[mraines]

Originally Posted by Cliff Fr

Vikings discovered Greenland in the 1500's. They named it Greenland why? Because the tundra was covered in green plant life not ice. In the 1500's there were no CO2 emissions from vehicles or manufacturing and the world's population was much much lower. I very much doubt that great changes in climate are caused by human activity. There is historical evidence that the main influence on our climate is solar activity and the solar minimum and maximum periods.

I think it is naive to think that we humans do not have an effect on climate change. There are far too many humans using up the earth's resources, tearing down trees and emitting all kinds of pollutants. How could this not affect the climate?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Donegalkid

Thank you. True. A tough job speaking truth these days.

Especially when scientists contradict what you say...

New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice - Eos

[Rodneysblue]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

No worse than a 6 lane highway or blacktop parking lot.
“ They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”

The solar farms along i75 in South Georgia have sheep grazing in the same area.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

The loss of ice cover at the Poles is speeding climate change as the white surface reflects a lot of the Sun's energy straight back into space. Anything that reflects this energy will help slow climate change, and the nearer that surface is to the Tropics the more beneficial the effect will be (as there is a lot more of the Sun's energy per square foot at the Tropics than at the Poles).

Solar panels have also been shown to be beneficial on farmland in hot areas as livestock can use the shade to stay cooler and grass tends to grow better because there is more moisture due to lower evaporation.

It would be nice if large areas of black tarmac (roads and car parks) could be made lighter to increase reflection, but doing this would be difficult in high-traffic areas

Replacing dark roofs with a lighter-colored material would also be beneficial. Flying into CLT and MIA last week I was disappointed by the huge areas of warehouse rooftop with not a single solar panel - no doubt with air-conditioners working overtime to keep the buildings cool

Concrete vs asphalt? I wonder what the construction cost difference would be. 2 to 3X?

[Cuervo]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

The poster mentioned rivers/lakes....yours is an ocean response ('sea life').

To the former, how would those that want to recreationally fish take to this suggestion....or better yet, those that pay 'view tax' on property that faces said 'rivers and lakes'.....with they have those taxes abated?

The YouTube video does show lakes, but they are now building windmills in the ocean so I can't imagine they won't be able to the same with solar panels. As far as lake front property and tax compensation, I'm sure something will be worked out. Farmers have been compensated for the use of their land and seem to be happy. Now to the fishing, one of the videos I saw claims this was good for fish growth and let's be realistic these solar panel will not cover an entire lake or ocean, so fishing will not be eliminated.
I purchased an EV on Monday and I'm fully aware there will be some benefits and some sacrifices, like almost anything these days. We just have to figure what we consider more important and can we except the cost.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by Cuervo

The YouTube video does show lakes, but they are now building windmills in the ocean so I can't imagine they won't be able to the same with solar panels. As far as lake front property and tax compensation, I'm sure something will be worked out. Farmers have been compensated for the use of their land and seem to be happy. Now to the fishing, one of the videos I saw claims this was good for fish growth and let's be realistic these solar panel will not cover an entire lake or ocean, so fishing will not be eliminated.
I purchased an EV on Monday and I'm fully aware there will be some benefits and some sacrifices, like almost anything these days. We just have to figure what we consider more important and can we except the cost.

“can we accept the cost”

To me anything is possible in your premise but most of us not likeminded would ask....is it necessary

To line the landscape, woodlands and waterways with these unsightly panels and turbines as you suggest...it’s like we’re going back to the 50’s/60’s and 70’s with antennas hanging off of houses and tenements. I’m fine with some sort of balance but nobody wants to be forced fed theories and subsequent practices....that are still wildly open to different interpretations and outcomes. I’m the furthest from being a tree hugger....but when I’m on a hike in Mt Washington Valley of NH.....I want to see natural resources, not panels and turbines

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

“can we accept the cost”

To me anything is possible in your premise but most of us not likeminded would ask....is it necessary

To line the landscape, woodlands and waterways with these unsightly panels and turbines as you suggest...it’s like we’re going back to the 50’s/60’s and 70’s with antennas hanging off of houses and tenements. I’m fine with some sort of balance but nobody wants to be forced fed theories and subsequent practices....that are still wildly open to different interpretations and outcomes. I’m the furthest from being a tree hugger....but when I’m on a hike in Mt Washington Valley of NH.....I want to see natural resources, not panels and turbines

And cell towers are beautiful

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

And cell towers are beautiful

Yes
I forgot that one too!

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by Rodneysblue

The solar farms along i75 in South Georgia have sheep grazing in the same area.

Australia has been doing what you saw for years plus they keep the grass under control

[Donegalkid]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Especially when scientists contradict what you say...

New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice - Eos

You might want to read the above article you cite in its ENTIRETY. Anybody can cherry pick quotes. From the article you cite, a damning quote:

“This cooling trend is partly due to natural variability and partly due to upwelling currents that bring to the surface deep waters that have not yet warmed because of anthropogenic climate change [e.g., Armour et al., 2016].”

In other words, the “cooling trend” of parts of the Antarctic Ocean (due to disruptions of ocean currents due to climate change) has YET to show the warming at the surface that will eventually manifest — due to “anthropogenic” change. Anthropogenic change is defined by the United Nations as: “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, but since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (like coal, oil, and gas) which produces heat-trapping gases.”

To paraphrase the old Shakespeare quote: “Hoist(ed) on your own petard.”

[bsloan1960]

Loss of farm land? Look out your windows. Then go to a neighbor's house and look out their windows. Then go to every Rec. Center in TV and look out all of those windows. This entire place, including your house is the Poster Child for the loss of farm land.

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Solar panel fields are showing all over the country. Loss of farmland is my biggest fear. But what does the reflection back into the sky effect? Could this cause global warming?

[CarlR33]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

That's partly correct...farming is generational...so when that younger generation is faced with continuing the family business or cashing out in acreage that is at an all time high in value....i can understand the choice. Unless I'm mistaken, didnt the developer here buy out several farms over the years to accomplish his goals? Not a bad thing for the model but from a business perspective, both parties seem to benefit from the transaction.

Exactly, I grew up on a farm (my family still owns it) and over the years the surrounding land has been taken by industrial buildings, a highway and then a truck stop near by to support the highway. Being familiar with the solar industry, I get so tired of hearing they are taking the farm land. Farming is hard work and if you have animals it’s 24/7. If I had a choice of neighbors, a quiet solar field would be high up on the choices list.

[HORNET]

Wrong

[FredMitchell]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Solar panel fields are showing all over the country. Loss of farmland is my biggest fear. But what does the reflection back into the sky effect? Could this cause global warming?

It is sad to see the sheer ignorance exposed by all the folks who posted their "answers" to these two relatively simple and reasonable questions.

1. Reflection back into the sky is not really the way to look at this. Albert Einstein got a Nobel Prize for his paper describing the photoelectric effect - but most know him for his later work in relativity. The engineering outcome of that knowledge resulted in capturing electrons that are emitted when light hits metal in an electric circuit. (Solar panels). Once those electrons have completed some sort of electric circuit, some work has typically been done and the difference between the total energy of the emitted electrons and that work turns into heat. Roughly only 20% of the radiation hitting the panel gets turned into electrical energy. Most of the rest is absorbed causing the panel to heat up.
   
   Objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit electromagnetic radiation - you can look up black body radiation for more details, but it has been well understood since the 19th century. So the solar panel is always radiating energy in every direction, even at night! So, too, is everything around you, including your body.
   
   Also well understood is that different gases absorb different frequencies of light. The absorbed energy raises the temperature of the gases. The gas radiates in all directions. Some radiates out into space and some radiates into the earth. The balance of energy absorbed by the earth and the energy re-radiated affects the climate.
   
   One of the interesting and observable effects of radiation of heat at night occurs during temperatures where the air cools enough that moisture condenses on grass. Often times you will see this and notice that the grass under trees is dry or drier. That is because the black body radiation of the grass got blocked by the tree which re-radiated downward warming the grass. So the grass stayed warm enough that water vapor did not condense on the grass under the tree.
   
   

1. The cell, per se, won't cause global warming. It will reradiate pretty much like the earth's non-water-covered surface.

As to the farmland loss issue, solar cells are more efficient at generating energy than vegetation. So trying to generate usable energy from plant production, like, for example, ethanol is relatively more wasteful.

[kingofbeer]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Solar panel fields are showing all over the country. Loss of farmland is my biggest fear. But what does the reflection back into the sky effect? Could this cause global warming?

Could this cause global warming? NO- I think you must be kidding here.