How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[ding]

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

You have to read the whole thing, silly. But I think it's great that you believe you have discovered a major modeling flaw in a published paper based on modeling.

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. ..."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are welcome.

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

Happy to light a candle in the darkness of your ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have to read the whole thing, silly. But I think it's great that you believe you have discovered a major modeling flaw in a published paper based on modeling.

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. ..."

You have to read the whole thing,

When the errors are so comprehensive, you really don't.

Reduced absorption of solar radiation leads to a significant local cooling by more than −2◦ C

Lower albedo means increased absorption of solar radiation.

 

[ding]

Happy to light a candle in the darkness of your ignorance.

 

[ding]

You have to read the whole thing,

When the errors are so comprehensive, you really don't.

It's because you take it out of context that you pereive there are errors.

 

[ding]

I'm fifty moves ahead of you. That van is going to rear end that taxi.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's because you take it out of context that you pereive there are errors.

What's the proper context here?

 

[ding]

Actual measurements show actual heating.

As with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, large PV power plants induce a landscape change that reduces albedo so that the modified landscape is darker and, therefore, less reflective. Lowering the terrestrial albedo from ~20% in natural deserts12 to ~5% over PV panels13 alters the energy balance of absorption, storage, and release of short- and longwave radiation14,15.

The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...

www.nature.com

Check out the lower albedo.

Check out measurements which refute this. December 2021

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

 

[ding]

View attachment 600257

What's the proper context here?

You'd have to read the paper. Parsing is how you take things out of context.

Tell me, what were their findings exactly? That solar panels induce a regional coopling effect? So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?

The thing is the study you posted was old and wrong. I just posted another study from Dec 2021 which measured reduced longwave radiation. So if you want to look for some flaws you should probably look at the study you posted as I have refuted it with TWO more recent studies.

Like I said... I'm 50 moves ahead of you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'd have to read the paper. Parsing is how you take things out of context.

Tell me, what were their findings exactly? That solar panels induce a regional coopling effect? So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?

The thing is the study you posted was old and wrong. I just posted another study from Dec 2021 which measured reduced longwave radiation. So if you want to look for some flaws you should probably look at the study you posted as I have refuted it with TWO more recent studies.

Like I said... I'm 50 moves ahead of you.

You'd have to read the paper. Parsing is how you take things out of context.

When the portion you selected says "changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly affect the regional and global climate", is there really a chance they can redeem themselves after that huge fucking error?

but the changes in absorbed solar radiation do.

Well, if you reduce the "reflected solar radiation" you're increasing the "absorbed solar radiation".

Did the fuller context help the claim?

So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error

You don't believe their claim that "a lower albedo causes local cooling" is an error?

and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?

You're the guy pointing to their study. If they post here, I'll be glad to show them too.

The thing is the study you posted was old and wrong.

What was wrong? Their temperature measurements?

 

[ding]

You'd have to read the paper. Parsing is how you take things out of context.

When the portion you selected says "changes in the reflected solar radiation do not
directly affect the regional and global climate", is there really a chance they can redeem themselves after that huge fucking error?

but the changes in absorbed solar radiation do.

Well, if you reduce the "reflected solar radiation" you're increasing the "absorbed solar radiation".

Did the fuller context help the claim?

So is your point that you believe you have discovered an error

You don't believe their claim that "a lower albedo causes local cooling" is an error?

and think I'm the guy you should be trying to convince?

You're the guy pointing to their study. If they post here, I'll be glad to show them too.

The thing is the study you posted was old and wrong.

What was wrong? Their temperature measurements?

What was wrong in your study? That there was increased longwave radiation.

Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper. I've posted two studies that were more recent than yours. But you keep believing what you want to believe.

 

[ding]

11 generations


50 steps ahead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What was wrong in your study? That there was increased longwave radiation.

Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper. I've posted two studies that were more recent than yours. But you keep believing what you want to believe.

What was wrong in your study? That there was increased longwave radiation.

Post the portion that was wrong. Post the refutation.

Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper.

It's cute that you think lower albedo makes the area cooler.

Zhang & Xu (2020) used the MODIS Land
90 Surface Temperature and Emissivity Product Collection-6 to analyze 23 solar farms over the globe.
91 They concluded that both daytime and nighttime LST over the solar farm had decreased because
92 of the energy conversion to electricity and enhanced convective heating. Such notion of cooler
93 surfaces over solar farms, however, is not consistent with evidence from in-situ measurements.
94 Using in-situ measurements obtained from a variety of positions ranging from inside the soil to 95 6.3 m above the surface, Broadbent et al. (2019) showed that, during the daytime, the solar module
96 is significantly hotter than the ground of the reference site without solar panels except at noon
97 when the temperatures of both surfaces are similar. The upward longwave radiative flux measured
98 at 5.7 meters above the surface is indeed smaller over the solar farm than over the reference site,
99 suggesting that the longwave emissivity, not, LST, of the solar farm is smaller than its counterpart
100 of the original barren surface (i.e., the surface at the reference site). Broadbent et al. (2019) further
101 estimated the broadband longwave emissivity of the solar panel to be 0.83, in contrast to the
102 broadband emissivity of reference barren sand surface of 0.92.

The module is "significantly hotter than the ground of the reference site without solar panels"

And "the broadband longwave emissivity of the solar panel to be 0.83, in contrast to the broadband emissivity of reference barren sand surface of 0.92"

Hotter panels, lower emissivity. Weird.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

11 generations


50 steps ahead.

As long as you ignore the physics.

 

[ding]

What was wrong in your study? That there was increased longwave radiation.

Post the portion that was wrong. Post the refutation.

Like I said before I think it's cute that you believe you have discovered a major ommission in a published paper.

It's cute that you think lower albedo makes the area cooler.

Zhang & Xu (2020) used the MODIS Land
90 Surface Temperature and Emissivity Product Collection-6 to analyze 23 solar farms over the globe.
91 They concluded that both daytime and nighttime LST over the solar farm had decreased because
92 of the energy conversion to electricity and enhanced convective heating. Such notion of cooler
93 surfaces over solar farms, however, is not consistent with evidence from in-situ measurements.
94 Using in-situ measurements obtained from a variety of positions ranging from inside the soil to 95 6.3 m above the surface, Broadbent et al. (2019) showed that, during the daytime, the solar module
96 is significantly hotter than the ground of the reference site without solar panels except at noon
97 when the temperatures of both surfaces are similar. The upward longwave radiative flux measured
98 at 5.7 meters above the surface is indeed smaller over the solar farm than over the reference site,
99 suggesting that the longwave emissivity, not, LST, of the solar farm is smaller than its counterpart
100 of the original barren surface (i.e., the surface at the reference site). Broadbent et al. (2019) further
101 estimated the broadband longwave emissivity of the solar panel to be 0.83, in contrast to the
102 broadband emissivity of reference barren sand surface of 0.92.

The module is "significantly hotter than the ground of the reference site without solar panels"

And "the broadband longwave emissivity of the solar panel to be 0.83, in contrast to the broadband emissivity of reference barren sand surface of 0.92"

Hotter panels, lower emissivity. Weird.

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

 

[ding]

As long as you ignore the physics.

Do you remember when you thought you had me with that generations question and I answered and then crickets from you. Good times.

 

[Crick]

Speaking of crickets, what do you think of these data?

 

[ding]

Speaking of crickets, what do you think of these data?

View attachment 600512

I think you should learn how to use the reply feature.

 

[Crick]

Do you understand what I just asked you? Do you believe the absorption spectrum of CO2 that can be found at a hundred different sites across the internet is accurate? It's a simple yes or no question that can be answered with far less mental effort than what must be required for you to come up with something you believe to be wittily non-responsive.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you understand what I just asked you? Do you believe the absorption spectrum of CO2 that can be found at a hundred different sites across the internet is accurate? It's a simple yes or no question that can be answered with far less mental effort than what must be required for you to come up with something you believe to be wittily non-responsive.

We gee you fail to notice that you didn't post a link or talk about the chart from YOUR point of view why did you post it in the first place?

It isn't data until you post the source for it.

Your science illiteracy is easy to see.