you reject the accepted absorption spectra of CO2?

I reject the lack of a controlled laboratory experiment quantifying it.

 

[ding]

Yes, I've seen your humorous attempts to back up your silly claim.

You mean the published paper that states large solar arrays will have a regional cooling effect and alter circulation?

 

[ding]

Do you reject the accepted absorption spectra of CO2?

Do you reject the conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Can you show me that quote?

 

[ding]

The difference is that solar PV doesn't produce CO2 that would otherwise warm the planet's surface by slowing the escape of IR from the atmosphere to space. Or do you reject the standard absorption spectra of CO2?

That's a separate argument. Let's look at each phenomenon on it's own. Do you agree with the result of the model or are you like todd and reject it?

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should write a rebuttal paper and get that published. It might make you feel a little bit better about this.

Pointing out your errors is enough for me.

 

[ding]

View attachment 600135

Right, the net effect is cooling. Do you understand what net means?

 

[ding]

Pointing out your errors is enough for me.

You aren't doing a very good job. Please don't take it out on those you love.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean the published paper that states large solar arrays will have a regional cooling effect and alter circulation?

The ones that ignore albedo? Yeah, they were funny as well.

 

[ding]

The ones that ignore albedo? Yeah, they were funny as well.

You know this how exactly?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, the net effect is cooling. Do you understand what net means?

Yes, it means you don't understand conservation of energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know this how exactly?

Quote the section in your paper that uses the lower albedo of the solar panels in their math.

 

[ding]

Yes, it means you don't understand conservation of energy.

No. It means you don't understand net.

 

[ding]

Quote the section in your paper that uses the lower albedo of the solar panels in their math.

Quote the section that said they ignored albedo. See what I did there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quote the section that said they ignored albedo. See what I did there?

If they mentioned the lower albedo of the panels and still said net cooler, they're dumber than you are.

 

[ding]

If they mentioned the lower albedo of the panels and still said net cooler, they're dumber than you are.

This is so easy...

"... Climate change may affect the amount of solar radiation reaching
the Earth’s surface. For example, reduced sea ice, snow and ice
sheet coverage will increase the absorption of solar radiation at
the surface, but the increased cloudiness induced by an enhanced
hydrologic cycle may reflect more solar radiation. Here we find
that solar panel electricity generation will redistribute the energy
from the sun, thus affecting regional and global climates. Without
the solar panels, solar radiation reaching the surface is partitioned
into absorption and reflection. The transmission part of the solar
radiation is eventually either reflected or absorbed by the Earth’s
surface in the annual mean, thus it is not explicitly considered
here. With the solar panels, a portion of absorbed solar radiation
is diverted to electricity generation. In the regions with solar panels
installed, the direct shortwave radiation incident on the solar panels
increases slightly in all experiments relative to the Control owing
to a reduction of cloudiness (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).
However, local absorption of direct shortwave radiation decreases
by up to 19% in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, with an
increase of 4% in the SPDLess experiment (Supplementary Table 2).
The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
experiment. Therefore, the total solar panel power production in
the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments is from the reduction of
both reflected and absorbed direct incident solar (about 50% each)
in comparison to the Control. In the SPDLess experiment, this
power production is entirely from reduced reflection, because the
absorption is slightly increased.

In general, the changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly affect the regional and global climate, but the changes in
absorbed solar radiation do. Reduced absorption of solar radiation
leads to a significant local cooling by more than −2◦ C relative to
Control averaged in the desert regions with installed solar panels
in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments (Fig. 1 and Supplemen-
tary Tables 1 and 2). In contrast, the temperature in these regions
is projected to increase by 1∼2.5◦ C in the four RCP scenarios
(RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5) in CCSM4. ..."

 

[ding]

You really should have read the paper first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is so easy...

"... Climate change may affect the amount of solar radiation reaching
the Earth’s surface. For example, reduced sea ice, snow and ice
sheet coverage will increase the absorption of solar radiation at
the surface, but the increased cloudiness induced by an enhanced
hydrologic cycle may reflect more solar radiation. Here we find
that solar panel electricity generation will redistribute the energy
from the sun, thus affecting regional and global climates. Without
the solar panels, solar radiation reaching the surface is partitioned
into absorption and reflection. The transmission part of the solar
radiation is eventually either reflected or absorbed by the Earth’s
surface in the annual mean, thus it is not explicitly considered
here. With the solar panels, a portion of absorbed solar radiation
is diverted to electricity generation. In the regions with solar panels
installed, the direct shortwave radiation incident on the solar panels
increases slightly in all experiments relative to the Control owing
to a reduction of cloudiness (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).
However, local absorption of direct shortwave radiation decreases
by up to 19% in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, with an
increase of 4% in the SPDLess experiment (Supplementary Table 2).
The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
experiment. Therefore, the total solar panel power production in
the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments is from the reduction of
both reflected and absorbed direct incident solar (about 50% each)
in comparison to the Control. In the SPDLess experiment, this
power production is entirely from reduced reflection, because the
absorption is slightly increased.

In general, the changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly affect the regional and global climate, but the changes in
absorbed solar radiation do. Reduced absorption of solar radiation
leads to a significant local cooling by more than −2◦ C relative to
Control averaged in the desert regions with installed solar panels
in the SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments (Fig. 1 and Supplemen-
tary Tables 1 and 2). In contrast, the temperature in these regions
is projected to increase by 1∼2.5◦ C in the four RCP scenarios
(RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5) in CCSM4. ..."

The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
experiment.

DURR

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You really should have read the paper first.

What happens to the temperature of the Earth when the reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44%?

 

[ding]

The reflected direct solar radiation is reduced by 44% in the
SPDU and SPDU+UH experiments, but by 77% in the SPDLess
experiment.

DURR

Thanks for the laughs.

You are welcome.

So.... the best way to usher in the next glacial cycle is widespread use of solar.