Posted on 12/13/2002 10:21:33 AM PST by ancient_geezer
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
No treaty will prevent global warming, says a key scientist who believes manmade climate change is happening. That's bad news for the United Nations' bureaucrats who are meeting in New Dehli to conclude a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Zuit!
According to Greenpeace and the other econutz, the world disappeared about 12 years ago...
(Based on the preditions of the 70s)
My own personal opinion is that anthropologically-induced global warming does not exist. There "is" a warming trend, but it can be accounted for by a current increase in solar output.
"What impact, if any, does a big heatsink in the desert(e.g. solar energy array) have on climate patterns? What impact does the conversion of electical energy transfered to the atmospher in the form of atmospheric heat, have upon the climate, in lieu of fossil fuel burning which tend to lock up heat in the formation of CO2 & water vapor."
Obviously, it would make the desert cooler (which is a good thing). The net effect on the atmosphere will be zero--all that will happen overall is that heat will be moved from one part of the country/world to another.
What would the net change to the earths heat balance, and its consequent effect on climate in going to a solar only solution?"
Zero ADDED effect.
So why propose it in relation to a Global Warming discussion about global warming solutions?
Because "if" the currently hypothetical anthropologically-induced global warming does turn out to actually exist, then it is a valid solution. Don't mistake my meaning--when I say "no effect", I mean no negative effect on the macroclimate (global climate) from the presence of large areas of solar cells in desert regions. There WILL be microclimate effects like the desert being cooled down.
Because "if" the currently hypothetical anthropologically-induced global warming does turn out to actually exist, then it is a valid solution.
Unfortunately this is not a true statement, whether or not there is a global climate change in progress, changing power sources will have not any practical effect whatsoever, because such climate change is not induced by human activity. Get rid of all contributions of green house gasses to the atmosphere attribitable to human beings you effect the global climate by an amount below the threshold of measurement.
I mean no negative effect on the macroclimate (global climate) from the presence of large areas of solar cells in desert regions.
There will be a net increase in heat released to the atmosphere from the use of that electrical power in populated regions. Net effect on globally temperature will be near zero.
There WILL be microclimate effects like the desert being cooled down.
The effects locally, will be heating in populated regions with cooling in deserts, a change in high level wind flow towards the desert from populated warmer regions with cyclonic outward flow from deserts of low level cool air masses without a clear understanding of the effect on overall local climatic patterns due to those changes in airflow.
Whether or not such change, especially concentrated into small regions of the earth, will be good or bad, I don't think anyone is prepared to say with any degree of certainty. It is certain to change precipitation patterns. whether that will accrue to the benefit of established agriculture becomes a big question mark.
Global Warming Hoax :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Global Warming Hoax | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Obviously, you have severe reading comprehension problems. I said "IF" the scenario you mention above proves NOT to be true, THEN the use of solar cells would be an acceptable soltuion
"Net effect on globally temperature will be near zero."
Wrong--the net effect WILL BE zero, not "near zero".
You have stated that in implementing the use of solar cells, "the net effect WILL BE zero" as regard affecting global climate(which is the basis of the article and discussion).
Then you state "the use of solar cells would be an acceptable soltuion"
Just what, concerning global climate, is addressed by the use of solar cells? What problem, as regards global climate, is the use of solar cells an acceptable solution for?
By your own statement, there is no global climate problem solved by using Solar Cells as a power source.
the net effect WILL BE zero, not "near zero".
I'll stick with not measurable as regards the greenhouse effect, as we know that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 as a greenhouse gas is on the order of 0.2% of total greenhouse contributions to global atmospheric temperature. (as opposed to the IPPC implied effect of around 40% as an IPPC defined forcing agent.)
Whatever reduction in CO2 concentration that may result in the use of solar cell power generation, that reduction is not zero, the effect on "global" climate as regards the greenhouse effect, would be simply not measurable as it would be masked out by the the inherent background noise of climate measurements.
I'll also, standby the clear effect of use of a localized solar array in the desert inducing a desert heat sink giving rise to wind pattern changes with indeterminate impact on distribution of hemispheric precipitation. That my friend is definitely not a "zero" in anyones accounting.
Still having reading comprehension problems, I see. Go back and re-read what I said---I'm talking about the effect on HEAT BALANCE caused by use of earth-based solar cells, not the effect operated on by the CO2 greenhouse effect.
"Just what, concerning global climate, is addressed by the use of solar cells? What problem, as regards global climate, is the use of solar cells an acceptable solution for?"
IF the postulated greenhouse-gas CO2 warming effect at some point turns out to be real, then use of solar power along with nuclear power are the two viable avenues to getting the needed energy.
However, nuclear power and SPACE-BASED solar cells will ultimately dump extra heat onto the planet, while earth-based solar cells will not--only moving energy from desert to multiple widespread sites of energy use.
"I'll also, standby the clear effect of use of a localized solar array in the desert inducing a desert heat sink giving rise to wind pattern changes with indeterminate impact on distribution of hemispheric precipitation."
OF COURSE there will be localized effects--that is what I mean by "microclimate" as opposed to "macroclimate" effects--BUT the effect on "hemispheric precipitation" will again be zero, as the effect of the changes in microclimate circulation will all be ON LAND. The oceans are the source of 90+% of "precipitation effects". Distribution of precipitation OVER LAND will probably change, but total precipitation should be un-affected.
Wrigley et al either missed or obscured the biggest point here about bio-fuels.
It is this: "Bio-fuels" also produce carbon dioxide.
If the econuts' thesis were correct, it is CO2, CO2, CO2 that is the villain in the piece. Ergo, bio-fuels (burn your grass or corn-squeezin's) is an equal no-no.
The environmental wackos won't give up, but it appears that some of the energy has gone out of their "the sky is falling" screed.
I'm talking about the effect on HEAT BALANCE caused by use of earth-based solar cells, not the effect operated on by the CO2 greenhouse effect.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is a determiner of HEAT BALANCE by modifying the IR absorptivity (i.e. albedo) of the earths atmosphere.
IF the postulated greenhouse-gas CO2 warming effect at some point turns out to be real,
The greenhouse-gas CO2 warming effect is real, however the human contribution to greenhouse effect is below the threshold of measurment. IF in regard to changing power sources to reduce CO2 will not provide any measurable relief.
However, nuclear power and SPACE-BASED solar cells will ultimately dump extra heat onto the planet, while earth-based solar cells will not--only moving energy from desert to multiple widespread sites of energy use.
If have not disagreed with that, since you explicity stated a ground based array. The effect to seen is one of change in wind patterns and consequent modification of the distribution in hemispheric precipitation that one must be wary of, NOT Heat Balance.
--BUT the effect on "hemispheric precipitation" will again be zero, as the effect of the changes in microclimate circulation will all be ON LAND.
That is nothing but hot air.
Distribution of precipitation OVER LAND will probably change, but total precipitation should be un-affected.
You contradict youself. Moving precipitation with respect to established agricultural areas will have no effect? I beg to differ.
As I stated before, if you want solar array generated power then justify it from some point other than climate. Solar Arrays do not provide a solution to any global climate problem. Hang your hat elswhere for support for Solar power and I can support the idea. Offer it as Solar power generation as a solution to as regards hypothetical climate problems is non-sense and hype.
I am well aware (and in fact probably far better versed in the science than you are) of the cause of the greenhouse effect, but the CO2 greenhouse effect only determines PART of the TOTAL heat balance. I am talking about another subset--specifically the heat that would be added to the atmosphere by nuclear and space-based solar. You have GOT to learn to read what is actually written.
"The greenhouse-gas CO2 warming effect is real, however the human contribution to greenhouse effect is below the threshold of measurment. IF in regard to changing power sources to reduce CO2 will not provide any measurable relief."
You are being deliberately disingenuous. I am talking about the situation that would exist if the EXCESS warming due to CO2 EVER DOES RISE above the noise level.
If have not disagreed with that, since you explicity stated a ground based array. The effect to seen is one of change in wind patterns and consequent modification of the distribution in hemispheric precipitation that one must be wary of, NOT Heat Balance."
Uh, guess what? It is the change in heat balance that would drive the change in wind patterns and the distribution of precipitation. There is this little thing called "cause and effect" in action here.
"That is nothing but hot air."
Ohhhh, how witty.
"You contradict youself. Moving precipitation with respect to established agricultural areas will have no effect? I beg to differ."
More deliberate obtuseness. What I said was the EFFECT ON PRECIPITATION (ie. the total amount of water that falls from the sky--you know, RAIN AND SNOW)hemisphere-wide would be zero, not that there wouldn't be change in distribution over land. A true hemispheric-wide change would require that the heat captured from the land-based solar cells would somehow modify the heat balance OVER THE OCEAN, which ain't gonna happen, as the waste heat from the solar energy captured over land will be released only over another part of the land area. The effect will specifically NOT BE "hemisphere wide".
This is NOT true of nuclear and space-based solar. Their use will result in a net increase in heat over the total land area, an increase in sea-to-land atmospheric circulation, and an increase in precipitation.
Uh, the point about using bio-fuels is that they remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere during their growth as they release during their combustion, so that the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't increase. Fossil fuels, OTOH, DO increase the overall concentration of CO2 when they are burned.
not that there wouldn't be change in distribution over land.
My first point is there would be no measureable change in global climate in going to a earthbased solar array for power.
My point is there would be a change in distribution of precipitation over land. In that I see you agree.
The issue I disagree with you on that using a solar power array has anything to do with the climate change issue at all.
You have offered the ground based solar array as a "solution". I just question that it is a solution to anything regarding the earths climate, which you seem to wish to claim for it.
This is NOT true of nuclear and space-based solar. Their use will result in a net increase in heat over the total land area, an increase in sea-to-land atmospheric circulation, and an increase in precipitation.
Have I argued for either on a basis of what they may do with respect to the climate? It could be pointed out that space-based solar would not contribute anymore direct atmospheric heating than merely the use of electrical power does currently and that such heating does not contribute measureably to any climate change whether for good or ill. While nuclear would add additional heat with respect to excess thermal energy expended into the atmosphere at generation plants, that is no more than what is added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel plants and no one is claiming such heat emissions to be sufficient to change the global climate in the manner you imply.
The greenhouse issue is not one of direct heating in anycase. The greenhouse gas effect derives atmospheric heat from the absorption solar energy, not from any impact of heat derived from the use of electrical power whatever its source. None of the power sources you have mentioned can have any measurable impact as regards climate change from what we now experience.
The greenhouse effect will be in place to precisely the same degree regardless of the power sources we use; that is the ultimate point and is why using climate as a basis for changing how we derive energy for the nation's use is total hype.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.