Impact of solar panels on global climate

[Bill Phil]

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

That's okay. I make similar mistakes all the time.

And it is only increasing rapidly near the end of the chart.

[ZetaX]

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:

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

Read my last response to you again. I already explained why it is not an ad hominem. For that to be it would be necessary for this to be used as part of an argument. Instead it is more or less the conclusion: that you very definitely did not work in science-related areas. And we see that as you make claims about scientific work itself that are plain wrong, and anyone working in it would know. And in this case it is very relevant: you made claims about science's inner workings, and thuse were just wrong.

At no point did I attack you. I only explained why I am very sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. WHich also turns it into a non-ad hominem, by the way. being a scientist is very very obviously strongly related to know how it works (almost by definition).

And you simply are not right. You make up statistics, claims, and refuse to give ANY proof, while attributing this to all those people that would not believe you anyway (nice circular reasoning to excuse yourself from anything you got there).

[ZetaX]

And when you try to explain to them what happened, I hope you will remember this conversation.

I am taking bets that all those fierce adversaries of climate change will either forget about their position or make up excuses such as "who would have really known it ends like this?"; wouldn't be the first time in history it ends that way.

[Stargate525]

More importantly, it doesn't matter whether I convince you, and everyone else on this website, or in the entire world. It will not change a thing.

We have not even begun to see the effects of what is happening on this planet, but I can assure you that your grandchildren will know them well. And when you try to explain to them what happened, I hope you will remember this conversation.

Repent, unbeliever, the end is nigh! :rollseyes: I also love how convincing the whole world won't change anything. So, is it too late (making the repent unbeliever thing even more apropos), or do we not have power over the climate after all?

I am taking bets that all those fierce adversaries of climate change will either forget about their position or make up excuses such as "who would have really known it ends like this?"; wouldn't be the first time in history it ends that way.

I'll take that bet if you take a counter-bet; that when the climate swings back downwards of its own accord, not a single climate expert will apologize or face repercussions over the billions wasted on their word that CO2 is the devil.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Stargate525

[insert_name]

what does most of this thread have to do with solar panels?

[Bill Phil]

what does most of this thread have to do with solar panels?

The second part of the title is what most people are focusing on.

[Stargate525]

We don't have control of anything. And no force on earth, short of a supervolcano exploding could stop what's happening in our lifetime. So yeah, it really doesn't matter. I don't personally care what you think, I was here for a discussion of solar panels.

Then if it's already too late, WHY spend untold billions of dollars attempting to wreck industrializing nations and hamstringing first world nations by trying to quit fossil fuels at a stupid rate for half-baked alternative power sources that can't meet our demands?

And if we don't have control of anything, I assume you mean in both directions. In which case, we couldn't have done it!

Make up your mind!

[Bill Phil]

Then if it's already too late, WHY spend untold billions of dollars attempting to wreck industrializing nations and hamstringing first world nations by trying to quit fossil fuels at a stupid rate for half-baked alternative power sources that can't meet our demands?

And if we don't have control of anything, I assume you mean in both directions. In which case, we couldn't have done it!

Make up your mind!

If we're gonna slow our emissions, it'll take time. I estimate it as a century or so. Rising nations have a high demand for fossil fuels, but already developed ones have a better situation to lower emissions. It will definitely take time. But the process has to be started if we don't want a Mad Max style apocalypse on our hands.

[PB666]

So for clean alternative energy source. I wonder how much chemicals is released to environment to produce solar panel?

Its varies with the regulatory oversight of the countries in which the rare earths are harvested. China is the principle harvester only because the US opted out when the prices began to fall. There are 5 places in the US where concentrations of rare earths are adequate. However with evolving supermaterials in a decade rare-earths may no longer be needed for low temperature solar applications. Currently the only active rare earth sight in the US is In Southern California.

The danger in the thinking here is chinas solar industry is good for the US, the brown cloud that china has launched into the north pacific has created a decadal drought in the american west and southwest, crippling water supplies and threatening agriculture. We need to allow the chinese to ween themselves off of dirty coal and start on the process of rethinking risk and safety.

Edited November 14, 2015 by PB666

[Stargate525]

More importantly, it doesn't matter whether I convince you, and everyone else on this website, or in the entire world. It will not change a thing.

The atmosphere of our planet is not on a f*cking on/off switch. It took 200 years to create this disaster, and it will take a few hundred years to stop it. I don't know what your health plan looks like, but you probably won't be around for that. Stop trolling the crap out of a science thread with your illogical waste of thought.

Make up. Your mind. Can it be stopped, or can't it?

[peadar1987]

Make up. Your mind. Can it be stopped, or can't it?

Can't be stopped, only mitigated.

[ZetaX]

Make up. Your mind. Can it be stopped, or can't it?

Your position is like "oh, we accidentely cut off a leg; no reason to stop the bleeding"...

[Stargate525]

Your position is like "oh, we accidentely cut off a leg; no reason to stop the bleeding"...

With the big difference being that the leg's coming off tomorrow. Maybe. Because the expert said that yesterday, too.

[ZetaX]

No, what you are talking about is the second leg. For which you already want to lay on a scalpel, because why not.

[Stargate525]

No, what you are talking about is the second leg. For which you already want to lay on a scalpel, because why not.

So you're saying that the climate RIGHT NOW is the equivalent of having lost a leg.

How? We've had worse droughts, floods, rain, lack of rain, heat waves, cold waves... pretty much EVERYTHING at points in the past.

[Bill Phil]

So you're saying that the climate RIGHT NOW is the equivalent of having lost a leg.

How? We've had worse droughts, floods, rain, lack of rain, heat waves, cold waves... pretty much EVERYTHING at points in the past.

Yeah, but we didn't have as advanced technology.

And also, you're putting into the Earth's atmosphere billions of tonnes, meaning that you're going to need a lot of stuff to prevent it from happening anyhow.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Bill Phil

[GeneralVeers]

Read my last response to you again.

No. I got it right the first time. You ad-hominem'ed me.

And you simply are not right. You make up statistics, claims, and refuse to give ANY proof

Lies, across the board. Particularly that last bit--that was really nasty. I cited all my sources, except in one case where it wasn't needed: that bit about animal biomass being a likely source of carbon dioxide that doesn't involve fossil fuels. There will be no citing of sources there. Why? Because I am the source. I am the person who analyzed the raw data and produced the result.

If you ever wonder why it's impossible to convert me to the global warming alarmist religion? The above are two reasons. You're not unique or special here; all the other alarmists always say the same things, and I've heard your arguments (and peadar's and everyone else's) many times. As long as they keep doing that, I will continue to dismiss global warming alarmism out of hand.

That done, there was a question I asked somewhere on this site (might have been this thread, but I don't remember), which was unsurprisingly never answered. I think I know why, but that's not something necessary for you to know. The question was this:

What's the albedo of a solar panel? The whole point of solar panels was to get electricity without producing carbon dioxide....because carbon dioxide supposedly causes global warming. Well, solar panels are only around 10% effecient, which means the rest of the solar energy that hits them is reflected. As light......or as heat.......

If the albedo of a solar panel is too low, solar panels could actually cause more warming than fossil fuels. So, what's the albedo of solar panels?

Anyone?

Edited November 15, 2015 by WedgeAntilles

[Chakat Firepaw]

No. I got it right the first time. You ad-hominem'ed me.

No, he insulted you. It's only an ad-hom if he is drawing a conclusion from the fact that you are ignorant.

If the albedo of a solar panel is too low, solar panels could actually cause more warming than fossil fuels. So, what's the albedo of solar panels?

Anyone?

Even if the albedo was 0 and they were exclusively placed on locations with an albedo of 1, the impact would be negligible[1]. You aren't exactly taking a new line of argument, Steve Levitt was making it 6 years ago and he was soundly debunked then.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/?wpmp_tp=1

Note that _all_ forms of electricity generation produce waste heat. Once you start using realistic numbers, (solar panels don't have 0 albodo nor are they generally placed on bright, reflective, surfaces[2]), coal has a direct warming effect at least as powerful[3].

[1] Enough solar panels to provide the entire planet's demand for electricity would only cover 1% of 1% of the surface. At most this can have an impact of ~0.02 W/m^2, (average surface insolation is about 200 W/m^2), anthropogenic CO2 has a directly observed impact of ~2 W/m^2.

[2] And given that things like roofs are commonly matte black....

[3] But still not significant.

[ZetaX]

No, he insulted you.

If "you are not an actual scientist" counts an insult, ok. I would say it is merely a factual statement. Compare it to "you do not own a billion dollar company" (to imply that he wouldn't know how to lead one), which, while probably something that he regrets not to be, is still not an insult. Not everyone is a scientist, and not being one is not inherently bad. But I can live with him considering it an insult, if he desires so; still not what it is intended to be.

[GeneralVeers]

I consider it an ad hominem. Period. If you consider it an insult.....well, an insult is still sufficient grounds for me to dismiss all your arguments categorically. Followed by some kind of snarky comment about how you shouldn't be in here, or some such.


[quote name='Chakat Firepaw']Even if the albedo was 0 and they were exclusively placed on locations with an albedo of 1, the impact would be negligible[1].[/QUOTE]
Not true. And I don't need a single link to anywhere to debunk this. I've got all the knowledge needed, in my own brain. Want to know what my source is? [B]I am the source.[/B]

Here's why 40,000 to 200,000 square miles of solar panels would produce a lot more than "negligible" warming. The lower albedo (reflectivity, basically) of a solar panel means more solar radiation is absorbed rather than reflected. When absorbed, it's converted to heat. When a solid object absorbs heat (and gets hot) another factor gets introduced into the equation. Convection. And it's already common knowledge that that's a lot of heat. Next time there's a sunny day in whatever locale you happen to live in? Go outside around noontime and put your hand on the WHITE sidewalk. Not the asphalt, you already know how hot that gets on a sunny day. Notice that even the WHITE sidewalk gets pretty hot when exposed to sunlight (see what I'm doing here? showing you how you can verify something yourself, without looking up a single web page anywhere?)

The heat transmitting from the sidewalk into your hand is convection. When you're hand isn't there, the heat is going into the atmosphere. And it's significant.

And it's also the reason why comparing solar panels to CO2 is bogus--the two are not comparable, because CO2 does something solar panels don't (well, there's other reasons in addition, actually). It's common knowledge that the Earth's atmosphere reflects about 30% of the Sun's radiation energy back into space before it ever hits the ground. How? Greenhouse gases. CO2 doesn't only keep heat in. It keeps it out.


[QUOTE]anthropogenic CO2 has a directly observed impact of ~2 W/m^2.[/QUOTE]
Bogus. How do I know this? Equally simple: because in the last two centuries or so, Earth's concentration of CO2 has gone up a lot (approximately doubled) but the planet's temperature has barely changed. The ultimate verification of a theory is [B]testing.[/B] (GLaDOS says hi!) The testing has been done. CO2 has failed.

Not done yet. Got more. It's been estimated that, if there was no CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at all, it would be around 30 degrees colder than it is. Which leads to this: if CO2 levels have doubled since, say, the start of the Industrial Revolution, then before the start of the Industrial Revolution, the Earth should have been 15 degrees colder. It was not. (there was the Little Ice Age, but that didn't even come close.) And yes, I've read the standard response by alarmists: that the planet takes a long time to respond to changes in CO2 levels. That response makes the theory impossible to test. If it's untestable, it's bogus.

Curious puzzle, isn't it? CO2 is keeping the Earth 30 degrees warmer. Yet double the CO2 didn't produce double the warming. I know the answer to this puzzle. Want to know it? I'll tell you.

If you ask nicely.

[Stargate525]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Not done yet. Got more. It's been estimated that, if there was no CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at all, it would be around 30 degrees colder than it is. Which leads to this: if CO2 levels have doubled since, say, the start of the Industrial Revolution, then before the start of the Industrial Revolution, the Earth should have been 15 degrees colder. It was not. (there was the Little Ice Age, but that didn't even come close.) And yes, I've read the standard response by alarmists: that the planet takes a long time to respond to changes in CO2 levels. That response makes the theory impossible to test. If it's untestable, it's bogus.

Curious puzzle, isn't it? CO2 is keeping the Earth 30 degrees warmer. Yet double the CO2 didn't produce double the warming. I know the answer to this puzzle. Want to know it? I'll tell you.

If you ask nicely.[/QUOTE]
Minor point of order. That assumes that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is linear, when it's much more likely to be a logarithmic (?) relation. Not sure that's the right word, but basically the more you add, the less effect it has.

[GeneralVeers]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Nailed it square on the head, Stargate. Greenhouse gases are subject to diminishing returns. When you start with an uninsulated object (planet, house, yourself without a sweater, whatever) the first unit of insulation has the most effect. Adding more insulation (say, putting on another sweater over the first one) provides less and less insulation. For this reason, all the extra insulation we're adding to the Earth is having no significant effect.

[ZetaX]

No, it is not logarithmic (that simply makes no sense). A very naive one might give you sqrt(amount), but even that is probably off by a lot. And another reason why this is still a lot, even if we assume that sqrt: such things are relative to absolute 0. Thus even an increase by only 10% is an icnrease by about 30°.

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I consider it an ad hominem. Period. If you consider it an insult.....well, an insult is still sufficient grounds for me to dismiss all your arguments categorically. Followed by some kind of snarky comment about how you shouldn't be in here, or some such.[/QUOTE]

So you continue to construct an ad hominem/insult out of nowhere, just to self-rightously dismiss all my points without an argument? That's just low.

[Ruedii]

Unless you cover more than 10% of the earth with solar panels, you aren't going to have much of an impact at all. Considering that less than 1% is needed to meet the power needs of humans, I doubt this would happen.

A typical localized snowstorm or a cloudy day in an area has more impact on climate.

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='Ruedii']A typical localized snowstorm or a cloudy day in an area has more impact on climate.[/QUOTE]
Not true. A solid object is going to have a lot more impact per unit mass than gas, vapor, or particulate solids in the air.


[quote name='ZetaX']No, it is not logarithmic (that simply makes no sense).[/QUOTE]
It makes perfect sense. You can test it yourself, as I already explained.

You're standing outside in subzero weather with only a shirt on. You're really cold. Put on a sweater. Now you're a good deal warmer. Put on a second sweater over the first one; you're warmer than with just one sweater, but not by much. Each successive sweater insulates less than the previous one. You quickly reach a point where you're cozy warm and no additional insulation is worth bothering with.

[quote name='ZetaX']So you continue to construct an ad hominem/insult out of nowhere[/QUOTE]
Claiming I said something I didn't? "Straw man" fallacy.

[quote name='ZetaX']That's just low.[/QUOTE]
As the old saying goes: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. You have done badly unto me. Edited November 17, 2015 by WedgeAntilles