Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks. I appreciate that. I’m assuming you are aware of how close we are to extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere, right?Well, I'm not prepared to say Ding is an idiot. Maybe just a difference of opinion? I mean error wise, even Einstein got some physics and math wrong. Albert was not an idiot.
A study was conducted at six solar farms comparing the infrared radiation before and after PV cells were installed. The study found that infrared radiation was less after PV panels were installed. The study found that the incremental cooling occurred during daytime hours when the PV cells were generating electricity. The study found that nighttime temperatures were similar. The study concluded that the cause of the incrementally cooler daytime temperatures was because solar radiation was being converted into electricity.
Actually I see the earth as being in a constant state of trying to maintain equilibrium. But the landmass distribution and resulting ocean circulation system are configured for bipolar glaciation and colder temperatures. With the northern hemisphere playing a dominant role in temperature of the planet because it has a higher threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the southern pole (mostly landlocked ocean parked over the pole vs continent parked over the pole) but more land for glaciers to advance once the glaciation threshold is reached (-2C from present) than the southern pole (only ocean surrounding Antarctica).You see, the Earth is largely a closed system with an exchange between the Sun and space in a FB equilibrium--- if slightly less solar energy is inputted directly to the climate thru the use of PV panels slightly cooling the Earth, this also slightly reduces the outward pressure of the Earth then in resisting further incoming solar energy! So, there is likely a slight net increase of solar input!
I’m only considering large solar farms here. If we are going to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind and still intend to have a power grid, it seems like a good assumption. I can’t imagine a world where everyone was required to produce their own energy.That is fine except most solar panels are on homes and the study didn't even look at that or the effects there…
Not ignoring this but I addressed it in a previous reply you probably haven’t had a chance to read yet.nor does it take into account the downstream effect of generating that electricity from sunlight back into the environment in other forms and places when that electricity is used.
All I know is that if it happens to me, it happens to everyone else.I’m assuming you are aware of how close we are to extensive continental glaciation in the northern hemisphere, right?
I know that we are geologically right about due to flip back down into the next big ice age that cycle about every 100k years, that there have been 6-7 smaller Quaternary Period ice ages + the 8200yr. cooling and little ice age, but that might be right around the corner or could be thousands of years off! I just hope that if we drop back into an ice age, that I'm still around to laugh at all of the EV/carbon-credit/AGW people.The earth is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. Most of the last 3 million years have been much colder.
Actually the last eccentricity cycle which is what seems to trigger the glacial cycle was nearly circular. So we should be in an extended interglacial cycle. I say cycle instead of period because it drives crick crazy.All I know is that if it happens to me, it happens to everyone else.
I know that we are geologically right about due to flip back down into the next big ice age that cycle about every 100k years, that there have been 6-7 smaller Quaternary Period ice ages + the 8200yr. cooling and little ice age, but that might be right around the corner or could be thousands of years off! I just hope that if we drop back into an ice age, that I'm still around to laugh at all of the EV/carbon-credit/AGW people.
That can only be a good thing.I say cycle instead of period because it drives crick crazy.
Thanks, but I know without a doubt that there will be another ice age, and that we are likely far closer to it coming back than we are headed to further warming. People overlook that the Earth is much like a gyroscope and that it tends to return to a state of balance after even a large disturbance, and even if somehow, pollution leads to acute climate change, this will have an adverse effect on global human activity and population (reducing both) which will reduce the input into the AGW thus restoring the Earth back into balance (but by first removing the one factor that was OUT of balance-- -- human activity).This is worth the watch.
I know but his guy really paints the proper picture of our present climate isn’t normal. That glacial cycles dominate. He said we should all know this because winter time shows just how much of the planet could be covered by glaciers.That can only be a good thing.
Thanks, but I know without a doubt that there will be another ice age, and that we are likely far closer to it coming back than we are headed to further warming. People overlook that the Earth is much like a gyroscope and that it tends to return to a state of balance after even a large disturbance, and even if somehow, pollution leads to acute climate change, this will have an adverse effect on global human activity and population (reducing both) which will reduce the input into the AGW thus restoring the Earth back into balance (but by first removing the one factor that was OUT of balance-- -- human activity).
I already know that.our present climate isn’t normal.
They certainly have throughout much of the past three billion years except with the longest period of stability being the boring billion period of the proterozoic era about 1-2 billion years ago during the transition from a methane-dominant to an oxygen-dominant world before the great Ediacaran explosion began.That glacial cycles dominate.
People think rising sea levels are bad… they ain’t seen nothing like advancing glaciers.
Me too!I'd like to see the sea rise another 100 feet. Most everyone who has caused the problems we all face today all live within 100 feet of the ocean.
Don’t you find it odd that the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycle was 2C warmer than today with 26 ft higher seas than today but had 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?
Well, I'm not prepared to say Ding is an idiot. Maybe just a difference of opinion?
That is fine except most solar panels are on homes and the study didn't even look at that or the effects there, nor does it take into account the downstream effect of generating that electricity from sunlight back into the environment in other forms and places when that electricity is used.
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu
That's what albedo basically means, sans all other factors.Let's look at the numbers. If the surface'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.
I assume you mean as I2R losses.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.
I don't have enough information about how you mean "offsets" to say either way. Generally, I like to steer clear of expecting simple arithmetic to model complex dynamics, but I think I agree that while solar panels may show LOCAL cooling effects, I'm not so sure that really represents an actual loss in solar heating (cooling the Earth) instead of merely showing widespread redistributing of the paths of where all the energy went! In other words, a little energy lost one place just means a little more showing up elsewhere.Ding claims that the 19 watts of electricity "offsets" the extra 35 watts that are retained. Does his claim sound good to you?
View attachment 729380
Impact of solar panels on global climate
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...
The first author, Aixue Hu, is one of ding's primary sources for his "solar panel cooling" claim.
Exactly… energy is being used to perform work.That energy still exists and eventually must be realized through some form of WORK.
Does this claim sound good? No. Because it doesn’t explain the incremental cooling effect that was measured at not one but six solar farms. That and the numbers are made up. The incremental cooling was measured by satellites.Maybe. But his claim about solar is so ridiculous.
Let's look at the numbers. If the surface'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.
Ding claims that the 19 watts of electricity "offsets" the extra 35 watts that are retained.
Does his claim sound good to you?
