Satellite measurements don't lie. So do enough of it and it will have an impact on the planet.
Solar panels and sheep
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
There's nothing for me to argue until you say that you believe that 100% of the electricity that is used (including electricity that was used to perform work), heats the surface of planet just like sunlight striking the surface of the planet.
Why won't you say that? What is it that you disagree with?
CO2 does warm the surface of the planet. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based solely on simple physics calculations (without considering feedbacks), suggests an initial global warming of slightly more than 1°C.
I also quote Karl Marx when he said communism is naturalized atheism. That doesn't mean I agree with Marx. Just that one thing.
But what you fail to understand is that global cooling is catastrophic. Warming another 2C - which the planet has done in the last two interglacial periods - not so much.
No. It's a study on the impact of large solar farms. Stop being so emotional. Cut back on your soy products.
elektra
Diamond Member
Whatever you linked to ding-a-ling is calling you a liar. Ding-a-ling posted a link that contradicts ding-a-ling's idea that solar panels are like air conditioners, cooling the earth
It should be noted that the effects of SF on surface temperature and near-surface air temperature are not consistent [70]. Some studies have noted that PV panels have a significant heating effect on air temperature within 2–5 m of the surface, which creates a heat island effect [17], [71]. This is because the PV panels generate very high sensible heat during their operation, which directly heats up the air above the PV surface. I
Maybe read the conclusion of the study?
5. Conclusion
Based on satellite remote sensing data, our assessment of 116 SF around the world provided new observational evidence for the impacts of SF on albedo, vegetation, and land surface temperature. Our results revealed significant land surface cooling, especially during the daytime, and a mostly negative impact on albedo and vegetation.
elektra
Diamond Member
You posted a study saying the opposite. You are unreliable.
Ding-a-ling, you claim that solar panels are a bad idea then you link and the link says solar panels are a good idea.
Ding-a-ling did not read the study
Maybe post the conclusions? Because you have no clue what that is actually saying.
elektra
Diamond Member
What hurts is reading you ignore your own link.
Our method for quantifying SF impacts has uncertainties and limitations. First, due to the constraint of spatial resolution and data quality, the MODIS data used in this study were insufficient to cover small SF samples, which introduced uncertainty to the quantification. Although we focused on SF covering a large area, mixed pixel problems were still present.
You really think these authors are saying they used an inferior method? They are saying the opposite. You didn't read the paper.
Here's what they have to say...
Our attempts to quantify SF impacts demonstrated the great potential of satellite remote sensing for investigating various SF impacts, and the proposed methodology can be applied to other regions with available SF information. For this purpose, it would be essential to promote the development of satellite data products optimized for solar farm-related variables (e.g., with refined retrieval algorithms or parameters) to improve the usability and robustness of satellite data for solar farm-related applications. Further studies could utilize such satellite data to better characterize fine-scale impacts (with spatial resolutions higher than MODIS data such as Landsat) and expand the scope to address other ecological and environmental impacts. These satellite-derived findings could be combined with field observations and numerical simulations to clarify the mechanism of SF impacts. In-depth knowledge of SF impacts is informative about the environmental consequences of solar energy development and can help guide the planning of renewable energy to meet both climate targets and sustainable development.
elektra
Diamond Member
Why did you link to a study stating the opposite?
The development of solar energy serves as a key solution for energy transition to reduce carbon emissions and to address global warming
Because they have drunk the koolaid. Like the majority of their community. Doesn't make their satellite measurements wrong.
elektra
Diamond Member
Me, I quoted what the authors stated
Our method for quantifying SF impacts has uncertainties and limitations.
Me too.
Our attempts to quantify SF impacts demonstrated the great potential of satellite remote sensing for investigating various SF impacts, and the proposed methodology can be applied to other regions with available SF information. For this purpose, it would be essential to promote the development of satellite data products optimized for solar farm-related variables (e.g., with refined retrieval algorithms or parameters) to improve the usability and robustness of satellite data for solar farm-related applications. Further studies could utilize such satellite data to better characterize fine-scale impacts (with spatial resolutions higher than MODIS data such as Landsat) and expand the scope to address other ecological and environmental impacts. These satellite-derived findings could be combined with field observations and numerical simulations to clarify the mechanism of SF impacts. In-depth knowledge of SF impacts is informative about the environmental consequences of solar energy development and can help guide the planning of renewable energy to meet both climate targets and sustainable development.
elektra
Diamond Member
From your study
Our method for quantifying SF impacts has uncertainties and limitations.
Every method has uncertainties and limitations, dummy.
You should have posted it all.
It should be noted that the effects of SF on surface temperature and near-surface air temperature are not consistent [70]. Some studies have noted that PV panels have a significant heating effect on air temperature within 2–5 m of the surface, which creates a heat island effect [17], [71]. This is because the PV panels generate very high sensible heat during their operation, which directly heats up the air above the PV surface. It has been reported that urban rooftop PV increases sensible heat flux by 10 times during the daytime, which warms the atmosphere [72]. In summary, PV panels capture the energy originally absorbed and dissipated directly by the ground surface, and convert it into electrical energy output while releasing heat. PV changes both the local surface energy balance and microclimates, with different effects on LST and near-surface air temperature.
And this in no way contradicts the finding of the study.
5. Conclusion
Based on satellite remote sensing data, our assessment of 116 SF around the world provided new observational evidence for the impacts of SF on albedo, vegetation, and land surface temperature. Our results revealed significant land surface cooling, especially during the daytime, and a mostly negative impact on albedo and vegetation.
elektra
Diamond Member
Yep, your study states this.
Our method for quantifying SF impacts has uncertainties and limitations.
elektra
Diamond Member
Hurt, you are taking this way to personal. You cant hurt me, you are an idiot who did not read your link. Of course now that you established you are a fool you are desperately cherry picking and still failing
Seems little ding-a-ling cant read the link
Despite the removal of energy by electricity production, the modules increased daytime net radiation
They all do. Cherry picking won't change the measurements of the satellites or the conclusion of the study.
Similar threads
- Locked
