Global dimming and solar energy [Archive]

View Full Version : Global dimming and solar energy

halva

04-08-2005, 11:12 PM

From "Megasprayer":
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=technosphere&num=1073367108&start=105

Halva: Wouldn't it be worthwhile sounding out some of the renewable energy, and particularly solar energy, people, to see what their attitude is to 'climate mitigation' strategies that result in reduced levels of sunlight?

Here is the result of one such sounding-out:

W.H: I was wondering whether you see 'global dimming' as a potential threat to the prospects for solar energy and whether more publicity to the questions both of global dimming and of geoengineering for climate mitigation could help increase public support for reduction of dependence on fossil fuels.

Answer: I don't believe that the light spectrum of which solar is most responsive is the part of the light spectrum that is being dimmed according to the information I have read from you and elsewhere - so the answer to your first question is "no" it won't impact use of solar. But such dimming will assuredly create global awareness by the general public and policymakers, which would likely acccelerate policies that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Response from Chem 11

I don't believe that the light spectrum of which solar is most responsive is the part of the light spectrum that is being dimmed according to the information I have read from you and elsewhere.

Chem 11: Well, he or she is mistaken in this belief. Someone actually already had the idea to contact a bunch of solar energy equipment suppliers and users a while back, and they were almost unanimous in expressing their concern and displeasure over how this explosion of articial cloud coverage was reducing efficiency.

I was surprised to see the level of awareness that exists in the industry, but of course it's one that is being directly and adversely affected. I think the discussion existed over at Carnicom's board, but it was a while back and may very well no longer exist.

Yaak: That was me. Here's the link: http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=7654.top ic

Continuing from Carnicom's board: (see below)

halva

04-08-2005, 11:24 PM

Solar Energy and Aviation Clouds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaak I wrote the following letter and emailed it to 24 different solar energy dealers:

------------------------------

Subject : Solar Power and Aviation Clouds

My home is solar powered. For several years I have noticed how the sky is being whited-out, almost on a daily basis, by aviation traffic. This problem is becoming worse and exists everywhere in the USA (and world I'm told). I suspect that this is a concern of yours considering the business you are in..

I am looking for groups of people or organizations that are serious about addressing this problem. So far, all I have found are conspiracy theorists[could that be us? Na ], or those (such as my senators and representative) that claim nothing is wrong or different about the sky. Any direction you can provide me will be greatly appreciated.

------------------------------

Replies so far:

**********************************************
Decreasing air quality is becoming a major problem nowadays, and it's no longer limited to our cities. I am happy to hear that you're doing your part to keep the air clean by using solar power. In addition to the evident and well-documented visibility and health problems caused by poor air quality, solar power production is also affected . While the effect on solar power production currently is marginal in most cases, it is gradually becoming a greater concern. Unfortunately I cannot say I'm an authority on who would be able to address these concerns. However, I would recommend three possibilities for your consideration: Talk to your senator, representative, or other local government officials and the local air quality control district. Get involved with the Environmental Defense Network - www.environmentaldefense.org Contact the Union of Concerned Scientists - www.ucsusa.org Hope this helps. We're with you all the way.

Discount Solar
solarpanels.hypermart.net/

**********************************************
These are chemtrails. The skys are being sprayed with chemicals to make the American people sick. Go to www.rense.com/politics6/c...apage.html For info on these and other things our government and the New World Order people are up to go to www.stevequayle.com/, infowars.com/, www.prisonplanet.com You can listen to Steve Quayle and Alex Jones on the internet. These websites also have links to other similar sites. I have known about these chemtrails for years.
Check out this site, www.intel123.com/chemtrails/

Solar Cell
www.solarcell.net/

**********************************************
We have noticed the same thing, our tech center in eastern Tennessee is run off of solar. The only thing I can do to give you some direction is NASA was given a grant of some $85 million several years ago to study the effects of jet trails on sun light intensity. $85Mil seems like a awful lot of money to study and answer the simple question. You can look and see if anything has been released on the study so far, but I can't help you on where to look. If you do find anything, we would like to know.

National Solar Supply
www.nationalsolarsupply.com

**********************************************
We are a relatively new company to the Solar industry and are still focusing on our own product. Perhaps organizations like www.solarbuzz.com or www.solaraccess.com or www.sandia.gov/pv have begun to address the issue you raise.

Solartrax
www.solartrax.com

**********************************************
I've read these two articles (below) on the subject. I have noticed that these artificial clouds are getting more abundant.
www.unknowncountry.com/news
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass...AMS.02.pdf

Big Frog Mountain
www.bigfrogmountain.com/

**********************************************
I have never heard of such a problem. Because of the massive amount of solar energy reaching the earth, I am not concerned about white out for power production. However I would be concerned about health consequences. Keep us in the loop.

Affordable Solar
www.affordable-solar.com

**********************************************
Frankly, you can hardly find any politician in this country who gives a more than a rat's derriere about air pollution, but if you do, please let me know. Yes, what you are talking about is a problem; but air pollution (not just aviation contrails, as I believe they're called) is a problem everywhere in obscuring the sun's direct insolation value. I still have enough brain cells to remember my childhood in Ohio, when you could see the stars at night. Now, when I visit my folks there (and visit other friends and relatives across the midwest), you never get out of the haze, and if you can see ANY pinpoints of light in the night sky, that's called a clear night. It's not just avation traffic, though I'm sure that's a factor. I think most of the haze is caused by automobiles (and science seems to bear this out), Pollution from large cities follow the weather elsewhere, and our whole atmosphere is getting measurably worse. Global warming, rising levels of asthma, poor visibility, etc., are all by-products. But we have these oil guys running the show now, and their idea of evergy diversity is having a president and vice-president from two different oil companies. Until we get out of the oily dark ages, America will continue to be a major world polluter. The facts DO seem to support that. I just try and do the best I can..by driving smaller, higher mileage vehicles, talking with my friends (and encouraging them to address these issues) and e-mailing, faxing, calling and writing my legislators about my concerns. Unfortunately, the polluting corporations have joined forces (in my opinion) with the neocons, so that being an environmentalist and concerned about air & water pollution makes one radical, a conspirator, or a traitor. Our 'elected representatives' receive mucho monies from the polluters as campaign contributions, so it's no wonder that our legislators claim that "there's no problem". Just lovely isn't it? All we can do is keep our issues in front of the public and our representatives as much as possible. When change occurs over a long period of time, people say "things haven't changed", but the truth is different, in my opinion. Well, I'll get off the soapbox now. Pardon my rambling, but I'm sure there are others in your area that feel as you do. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets oiled..... Thanks for paying attention,
(saw this article tonight and thought of your concerns)www.dailynews.com/Stories...7,00.html

Oasis Montana Inc.
www.PVsolarmodules.com

halva

04-08-2005, 11:39 PM

Deborah
Re: the NASA study referenced by the respondent from National Solar Supply - here it is, I believe:

Journal of Applied Meteorology

A Satellite-Based Climatic Description of Jet Aircaft Contrails and Associations with Atmospheric Conditions, 1977-79

(Manuscript received 24 May 1999, in final form 23 September 1999)

Excerpt [from Page 3]:

.....Contrails occurring in the daytime may reduce the surface receipt of solar radiation more than they enhance the IR back radiation, especially when the contrails are relatively new and thick... because they contain a greater density of small particles at this time...... END Excerpt.

Another Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your concerns are appreciated here, it is a very interesting topic. Have you tried Greenpeace, they are very active in the global warming campaign. There is also a fellow at Oxford University, Jeremy Leggett. He is also CEO of a solar electric company in the UK called Solar Century. A busy person. I am
sorry I don't have his contacts but look for researchers interested in climate change and global warming and they might help you out.

I really hope this helps and please let me know where this takes you or what you have found out.

Thank you and keep in touch please.

The Alternative Energy Store
altenergystore.com/

www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~veron/DeGrand_etal_2000.pdf

Deborah
The Carbon War
Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era
Jeremy Leggett
www.carbonwar.co.uk/

"A ringside seat during 10 years of intense negotiations among some of the most powerful political and economic forces in the world ...vastly broadens our understanding ...a revelation. Suddenly the apparently contradictory nature of so much we have heard and read falls into place..."

Glasgow Herald

2 more replies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another one from:
Discount Solar
solarpanels.hypermart.net/

[Check out the solar powered airplane]

Perhaps it is possible to re-engineer the jets somehow to reduce the condensation trail effect. Or maybe they could be persuaded to reroute their flight paths through less populated areas. I know someone who is working on a solar-powered airplane project www.solar-impulse.com/en/index.php however I suspect we won't see solar powered jets crossing our skies anytime soon. Too bad, that would be nice
---------------------------

from:
Solar Depot, Inc.
www.solardepot.com/

Thank you for your e-mail and congratulations on having a solar powered home! While your observation is interesting, we have not found nor have we heard of anyone else finding that com trails from airplanes are having a measurable effect on photovoltaic generation. If you know of any scientific studies that show that this is happening, we would be interested in reading them. Thanks again for your e-mail.

foot_soldier

04-17-2005, 11:32 AM

April 17, 2005

Soot reduces sunshine over China
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/17/2005&Cat=7&Num=4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It is not as sunny as it used to be over China and pollution is probably to blame, Chinese researchers reported on Friday.

They found a significant decrease in daily surface solar radiation and less sunshine per month compared with 1961 -- especially over the eastern part of the country where most people live and most factories are located.

The best explanation is a rise in aerosols -- little particles that include soot, dust and even smaller bits produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, Huizheng Che and colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Xian reported in this week's issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

They measured several components of sunniness, including daily global radiation, annually averaged solar direct radiation and daily diffuse radiation, as well as the annually averaged daily clearness index.

"Almost all stations in China showed decreasing trends in the clearness index," they wrote in their report. "From these results, we conclude that the increasing emissions of anthropogenic (human-made) aerosols have likely affected the magnitude and variability of solar radiation and sunshine duration over much of China, especially the eastern part of the country."

CAPTION: Qianmen Gate at the south end of Tiananmen Square looms through thick haze in Beijing.

Photo was not included in this venue.

foot_soldier

05-11-2005, 10:40 PM

NASA Earth Observatory - New Images

Earth's Albedo in Decline: March 2005
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16905

Excerpt from accompanying text:

.....[Editor’s note: Glancing at the headlines, it may seem as if this caption disagrees with the U.S. Department of Energy’s news release, titled Earth Lightens Up.

However, a more careful read of that press release reveals that this caption is in agreement. That DOE press release refers to brightness at surface, or the amount of sunlight that penetrates all the way down through the atmosphere, whereas this (NASA) caption refers to the fraction of incoming sunlight that gets reflected.

Researchers suspect that an overall reduction in aerosol in the air is allowing more sunlight to penetrate to the surface, thus causing the brightening, which could also explain why Earth’s albedo is in decline.]..... END excerpt.

jayreynolds

05-12-2005, 04:45 AM

Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun?
Filed under: Climate Forcings, Aerosols, Solar —
That appears to be what is happening, judging from three papers in the May 6 issue of Science.

These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

Before you kill the greenhouse effect, please note that we think this is a lot of hooey. But if you accept these results, that’s where you have to go.

You’d think it would be huge news that the greenhouse scare is over. Instead, the “news” sections of Science and Nature are behaving in their predictable fashion. In Nature, Quirin Schiermeier wrote “this may worsen the greenhouse effect.”

Really?

Changes in the sun or in the net amount of energy transmitted down to the surface are conveniently measured in watts per square meter (W/m2). For comparison, think of a 100 watt light. That does a pretty good job of warming the meter beneath it. While the changes in wattage from carbon dioxide or the sun are much less, they are changes nonetheless. Remember our recent piece on James Hansen’s recent calculations . He now feels that the change in temperature that ultimately results is two-thirds of a degree (C) per watt change (down from one degree that he used for years, thanks to the reluctance of the earth to warm as predicted). That should have been big news, too, and it was also entirely missed by Science, Nature and the press in general.

Here are the wattage changes reported in Science:

Enhanced greenhouse effect during industrial era: 2.4 W/m2. According to page 66 of the 2001 compendium of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), about a quarter of this amount, or 0.6 W/m2, has occurred since the mid-1980s.

Change in solar radiation absorbed by the earth from 2000 to 2004, estimated from low-orbiting satellite data, reported by Wielicki et al.: 2.06 W/m2.

Change from 1983 to 2001 in solar radiation absorbed by the earth, estimated at the surface by satellites, reported by Pinker et al.: 2.7 W/m2.

Change from 1985 to 2000 solar radiation absorbed at the surface, as measured at the surface, reported by Wild et al.: 4.4 W/m2.

If we average the results of Pinker et al. and Wild et al., we get 3.55 W/m2 for the period 1985 to 2000. To this we add 2.06 W/m2 from 2000 to 2004 and get 5.61 W/m2. If we divide this by 0.6 W/m2 (the total change in greenhouse forcing from 1985 to 2004, we get 9.35. The added forcing from increased solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface has contributed nearly 10 times as much energy as greenhouse changes! When compared to the overall greenhouse forcing since pre-industrial times, it’s four times larger.

(We converted the numbers above to watts per square meter from the values given in different units by Robert Charlson et al., in an accompanying “Perspectives” piece in the same issue of Science)

Further converting the numbers above to temperatures, we arrive at the following. The earth has been warming during the past 35 years at a very constant rate of about 0.18 ºC/decade. Traditionally, this has been associated with the overall response to greenhouse gas changes (remember, their radiation effect, since the industrial revolution, is 2.4 W/m2). If increases in solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface in the last 20 years are 10 times greater than that from carbon dioxide, and four times greater than the greenhouse gas changes in the last 150 years, which is more important?

Don’t forget that it accepted in climate science that the warming of the early 20th century, about 0.4˚C, is due largely to solar changes. In other words, it was pretty concurrent with the varying amount of radiation reaching the surface. So the recent changes in received solar energy should have exerted a tremendous influence on temperature!

Let’s be frank. This wildly fluctuating amount of solar radiation warming the surface invalidates every carbon-dioxide driven climate model for the past, as well as every future projection of warming resulting from greenhouse effect changes.

Why is the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increasing? The authors of the Science papers don’t have a firm idea, but most tend to think that it has to do with the atmosphere becoming generally cleaner as a result of less pollution being emitted into it rather than actual changes in the solar output.

But regardless of the cause, if you believe all of this, then enhanced greenhouse gases are inconsequential compared to the tremendous increase in solar energy hitting the surface. Apparently few want to admit to this.

But some timid voices are beginning to whisper. NASA’s Bruce Wielicki, lead author of one of the new Science articles, told the New York Times on Friday, May 5th that the amount of increased energy coming from the sun matches the amount of energy that NASA’s James Hansen reported on Science’s web site just last week is being absorbed by the world’s oceans. What Wielicki failed to mention (or what the Times failed to report) was that Hansen ascribed to increases in ocean heat storage to the greenhouse effect!

It can’t be both. If it’s the sun, than greenhouse warming is dramatically overestimated. If it’s greenhouse warming, than the solar effect is an artifact of the research methods and nothing more.

So, either the three independent papers just published in Science magazine are wrong, or the earth’s sensitivity to changes in the greenhouse effect is exceedingly small.

Truth be told, something really stinks here. If the amount of solar energy hitting the globe as a whole fluctuates as wildly as these papers believe, then there’s a tremendous amount of stability built into the climate.

But the solar changes are almost certainly wild overestimates. For one thing, we have a pretty good test of how quickly the earth responds to much smaller changes in incoming radiation, as occurs when a big volcano blows off. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, in 1991, lowered the amount of incoming solar radiation by about 1.5 W/m2 and subsequently dropped the surface temperature about a half of a degree within two years. A clear cause and effect. The rises now purported in solar radiation are several times larger than that (as are the reported declines in solar radiation that preceded the recent rise). So their impacts should be obvious, instead of hiding in the fine print of a highfalutin science journal. In fact the earlier declines were of such magnitude that they should have completely disrupted the world’s food system, which obviously did not happen.

Obviously something is very wrong here. If the solar radiation received by the surface of the earth changed this much, earth’s surface temperature would be fluctuating wildly. Instead, the slow, modest and steady increase established 35 years ago continues, as predicted by mainstream computer models.

That’s our take, because it’s the only one that seems internally consistent. But, if somehow we are wrong (a rare event), then greenhouse warming is over, as the sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to carbon dioxide has been grossly overestimated. Believe us, we’d like to hope the latter is correct, but we have to call things in the most logical fashion.

References:

Charlson, R., et al., 2005. In search of balance. Science, 308, 806.

Hansen, J.E., et al., 2005. Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Sciencexpress, April 28, 2005.

Pinker, R.T., et al., 2005. Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation? Science, 308, 850-854.

Schiermeier, Q., 2005. Clear skies end global dimming. Nature, published on-line, May 5, 2005.

Wielicki, B., et al., 2005. Changes in Earth’s albedo measured by satellite. Science, 308, 825.

Wild, W., et al., 2005. From dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar radiation at Earth’s surface. Science, 308, 847-850.

foot_soldier

05-12-2005, 09:12 AM

How about a link, Reynolds? Or is this one of your special stash of "Climate Change Is A Hoax" documents?

jayreynolds

05-12-2005, 12:12 PM

Yes, it's a secret. Crunch the numbers if you want to debunk it.

jayreynolds

01-14-2006, 07:20 AM

Wielicki, B., et al., 2005. Changes in Earth’s albedo measured by satellite. Science, 308, 825.

Let the record show that Wayne Hall was made aware on 5/12/2005 that earth's albedo had been decreasing since 1999, invalidating his claim that a geoengineering program to increase earth's albedo was underway.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=294818&postcount=6

It is incumbent upon Wayne Hall at this time to either admit he has been wrong all along, or to explain why he persisted in his claim despite documentary evidnce to the contrary.

jayreynolds

01-14-2006, 07:25 AM