We already are and have been for over a century. Just not in a good way.
That's not the kind of thing I have any concern with .... I don't think there is any downside to reducing greenhouse gasses ... and we should all do our part.
Ah, yeah, that's up there with a whole load of other nonsense which at best make useful fodder for April Fool's Day jokes.
Even the best ideas need justification.
Perhaps - the environmental cost of panels going to landfill isn't all that much though. They are pretty benign.
www.solarquotes.com.au
reneweconomy.com.au
www.snopes.com
Have to agree with @wattmatters, we've been engineering the climate for centuries to favor the rise of crocodiles (who knew they had mind control?). It was arrogance, but the other way round ... that our actions wouldn't affect anything. But it's a closed system... without sufficient sinks it seems logical it would build up and start affecting things.
That was actually Harvard University's idea, but Bill did fund them. As far as I know, they never actually released any aerosols (update: Thanks @wattmatters for the Snope's link!). BTW, the IPCC report does say aerosols from volcanoes do provide some cooling.
I have not found Snopes to be a reliable source of fact checking .... their "facts" are influenced by their political persuasion.Is Bill Gates Funding Efforts To Block The Sun?
Sensationalized headlines mischaracterize the efforts of Harvard's SCoPEx project.
www.forbes.com
So I'd say Snopes has the gist of it.
That's true of all media.
There should totally be a program to take all the old panels and install them in a new location until they don't produce power!
But what if that cost is more than it's worth?
Then don’t do it ?
I can add MC-4 connector to a panel in 5-10min, a bit more if i solder the crimp ?
The one wildcard that is seldom mentioned is what ‘probability’ means. It means it’s a theory. Maybe a well-constructed even scientifically sound (for our current understanding) but still a theory.
The problem I see with nuclear is the $/W. If battery prices fall as expected, it won't be cost-competitive without new breakthroughs reducing costs (folks are working on it). | 
|
The only thing in the IPCC report that is "unequivocal" is the global temperature is rising (but that's based on measurements, not theory) and humans are adding to it. Everything else is couched in probabilities (see #88). They seem to have a pretty good handle on their accuracy, for example, the climate models have an upper and lower range and even the older less accurate models were within their stated "accuracy" range for a decade. But I hear you, people take the "irreversible" out of context when it only means no longer reversible for a few hundred years. A lot of what I haven't bothered reporting out of the report is because it is less than 50% likely, figured there was more than enough over 50% likely ;-)
From what I've been reading, it hasn't changed much. My suspicion is the climate models are based on the hard science (e.g., black body radiation, reflection, energy balance) give numbers too high because the climate is tempered by still unknown things and things very hard to model or less well understood. The models factor that in and end up giving pretty good numbers based on greenhouse gas concentrations because they can put a "box" around the rest of it. Every year as we learn more the models have get a little better and are less tied to just greenhouse gas concentrations. That doesn't mean I think the models are ready for what-if "creative" solutions (e.g., nukes for global cooling); what's inside the unknown box could have big impacts. But I believe they are good enough to predict greenhouse gas reductions. Guess the younger folks will find out, that seems to be the popular choice.
I used to feel that way until I started this thread to investigate it. The difference for me now is there is unequivocal proof the global temperature is rising and greenhouse gases play a role in the temperature. Then there's that really annoying temperature plot in #78 that shows we're way below normal making me think a +10°F rise should be coming anyway. So, natural or man-made it makes no difference, change is happening. The question I think is should we do something about it? We have the capability, but I fear we lack long-term understanding of possible consequences. So, reducing greenhouse gases seems the safest option for now.
Nah, you installed solar. You're a part of the solution. Although probably like me, you probably did it to save $, as one of the three great motivators it's a great way to influence change.
Very true words.
Fear of a thing is one of the three great motivators. It sells the news, so it is easy to communicate. Fear can override logical thought, making fodder to be corraled into one way of thinking and therefore controlled. We see fears get hyped all the time, occasionally good comes out of it, most often not - usually it divides us.
