Impact of solar panels on global climate

[ZetaX]

Bill Phil: I quoted WedgeAntilles there (and when I made that post, yours wasn't there).

If you mean me? Your claim that I'm posting unsupported claims, is an unsupported claim.

No, it is supported by your last two posts not containing any evidence expect claims from your memory (of which I would claim some are entirely made up and/or miss quoting things). It does clearly not require a peer reviewed paper to literally look at your posts and do not see any link or such. If everything is that "obvious" as you claim, you surely will have no problem linking to trustworthy sites discussing this.

Everything I've posted in here is stuff that can be found without even looking at a single "peer reviewed paper". (and also there's this minor problem--when I do go out of my way to prove my case, people like you refuse to believe it and start cooking up ways to not believe it)

So now you are claiming that it is "that" obvious we wouldn't even need to look for evidence...

The amount of CO2 emitted by humans breathing? Google.

Yeah, that one might be correct, but it is quite obviously the least objectionable claim in your entire post. I want evidence for the not-so-obvious claims.

The deal about the IPCC admitting that "linking CO2 to global warming is extremely difficult"? CNN news web site. (I call that "Chinese weasel words", because "extremely difficult" is how the Chinese say "no")

""linking CO2 to global warming is extremely difficult"" gives exactly _zero_ results in google. So much about that claim. Even if it actually were correct: "extremely difficult" is not weasel words, but simply shows that climate is a complicated thing.

The claim by peadar1987 that CO2 emissions must be countered via sequestration, or CO2 levels in the atmosphere go up? Hell, I don't even need the Internet to disprove that one. I need two words: "paper" and "plastics". Every piece of paper you touch, every plastic bottle you sip water from, is a chunk of carbon that is not in the ground AND not in plants AND not in the atmosphere--in other words, completely outside peadar's equation. And every time you recycle that piece of paper or plastic? That's carbon atoms that stay in circulation--neither in the ground nor in the atmosphere.

The problem here is not that, but your claim that there is likely enough sequestration going on to counter human interactions. For which you provided no evidence at all, instead pointing to the unsupported claim that it might be generation of new oil (of which at least it is rather unlikely, as we know the average over a hundred million years on that: it is much less).

The scientific community has long since been poisoned by scientific witch hunts, in which anybody with a dissenting opinion is almost literally tied to a pole and set on fire. So for many years I've been looking elsewhere. I look for ways to prove or disprove things using stuff we common folk can actually get to--and read without a thesaurus.

This is simply a lie. If you think otherwise, provide good evidence for this.

Edit: oh, and there's also this--if you could disprove anything I said, you would have posted a link.......right?

Not an argument: it is you who made claims, so you ahve to prove them. I won't waste more time on someone who is that self-rightous to literally say:

I told you, I'm a pro with statistics. You're in a fight you can't win.

And for all the even more fishy things you just happened to not repeat now, I just point to peadar1987's post.

Edited November 13, 2015 by ZetaX

[peadar1987]

*ahemahem*

The total atmosphere is 5.15x10^15 tonnes in size. Your 'really that's quite a lot' is .00077% of the atmosphere.

If the atmosphere is a football field, the amount of CO2 in the air accounts for a strip about 3.5 centimeters wide. Your CO2 output there is adding less than a THIRD of a MILLIMETER to that amount.

And I'm supposed to believe that THAT is going to upset the balance of the climate so much that we're all going to die? Bull.

Because we release that much per year. Every year. Every decade we release 3 "millimetres" of CO2. Or increase atmospheric levels by ~10%. That is far from insignificant. It also causes positive feedback effects, which magnify its impact.

Your argument from incredulity is a weak one. Consider this: At night in the desert, you will lose heat by radiation to space (this is pretty cool, actually). You are protected and insulated from space by tens of kilometres of air, and yet you will still feel warmer if you put on a jacket just a couple of millimetres thick. This is because the jacket is far better at blocking heat from escaping than the atmosphere. Similarly, CO2 is far more opaque to IR radiation than either nitrogen or oxygen, so it has a far greater warming effect.

If you mean me? Your claim that I'm posting unsupported claims, is an unsupported claim. Everything I've posted in here is stuff that can be found without even looking at a single "peer reviewed paper". (and also there's this minor problem--when I do go out of my way to prove my case, people like you refuse to believe it and start cooking up ways to not believe it)

The amount of CO2 emitted by humans breathing? Google.

The fact that this is not a major contribution because it is mostly offset by increased plant biomass, also google.

The deal about the IPCC admitting that "linking CO2 to global warming is extremely difficult"? CNN news web site. (I call that "Chinese weasel words", because "extremely difficult" is how the Chinese say "no")

I can't find the link you're talking about. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's about as factually correct as those "Obama accidentally admits he's a Muslim" videos that take one quote or stumble over words out of context, then twist it beyond all recognition (all to a dramatic soundtrack).

The claim by peadar1987 that CO2 emissions must be countered via sequestration, or CO2 levels in the atmosphere go up? Hell, I don't even need the Internet to disprove that one. I need two words: "paper" and "plastics". Every piece of paper you touch, every plastic bottle you sip water from, is a chunk of carbon that is not in the ground AND not in plants AND not in the atmosphere--in other words, completely outside peadar's equation. And every time you recycle that piece of paper or plastic? That's carbon atoms that stay in circulation--neither in the ground nor in the atmosphere.

Paper and plastics are carbon sinks. Carbon tied up in these is sequestered.

The scientific community has long since been poisoned by scientific witch hunts, in which anybody with a dissenting opinion is almost literally tied to a pole and set on fire. So for many years I've been looking elsewhere. I look for ways to prove or disprove things using stuff we common folk can actually get to--and read without a thesaurus.

What is your qualification to determine what is and isn't a good source?

Homeopaths also don't get published in reputable scientific journals. It's not because there is a conspiracy or witch hunt, it's because they're wrong, and their "scientific" analysis doesn't stand up to peer review.

[citation needed] Especially since volcanism is measured by amount of physical stuff ejected, and not gasses. The most scientific numbers on those amounts are 'a whole lot.'

Actually the VEI goes up to 8. A 7 happened in 1815, which dumped enough gasses and ejecta into the atmosphere to drop the global temperature by half a degree Celsius for a decade. I find it interesting that the study of that volcanic eruption showed:

-Massive increases in all greenhouse gasses for 1815-1820.

-A surprisingly rapid drop to pre-eruption levels.

-A net cooling effect on the climate, despite the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses (offset by the particulate matter, I know, but still).

So if your assertion that we're much more deadly to the climate than volcanoes, why has the global temperature increased by such a comparatively small amount (.8C over the last 200 years.)? And why is our planet capable of handling these massive events which dump poisonous toxins, but not CO2 (which can vary at the surface by several hundred ppm based on time of day, winds, and proximity to TREES) being dispersed over a longer period of time?

If we're actually LESS dangerous than volcanoes, then there is empirical evidence our planet can survive worse with no long-term repercussions.

Because particulates have a stronger, but shorter-lived effect. We are far more dangerous in the long term than volcanoes, because we are releasing more greenhouse gases than them (Krakatoa doesn't come around every year, or even every century).

[ZetaX]

Go your own ways, and try not to kill yourself denying car fumes in your garage.

Sadly those producing the CO2 are not even those that get hit by it most. I am pretty sure they would stop before they die; but currently, they fill everyone else's garages first, being the last ones that will face the consequences. While denying that fumes exist and/or that they are a problem.

[Halo_003]

BTW if you really want geothermal, just neogeothermal, take the nuclear waste bury around a corrosion resistent piping system in some place were ground water is trapped, like the upper high plains, and use your decaying over 29000 years isotopes tobgenerate the steam you want. The brits have already declared there is an endless supply of energy in the waste, its only a manner of finding a safe way to extract it.

You bring up an interesting point there.. We know that our current reactors can only 'extract' a tiny percentage of the energy contained in the material being used. The 'waste' is just fuel that we've used as much as we can of. I'm sure future technology will unlock a huge amount of that stored energy from what we have already used.

In all seriousness can we talk about this? What would this sort of system entail? Never heard of it before now.

[Laie]

According to NASA [atmospheric CO2 concentration is] about 400 ppm.

When it first came up for me in school, the textbook said 280ppm -- a figure probably determined by some nineteenth-century scientist and copied onward ever since. Anyhow, somehow that figure stuck with me and whenever the papers report that we crossed a new threshold, I compare it to the old value I learned when I was still a boy. It is quite frightening.

[ZetaX]

In all seriousness can we talk about this? What would this sort of system entail? Never heard of it before now.

That system probably does not exist. We already have ways, sometimes even implemented, to extract the usable materials in nuclear waste. After those are removed, energy production of the waste itself becomes quite pointless with current technology, as llanthas said.

We really would not want to use nuclear waste as a source of energy: in comparision to a reactor we have only miniscule amounts of energy (0.1% was mentioned above, but even 5% might not be enough), while still dealing with highly radioactive stuff. Admittedly, there is probably no chance of this going critical. But it comes at much lower energy production, which causes a new problem: how to actually use that thermal energy. At the temperatures I would expect (does someone have numbers?) it might be rather inefficient.

[Elthy]

It doesnt have to be that old, look a this graphic:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg/1024px-Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg.png

[ZetaX]

It doesnt have to be that old, look a this graphic:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg/1024px-Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg.png

The 280ppm is below the bottom line, and the increase was slower back then. Thus maybe 1920 would be where it crossed it.

[GeneralVeers]

There is no remaining debate about unusual climate change, or its causes among scientists. The matter has already been settled.

Also wrong. Peer pressure is yet another method used to silence skeptics.

[ZetaX]

Also wrong. Peer pressure is yet another method used to silence skeptics.

I am 100% sure you never worked in science related areas. And by the way, you yet again did not provide any proof for your claim.

[GeneralVeers]

I'm not going to present the entire sum of human knowledge on this, and

You don't have to. I've seen it. Not the whole kit and kaboodle, to be sure, but a whole lot of it. It's the reason I'm a global warming skeptic.

I am 100% sure you never worked in science related areas. And by the way, you yet again did not provide any proof for your claim.

Ad hominem fallacy.

If everything is that "obvious" as you claim, you surely will have no problem linking to trustworthy sites discussing this.

You're not the first person to type the above at me. Not by a country mile. But you knew that already.

It always ends the same way. I post links, and the opponent(s) make baseless claims that the links I posted are NOT trustworthy. Then I point out the fallacies they commited doing that, then they argue that their fallacies are not fallacies, and that's the real death spiral that causes the mods to hand out infractions and kill threads.

I gave up on following that path several years ago. There are people who actually do care about finding the truth (usually they're the ones who read a thread but don't post in it), and I've pointed out to them how they can do that. Without having to read scientific Pig Latin in hardcore articles.

In fact, here's another one just for fun. "Global dimming" is a known phenomenon: particulate pollution (i.e. soot) in the atmosphere reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth. Global dimming is known to have a net cooling effect on the planet. Now, for considerably longer than I've been alive, human beings have been trying to clean up "pollution". The problem being that, for most of that time, "pollution" meant soot and other particulate gunk--not carbon dioxide. For the last few decades, humans have been putting a lot more effort into cleaning up soot and smoke than carbon dioxide. Short version: global dimming causes planetary cooling. Human beings have been working hard to eliminate global dimming. What's the end result? Warming. A source of global warming that doesn't involve greenhouse gases at all.

[Elthy]

That would mean in preindustrail it was hotter, too. Any evidence for that?

[ZetaX]

Ad hominem fallacy.

Read (e.g. on wikipedia) what that actually means and realise that this completely unrelated. But I guess you are again confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A"; in this case with "not having any clue how science works" as A and "is not a scientist" as B. I would say that clearly A=>B, but B=>A might easily be wrong. Even if I had claimed B=>A, which I clearly did not, it would still not be an ad hominem by the way: it only is if the claimed property has no relevance to the claims, and I am pretty sure that not being a scientist makes you less able to know what its inner working are.

- - - Updated - - -

That would mean in preindustrail it was hotter, too. Any evidence for that?

Probably not, as many of the places that are having problems with melting glaciers now did not have them in the hundreds of years before. Unless we now also add another claim that melting ice is not related to warming or similiar sillyness.

[Stargate525]

Take your own sample of accredited scientists, or peer-reviewed papers, or websites with actual data on climate change. There is no debate. That's why it makes global news when anyone says it's not real. I'm not going to present the entire sum of human knowledge on this, and watch you try to fight it. It's not worth anyone's time.

We're taking a fifty or sixty year sample size of temperatures, rises of global temperatures which usually uptick less than the error margin of the instruments, and proclaiming it's end of the world.

-Despite having no effing clue how rapid or gradual pre-civilized climate shifts occurred.

-Despite having no effing clue how to accurately measure or predict flora changes to increased CO2 emissions on a global scale.

-Despite these same groups of experts quite firmly stated not fifty years ago that there would be global cooling. (I checked the provided links, and traced back the papers' sources; they're all as legit as any global warming article printed today).

-Despite the public consensus and support of climate change policy and science continually sliding.

-Despite the fact that the IPCC has missed not one, not two, but FIVE of their predictions of future temperatures.

-Despite the fact that all current temperature measurements that show warming are adjusted, and the organizations producing the figures refuse to disclose HOW they are adjusted.

-Despite the continuing increase in CO2 emissions, We have had no significant warming in the past decade.

-Despite this being the ONLY KNOWN time in human history that warmer temperatures have been heralded as a bad thing, and that a warmer planet is largely beneficial for us.

I can respect that you believe it's happening. What I CAN'T respect is refusing to acknowledge the valid concerns and evidence of the other side and deflecting it with 'there is no debate.' You're refusing to take the field on something that SHOULD, by your own admission, be as simple as explaining why the world is round.

Coward.

[ZetaX]

There really is no debate outside politics. Scientifically, it is pretty settled. And we HAVE data from earlier times and they tell us that this is not the norm. And lots of other things disproving your claim.

And "coward" is a horrible choice of words. Can I call you coward for not doing [long list of very dangerous activities] now?

[Elthy]

There isnt even a debate in politics. The only thing discussed is how much to sacrifice now (in e.g. higher energy prices) to rescue a future most politicans wont ever see...

[Stargate525]

There really is no debate outside politics. Scientifically, it is pretty settled. And we HAVE data from earlier times and they tell us that this is not the norm. And lots of other things disproving your claim.

Give me ONE source which gives climate data from earlier than 1AD to a temperature resolution of less than a degree while simultaneously having time resolution of less than a decade. Please. I haven't found it.

And "coward" is a horrible choice of words. Can I call you coward for not doing [long list of very dangerous activities] now?

Yup. I don't have a right to not be offended. And I've got much thicker skin than to worry about being called a coward.

[Bill Phil]

We're taking a fifty or sixty year sample size of temperatures, rises of global temperatures which usually uptick less than the error margin of the instruments, and proclaiming it's end of the world.

-Despite having no effing clue how rapid or gradual pre-civilized climate shifts occurred.

-Despite having no effing clue how to accurately measure or predict flora changes to increased CO2 emissions on a global scale.

-Despite these same groups of experts quite firmly stated not fifty years ago that there would be global cooling. (I checked the provided links, and traced back the papers' sources; they're all as legit as any global warming article printed today).

-Despite the public consensus and support of climate change policy and science continually sliding.

-Despite the fact that the IPCC has missed not one, not two, but FIVE of their predictions of future temperatures.

-Despite the fact that all current temperature measurements that show warming are adjusted, and the organizations producing the figures refuse to disclose HOW they are adjusted.

-Despite the continuing increase in CO2 emissions, We have had no significant warming in the past decade.

-Despite this being the ONLY KNOWN time in human history that warmer temperatures have been heralded as a bad thing, and that a warmer planet is largely beneficial for us.

I can respect that you believe it's happening. What I CAN'T respect is refusing to acknowledge the valid concerns and evidence of the other side and deflecting it with 'there is no debate.' You're refusing to take the field on something that SHOULD, by your own admission, be as simple as explaining why the world is round.

Coward.

It's also global cooling, as well. Both happen at the same time depending on the region. Or at least it's been getting colder where I live.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Bill Phil

[GeneralVeers]

That would mean in preindustrail it was hotter, too.

Would it really.....? What does pre-industrial mean? It means less carbon dioxide emissions.

I find it very telling that you left that part out.

[Stargate525]

That would mean in preindustrail it was hotter, too. Any evidence for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

[Bill Phil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

What about the little Ice Age? Which happened to end near 1850. Which correlates with increased carbon emissions. But saying it's a cause is just speculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[Stargate525]

What about the little Ice Age? Which happened to end near 1850. Which correlates with increased carbon emissions. But saying it's a cause is just speculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Correlation doesn't prove causation, you're right. And despite the increased co2, it doesn't warm to warming period levels any faster than it cooled except right here near the very end of the chart.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Stargate525

[Bill Phil]

Right! So carbon goes up in 1850, causes cooling.

carbon goes up in 2000, causes warming.

SCIENCE!

No, the Little Ice Age happened to END, as in get warmer, around 1850.

[Stargate525]

No, the Little Ice Age happened to END, as in get warmer, around 1850.

damn, was hoping I edited fast enough. I realized my mistake a few seconds after posting it, and have edited.

[GeneralVeers]

Read (e.g. on wikipedia) what that actually means

Ad hominem, i.e. "to the man", means this: a debate fallacy in which, instead of attacking the argument, you attack the person who made it. Which you did by saying this:

I am 100% sure you never worked in science related areas.

It doesn't matter if I'm a scientist. It matters if I'm right.

What you were asked to prove is that there wasn't going to be a runaway greenhouse effect.

Not true. I was asked to provide a source of rising carbon dioxide emissions that didn't involve humans burning fossil fuels. The thing I really find hilarous, peadar, is that the person who demanded that of me......

.......WAS YOU!!!

If you can find another source for the rise that doesn't involve humans burning fossil fuels, congratulations on your achievement, you really deserve that Nobel Prize.

I just saw somebody misquote himself. Mind blown big time. I was going to do another round of quoting two dozen times and ending up with another Really Long Post, but I think I'd better take a break before I have an aneurysm......