Agrivoltaics, saving farms

[ding]

I thought you said this was only a local effect ...

Not when done on a global scale. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[ding]

I really don't think the next glaciation needs humans to usher her in ... she coming whether we like it or not ... to stop her, we'll need to close off the Atlantic Ocean ... we'll just have to figure something out over these next 250 generations ...

Closing off the Atlantic would usher it in even faster as that's what effectively happens when the AMOC shuts down.

 

[ding]

we'll just have to figure something out over these next 250 generations ...

I don't believe we have that long. It's probably closer to 170 generations at the most. My money is on much sooner though. I really do hope it happens in my lifetime. It would be so much fun to watch the climate community do an about face.

Interglacial periods typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years...

 

[ding]

Citation? ... the Solar Constant is 1,360 W/m^2 ... the name plate rating on the typical Chinese panel is 200 W/m^2 ... American is only 20 W/m^2 ...

Are you multiplying by the cosine of latitude? ... that really messes up these quantitative values ...

Just using the stated conversion efficiency of 15-20%.

You could always use google to find out how they arrive at that value. I prefer to use common sense to know it's not nothing and it's not everything. 15-20% seems reasonable to me.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not when done on a global scale. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Oh ... we're covering the entire planet with solar panels? ...

I'm only talking 100 square miles of panel ... spaced for maintenance access ... there's no effect a mile up ... or ten miles away ... the temperature difference occurs on the panel surface ...

Test this yourself ... lay out a 10'x25' sheet of black plastic upwind of your house ... see if you can tell the difference ... or use some of them $2 Walmart thermometers ... I think you'll find my 5ºC claim to be way over the top ... I made some awful assumptions ...

ETA: The cosine of 30º is 0.866 ...

 

[ding]

Oh ... we're covering the entire planet with solar panels? ...

I'm only talking 100 square miles of panel ... spaced for maintenance access ... there's no effect a mile up ... or ten miles away ... the temperature difference occurs on the panel surface ...

Test this yourself ... lay out a 10'x25' sheet of black plastic upwind of your house ... see if you can tell the difference ... or use some of them $2 Walmart thermometers ... I think you'll find my 5ºC claim to be way over the top ... I made some awful assumptions ...

ETA: The cosine of 30º is 0.866 ...

You mean like we drilled oil wells covering the entire planet?

The planet is net warming by only 0.6 w/m^2. So using a solar panel efficiency of 15-20% how many meters would you have to cover for a 0.7 w/m^2 reduction?

 

[toobfreak]

I really don't think the next glaciation needs humans to usher her in ... she coming whether we like it or not ...

We certainly didn't need humans for any of the past, what?--- 11 major glaciations! Earth has been glaciating these past 2-2.5 billion years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you replace fossil fuels with solar power, yes. And you will also be reducing the solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet by converting it into electricity instead.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial period other than the widespread use of solar.

And you will also be reducing the solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet by converting it into electricity instead.

Converting it into electricity doesn't stop that energy from warming the planet.

And the lower albedo of the panels causes less energy to reflect into space causing net warming.

 

[ding]

And you will also be reducing the solar radiation that warms the surface of the planet by converting it into electricity instead.

Converting it into electricity doesn't stop that energy from warming the planet.

And the lower albedo of the panels causes less energy to reflect into space causing net warming.

And yet converting from fossil fuels to solar will drastically reduce waste heat.

So you have a reduction of 15-20% in sunlight warming the planet and a reduction in overall waste heat.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial period.

 

[ReinyDays]

We certainly didn't need humans for any of the past, what?--- 11 major glaciations! Earth has been glaciating these past 2-2.5 billion years.

Well ... if the next glaciation destroys humanity ... then maybe humanity needed to be destroyed ... ice sheets down to 45º latitude is a problem for people who choose to live in snow country ... [sniff] ... so it's none of my affair ...

 

[ReinyDays]

You mean like we drilled oil wells covering the entire planet?

The planet is net warming by only 0.6 w/m^2. So using a solar panel efficiency of 15-20% how many meters would you have to cover for a 0.7 w/m^2 reduction?

I'm not claiming oil wells change weather ...

Net forcing is closer to 1.8 (±0.5) W/m^2 ... hello? ... where you getting your screwball data? ...

Who knew that converting solar radiation into electricity that would have otherwise warmed the surface of the planet would cause a localized cooling effect thereby preserving more moisture? Shocking.

Your claim was temperature ... stick to that or withdraw your claim ... then we can talk irradiation ...

The air temperature is the temperature of the air under the panel ... and has far more to do with humidity and wind speed than any electrical energy being drawn out of the system above the panel ... What you're missing here is this 20% reduction in irradiation is normal and usual over a few miles ... without solar panels ... that's all part of the natural variability of what we can weather ...

Is it cooler in a forest than a grassland? ... do you think it's so cold in the forest that it cools the grassland? ...

 

[toobfreak]

Well ... if the next glaciation destroys humanity ... then maybe humanity needed to be destroyed ...

Two things are certain, Reiny---

1. The Quaternary period reveals to us an oscillation of at least 6 mini-ice ages so far, with the implication that such frequent oscillations went on well into our past.
2. The natural process of the Earth is the continual extermination of species so to maker room for new ones.

It would be highly irregular now if suddenly ice ages stopped occurring on Earth or that mankind suddenly became a permanent resident here after 3-5 million years as Hominids. Especially when we have accelerated the pace of environmental change over the past 150 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And yet converting from fossil fuels to solar will drastically reduce waste heat.

So you have a reduction of 15-20% in sunlight warming the planet and a reduction in overall waste heat.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial period.

So you have a reduction of 15-20% in sunlight warming the planet

100% of the sunlight that isn't reflected will warm the planet, even if some is converted into electricity.

100% of the additional sunlight absorbed by the lower albedo panel will warm the planet.

Lowering the albedo of the surface won't usher in the next glacial period.

Neither will your poor understanding of the 1st Law.

 

[ReinyDays]

So you have a reduction of 15-20% in sunlight warming the planet

100% of the sunlight that isn't reflected will warm the planet, even if some is converted into electricity.

100% of the additional sunlight absorbed by the lower albedo panel will warm the planet.

Lowering the albedo of the surface won't usher in the next glacial period.

Neither will your poor understanding of the 1st Law.

Sunlight would be reduced 100% ... mainly only the panel receives direct sunlight ... the planet is shaded like in a forest ...

Just like a 100 sq mile forest, a 100 sq mile solar farm won't effect temperature a mile up or ten miles away ... any cooling effect will be local ... like feet away, not the entire planet ... this is more of his poor understanding of Atmospheric Science ...

 

[ding]

So you have a reduction of 15-20% in sunlight warming the planet

100% of the sunlight that isn't reflected will warm the planet, even if some is converted into electricity.

100% of the additional sunlight absorbed by the lower albedo panel will warm the planet.

Lowering the albedo of the surface won't usher in the next glacial period.

Neither will your poor understanding of the 1st Law.

It's a 15-20% reduction in solar radiation warming the surface and ~50% reduction in waste heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a 15-20% reduction in solar radiation warming the surface and ~50% reduction in waste heat.

It's a 15-20% reduction in solar radiation warming the surface

Where does the energy from that 15-20% reduction go? What does it warm?
What about the reduction of solar radiation reflected back into space from 30% to 10%?

 

[ding]

It's a 15-20% reduction in solar radiation warming the surface

Where does the energy from that 15-20% reduction go? What does it warm?
What about the reduction of solar radiation reflected back into space from 30% to 10%?

Read my previous posts.

 

[ReinyDays]

Read my previous posts.

We have ... you didn't answer the questions then ... and you're not answer the questions now ...

 

[ding]

We have ... you didn't answer the question then ... and you're not answer the questions now ...

Sure I did. If you can't figure it out then you are too dumb to waste my time educating. But I suspect you are intelligent enough to understand it and are just trolling me.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sure I did. If you can't figure it out then you are too dumb to waste my time educating. But I suspect you are intelligent enough to understand it and are just trolling me.

The ad hominem attack ... last pathetic excuse of a loser ...

Where do you get the value of climate forcing of 0.6 W/m^2? ... just asking for a citation ...