Agrivoltaics, saving farms

[Maxdeath]

FYI: Some plants do fine in the shade. I plant lettuce and carrots on the north side of of the house because they are shade tolerant.

I agree that some are shade tolerant but not all. Last I knew not all farmers are planting just those.

 

[ReinyDays]

I agree that some are shade tolerant but not all. Last I knew not all farmers are planting just those.

Farmers cut down anything that blocks the sunlight ... carrots and lettuce is grown out in the open, full sunshine ... I live in the forest and there's green photosynthetic plants at all levels ... green moss on the ground, herbs, scrubs, and all the way to tall 300 foot Douglas-firs ...

What plants cannot survive is complete black for more than a few days ... about the only way to kill some plants ...

 

[ding]

I did ... and the numbers say you're wrong ... I get 5ºC cooling on the panel itself under a zenith sun and a high pressure dome, extremely low RH ... i.e. under the full 1,360 W/m^2 ... so don't forget to multiply by the cosine of your latitude ...

If by local you mean ten feet ... maybe you're right ... but only under completely calm conditions, any wind at all ruins your claim ... and any water vapor in the atmosphere will heavily moderate air temperatures ...

I don't believe you know how to calculate this ... you've only used weasel words ... is that because you're a weasel? ... look at what I quoted ... talk about total weasel ... T'Patriot never claimed to have done the math ... you did claim that ...

... so let's see your math ... or admit you don't know how to calculate it ... this is more about your poor understanding of Atmospheric Science ...

I was talking about the amount of solar that needed to be installed to take the planet from a net warming of 0.6 W/m^2 to a net cooling of -0.1 W/m^2 . Solar panels convert 15 to 20% of photons in the visible light spectrum into electricity. 40 to 44% of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface is in the visible light spectrum. Solar radiation warming the Earth's surface varies greatly, but globally averaged, the planet absorbs about 240 W/m². I have given you everything you need to calculate the amount of solar panels needed - as a percentage of the landmass surface area - to reduce the 240 W/m² to 239.3 W/m^2.

 

[ReinyDays]

I was talking about the amount of solar that needed to be installed to take the planet from a net warming of 0.6 W/m^2 to a net cooling of -0.1 W/m^2 . Solar panels convert 15 to 20% of photons in the visible light spectrum into electricity. 40 to 44% of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface is in the visible light spectrum. Solar radiation warming the Earth's surface varies greatly, but globally averaged, the planet absorbs about 240 W/m². I have given you everything you need to calculate the amount of solar panels needed - as a percentage of the landmass surface area - to reduce the 240 W/m² to 239.3 W/m^2.

You been talking a lot ... but you won't tell us where you get your information ... the usual interpretation of the CERES satellite data is 1.8 W/m^2 ... but that's a forcing value ... you're using something called a "warming" value which should be written as energy, not power ... you still seem confused about the difference ... so where did you get this 0.6 W/m^2? ... or did you just have AI search for what you wanted that value to be ...

So ... T'Patriot's and my question is show us how you calculate this warming? ... with 0.6 W/m^2 "warming", what will the new temperature be? ...

Your answer was to give us a math question ... I give up ... show us how to calculate the percent of solar panels covering the land masses for this irradiation change ... start with 240 W/m^2 - 200 W/m^2 = 40 W/m^2 ... are we liquefying oxygen here? ... asking for a friend ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You been talking a lot ... but you won't tell us where you get your information ... the usual interpretation of the CERES satellite data is 1.8 W/m^2 ... but that's a forcing value ... you're using something called a "warming" value which should be written as energy, not power ... you still seem confused about the difference ... so where did you get this 0.6 W/m^2? ... or did you just have AI search for what you wanted that value to be ...

So ... T'Patriot's and my question is show us how you calculate this warming? ... with 0.6 W/m^2 "warming", what will the new temperature be? ...

Your answer was to give us a math question ... I give up ... show us how to calculate the percent of solar panels covering the land masses for this irradiation change ... start with 240 W/m^2 - 200 W/m^2 = 40 W/m^2 ... are we liquefying oxygen here? ... asking for a friend ...

I don't know what's worse, his claim that converting photons to electricity means they don't warm the planet,
or the fact that he ignores the extra 20% of the solar radiation that is absorbed by the solar panels.

 

[ding]

You been talking a lot ... but you won't tell us where you get your information ... the usual interpretation of the CERES satellite data is 1.8 W/m^2 ... but that's a forcing value ... you're using something called a "warming" value which should be written as energy, not power ... you still seem confused about the difference ... so where did you get this 0.6 W/m^2? ... or did you just have AI search for what you wanted that value to be ...

So ... T'Patriot's and my question is show us how you calculate this warming? ... with 0.6 W/m^2 "warming", what will the new temperature be? ...

Your answer was to give us a math question ... I give up ... show us how to calculate the percent of solar panels covering the land masses for this irradiation change ... start with 240 W/m^2 - 200 W/m^2 = 40 W/m^2 ... are we liquefying oxygen here? ... asking for a friend ...

I told you where I got the 0.6 W/m^2 net warming. I got it from NASA. Which is pretty much the same place I got everything else. So it would only take a reduction of 0.7 W/m^2 to switch from net warming to net cooling. Is this beyond your ability to understand?

Tell me you understand this and I'll walk you through the next part.

 

[ReinyDays]

I told you where I got the 0.6 W/m^2 net warming. I got it from NASA. Which is pretty much the same place I got everything else. So it would only take a reduction of 0.7 W/m^2 to switch from net warming to net cooling. Is this beyond your ability to understand?

Tell me you understand this and I'll walk you through the next part.

No link? ... no math? ... fine, use whatever dataset you want ... what's the temperature? ...

The State of California expects her 14-year-old children to do this level of math ... why can't you? ...

 

[ding]

No link? ... no math? ... fine, use whatever dataset you want ... what's the temperature? ...

The State of California expects her 14-year-old children to do this level of math ... why can't you? ...

We'll get there. Do you understand that it would take a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction in solar radiation to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?

 

[ReinyDays]

We'll get there. Do you understand that it would take a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction in solar radiation to change the planet from net warming to net cooling?

This is called "radiative forcing" by scientists ... is there something about the scientific terminology you're having problems with? ...

I already said you can use any dataset you want ... show us the math ... what's the new temperature with 0.7 W/m^2 forcing? ...

ETA: Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy (per Boltzmann's Law) ... I know that's you're next weasel ...

 

[ding]

This is called "radiative forcing" by scientists ... is there something about the scientific terminology you're having problems with? ...

I already said you can use any dataset you want ... show us the math ... what's the new temperature with 0.7 W/m^2 forcing? ...

ETA: Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy (per Boltzmann's Law) ... I know that's you're next weasel ...

So you don't understand that to change the planet from net warming to net cooling it would take a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction in solar radiation?

 

[ReinyDays]

So you don't understand that to change the planet from net warming to net cooling it would take a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction in solar radiation?

Do you mean like during the 11-year solar cycle? ... because that's roughly 1 W/m^2 difference ... so what's the calculated difference between solar minima and solar maxima? ...

Wikipedia gives 3.3 x 10^26 watts of solar radiation ... but you're using units of irradiance ... do you understand the difference ... again, you're having problems with scientific terminology ... like you're making this up as you go ...

Just weaseling your way out of posting anything resembling mathematics ... Gemini failed you again ...

 

[ding]

Do you mean like during the 11-year solar cycle? ... because that's roughly 1 W/m^2 difference ... so what's the calculated difference between solar minima and solar maxima? ...

Wikipedia gives 3.3 x 10^26 watts of solar radiation ... but you're using units of irradiance ... do you understand the difference ... again, you're having problems with scientific terminology ... like you're making this up as you go ...

Just weaseling your way out of posting anything resembling mathematics ... Gemini failed you again ...

I'm using this.

Quit acting like a troll.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm using this.
View attachment 1193812

Quit acting like a troll.

I'm just asking for you to verify your claims ... and for the third time, use any damn dataset you wish ...

See where is says "absorbed by the surface 163.3 [W/m^2]" ... where we getting 200 W output from the solar panel? ... I went ahead and found the citations in your cartoon ... Loeb et al 2009 and Trenberth et al 2009 ... hope that helps ...

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... [giggle] ... the last resort of the loser ...

I calculated if we cover 1% of the planet's land surface with solar panels that will be enough to take the planet from 0.6 w/m^2 net warming to -0.1 w/m^2 net cooling.

No you didn't ... you wouldn't know how to calculate that ... or you'd have posted it already ...

340.4 x 4 = 1,361.2 ... shocking ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. The direct physical effect: albedo (warming)​

Solar panels are dark compared to most natural land surfaces.

• Typical land albedo: ~0.2–0.4 (reflects 20–40% of sunlight)
• Solar panel albedo: ~0.05–0.1 (reflects very little)

That means panels absorb more sunlight, turning it into:

• Electricity (temporarily useful)
• Heat (ultimately released to the environment)

If you covered ~1% of Earth’s land surface (~1.5 million km²):

• You would increase solar energy absorption
• This causes a small positive radiative forcing (warming)

Estimates from climate modeling put this at roughly:

~0.01–0.05 W/m² globally averaged

That’s tiny, but it is technically warming.

 

[ReinyDays]

1. The direct physical effect: albedo (warming)​

Solar panels are dark compared to most natural land surfaces.

• Typical land albedo: ~0.2–0.4 (reflects 20–40% of sunlight)
• Solar panel albedo: ~0.05–0.1 (reflects very little)

That means panels absorb more sunlight, turning it into:

• Electricity (temporarily useful)
• Heat (ultimately released to the environment)

If you covered ~1% of Earth’s land surface (~1.5 million km²):

• You would increase solar energy absorption
• This causes a small positive radiative forcing (warming)

Estimates from climate modeling put this at roughly:




That’s tiny, but it is technically warming.

The Urban Heat Island effect ... nice call ...

 

[ding]

I'm just asking for you to verify your claims ... and for the third time, use any damn dataset you wish ...

See where is says "absorbed by the surface 163.3 [W/m^2]" ... where we getting 200 W output from the solar panel? ... I went ahead and found the citations in your cartoon ... Loeb et al 2009 and Trenberth et al 2009 ... hope that helps ...

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... [giggle] ... the last resort of the loser ...



No you didn't ... you wouldn't know how to calculate that ... or you'd have posted it already ...

340.4 x 4 = 1,361.2 ... shocking ...

I'm trying to but I can't get you to acknowledge that the planet is net warming by 0.6 W/m^2 and that to become net cooling would take a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction. Then we can move to the next step. Doesn't make any sense to do that if you deny the planet is net warming by 0.6 W/m^2.

 

[ding]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... [giggle] ... the last resort of the loser ...

But you are acting like a troll. Because you can't seriously expect me to believe you don't understand what I am saying.

 

[ding]

See where is says "absorbed by the surface 163.3 [W/m^2]" ... where we getting 200 W output from the solar panel? ... I went ahead and found the citations in your cartoon ... Loeb et al 2009 and Trenberth et al 2009 ... hope that helps ...

What are you yammering about? Solar radiation warming the Earth's surface varies greatly, but globally averaged, the planet absorbs about 240 W/m², right? Or would you like to provide a different number? Because that's the number that you have to reduce by 0.7 W/m^2 to arrive at the percentage of land surface area that has to be covered by solar panels to change the planet from net warming to net cooling. Pretty simple, huh?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm trying to but I can't get you to acknowledge that the planet is net warming by 0.6 W/m^2 and that to become net cooling would take a 0.7 W/m^2 reduction. Then we can move to the next step. Doesn't make any sense to do that if you deny the planet is net warming by 0.6 W/m^2.

Weasel ... for the FOURTH TIME ... use any dataset you want ... why would your mathematics need my acknowledgment? ... too funny ... you said you calculated the second value, let's see these calculations you said you already did ... without my acknowledgment ...

What are you yammering about? Solar radiation warming the Earth's surface varies greatly, but globally averaged, the planet absorbs about 240 W/m², right? Or would you like to provide a different number? Because that's the number that you have to reduce by 0.7 W/m^2 to arrive at the percentage of land surface area that has to be covered by solar panels to change the planet from net warming to net cooling. Pretty simple, huh?

Your little cartoon you're using ... in post #212 above ... "I'm using this." ... and maybe I should clearly state my appreciation for the citation ... I'm sincerely glad you understand what a scientific citation is ...

You're adding the energy received at the surface (163.3) with the longwave absorbed in the stratosphere (77.1) ... I don't know why ... temperatures at the stratopause (≈175,000 feet) don't effect solar panel performance ... or temperatures at the surface ...

I have a spreadsheet that calculates this ... I have the answer here in front of me ... you said you calculated this ... so let's see the calculations ... use the numbers in the cartoon chart, I know how to argue with Leob and Trenberth if I disagree ...

Weasel ...

 

[ding]

Weasel ... for the FOURTH TIME ... use any dataset you want ... why would your mathematics need my acknowledgment? ... too funny ... you said you calculated the second value, let's see these calculations you said you already did ... without my acknowledgment ...



Your little cartoon you're using ... in post #212 above ... "I'm using this." ... and maybe I should clearly state my appreciation for the citation ... I'm sincerely glad you understand what a scientific citation is ...

You're adding the energy received at the surface (163.3) with the longwave absorbed in the stratosphere (77.1) ... I don't know why ... temperatures at the stratopause (≈175,000 feet) don't effect solar panel performance ... or temperatures at the surface ...

I have a spreadsheet that calculates this ... I have the answer here in front of me ... you said you calculated this ... so let's see the calculations ... use the numbers in the cartoon chart, I know how to argue with Leob and Trenberth if I disagree ...

Weasel ...

All you have to do to move forward is to say you accept the planet is net warming by 0.6 W/m^2 and that the planet - on average - absorbs about 240 W/m².

Can you do that instead of throwing a temper tantrum and trying to skip steps?