Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

In my lifetime the scientific community have not exactly covered themselves with glory. I well remember scientists bankrolled by the tobacco industry claiming that cigarettes could do no harm, and indeed menthol fags were beneficial in that 'they cleared airways'.

Lead in petrol was harmless etc etc.

Hiya, regarding smoking, it was only recently that I heard a very old argument that was used when the growing number of people with lung/heart etc illnesses became hard to explain/deny. The time was in the 50's and the UK was becoming 'mobile', so some blame was placed on tarmacadam fumes!

Only recently I was listening to a debate on Jeremy Vine, where several parents were explaining how it's perfectly safe to smoke in a car with children, if the window is open. Oh dear.

Regarding petrol, and going even further off subject, there was a study somewhere(?) that noted a roughly bell-curve rise (then fall) in violent behaviour all over the developed world, in young males. The study showed that the different timings of the fall in the curve seemed to match the differing times at which catalytic converters and unleaded petrol were rolled out. In the US, there were even differing state curves that matched the differing times of state legislation/rollout of CC's. The UK curve took longer to fall as we were many years behind the yanks.

Scary/funny old world!

Mart.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Without starting another row, input to Wikipedia is often by scientists who wish 'rewrite history' to cover up their earlier pronouncements.

Indeed, Wiki articles can be written by anybody and are seldom signed. In this particular case, they're just plain wrong ! The main action on the 'new ice age imminent' was in the 1960s and I distinctly remember reading several articles about it in New Scientist when (as a schoolboy) I (or more likely Mum & Dad:D ) could afford the heavily discounted subscription offered.

It's very likely true that the Earth is in a warming cycle - just as you might expect after an Ice Age. It may even be true that our greenhouse gas emissions have made some contribution to the effects but I think it extremely unlikely that drastically reducing GG emissions is going to have very much effect on the climate and it's sheer arrogance to think that it might. The Earth has had much higher temperature cycles in geological times - when Mankind had a complete alibi ! - and recovered from them without our help and I'm confident it can do so again.

Notwithstanding that, it would still be a 'Good Thing' to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - if only to leave more of them available for future generations.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Indeed, Wiki articles can be written by anybody and are seldom signed. In this particular case, they're just plain wrong ! The main action on the 'new ice age imminent' was in the 1960s and I distinctly remember reading several articles about it in New Scientist when (as a schoolboy) I (or more likely Mum & Dad:D ) could afford the heavily discounted subscription offered.

Hiya Eric, I'm not saying there weren't scientific articles or large amounts of media on the issue of cooling. Just saying that as far as I can see, or find, it appears to be a myth that the scientific consensus in the 60's/70's was one of global cooling.

From what I can find, the larger consensus was one of global warming, so that would mean that it's been consistent and growing for at least 40 (to 50) years.

There's another article here, with a breakdown of the number of cooling v's warming papers in the late 60's and 70's:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

I have no scientific knowledge on this subject, so I have to 'give in' to scientific consensus. Whilst I would feel very unsafe if the position was 51:49, the 97 to 98% figure is somewhat reassuring.

EricMears wrote: »

Notwithstanding that, it would still be a 'Good Thing' to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - if only to leave more of them available for future generations.

Totally agree, or another way of looking at it:

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing"

Mart.

Martyn1981

First the large:

Future PV grid integration at modest cost possible, report finds

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/future-pv-grid-integration-at-modest-cost-possible--report-finds-_100012917/#axzz2gPTzhy4L

Large-scale PV penetration in Europe in the next decade at modest costs is possible, according to a report published on Monday by the Imperial College London as part of the European PV Parity project.

The PV Parity project, which is backed by partners from the research and academic sectors, industry and the energy production sector, aims at defining grid parity -- the stage of development of PV technology at which it is competitive with conventional electricity sources in the European Union.


And the little, yet another major inverter manufacturer is launching a battery storage solution:

SEUK: Power-One to demonstrate first residential storage unit at show

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/seuk_power_one_to_demonstrate_first_residential_storage_unit_at_show_6732

“Looking at increasing electricity prices and reduced feed-in tariffs, self-consumption as well as energy independence will be the central issues for the residential PV market in the UK in the upcoming years,” said Paolo Casini, VP marketing, Power-One.

I'm not sure if the 2kWh capacity is 'total' or 'useable'. I reckon for myself, 2kWh of useable discharge is about right, helping to balance out some demand and supply during the day, and cover nightime baseload. After that the cost:benefit ratio would just deteriorate since I have the grid for backup.

I bet it's not going to be cheap though, not yet.

Mart.

Leeds_Solar

zeupater wrote: »

In the 1970's, consensus, based on the research-based evidence available at the time, was that the earth was cooling and we were on the cusp of entering into another 'ice age'.
Z

no it wasn't - this is just a commonly repeated fallacy that you've fallen for.

The vast majority of published peer reviewed scientific articles in the field of climate science that mentioned either warming or cooling in the 1970s were making warming predictions.

The survey identified only 7 articles indicating
cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those
seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the
citations

results of a literature search of published peer reviewed scientific journal articles from 1965-1980.

http / journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

yes there were some high profile press articles and tv programmes discussing the potential of global cooling, but that in no way equates to anything like the sort of scientific consensus that now exists around anthropogenic global warming.


It's also worth bearing in mind that there actually was slight cooling going on in the 1970s, at least in the northern hemisphere, caused largely by sulphate particulate emissions which reflect sunlight before it reaches the ground. Clean air acts across North America, Europe, plus the shut down of much of eastern european and USSR heavy industry through the 80s resulted in a reduction in these particulate emissions, and allowed the underlying warming trend from CO2 to become more apparent.

So yes human industrial activities are on a sufficient scale to directly impact on the climate - this sulphates experience is clear historic evidence of this fact.

Only those who saw a slight cooling trend over a period of a few years and tried to view this as the start of a descent into a naturally occurring ice age were really wrong - yes these cycles do occur, but we're very unlikely to be at that point yet, with it being more likely based on previous cycles for us to be more than a millenium away from the start of a proper downward cycle (probably significantly longer than that).

ps link broken as I'm not allowed to post links apparently

Leeds_Solar

EricMears wrote: »

It's very likely true that the Earth is in a warming cycle

warming cycles don't happen by magic, they're related to specific cyclical factors, mostly the level of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) received at the top of the earth's atmosphere either for reasons of the earth being closer to the sun, or the angle of the earth to the sun (milanokovic cycles), or solar cycles such as the sunspot cycles.

Since the early 70's NASA have been monitoring TSI via satellite, and have categorically proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the natural solar cycles can't be responsible for the warming trend of the last few decades for the simple reason that TSI has actually decreased slightly over the same period...

EricMears wrote: »

The Earth has had much higher temperature cycles in geological times - when Mankind had a complete alibi ! - and recovered from them without our help and I'm confident it can do so again.

that logic would be fine if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that we don't live for geological type timescales, so we can't really afford to just wait for the climate to sort itself out following our intervention.

What the geological record should actually be showing you is exactly how vulnerable the earth's climate is to significant temperature swings caused by relatively small changes in the various climate forcings.

The science behind greenhouse gasses has been known about for well over a century, it's not in dispute at all by anyone serious.
That being the case, bearing in mind the historic evidence of the instability of the climate, why would you think that a rapid increase in greenhouse gas concentrations wouldn't be likely to cause a significant increase in global temperatures?

tbh I'm utterly amazed to still be having the exact same arguments on the exact same points now as I was having 10-15 years ago when the oil industry funded climate denialist PR blitz was first kicking off. These points are so easily refuted by even a cursory skim read of some of the proper scientific literature, I just don't get why people continue to allow themselves be taken in by this rubbish.

The_Green_Hornet

Harvesting the sun's power to fire up a computer or tablet is an enticing idea in principle but challenging in practice.

But researchers at Intel have developed a chip which overcomes many of the obstacles. It allows solar panels to plug into and power a device directly, without the need for a battery.

The plug-and-play solar panel

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

no it wasn't - this is just a commonly repeated fallacy that you've fallen for.

The vast majority of published peer reviewed scientific articles in the field of climate science that mentioned either warming or cooling in the 1970s were making warming predictions.


results of a literature search of published peer reviewed scientific journal articles from 1965-1980.

http / journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

yes there were some high profile press articles and tv programmes discussing the potential of global cooling, but that in no way equates to anything like the sort of scientific consensus that now exists around anthropogenic global warming.


It's also worth bearing in mind that there actually was slight cooling going on in the 1970s, at least in the northern hemisphere, caused largely by sulphate particulate emissions which reflect sunlight before it reaches the ground. Clean air acts across North America, Europe, plus the shut down of much of eastern european and USSR heavy industry through the 80s resulted in a reduction in these particulate emissions, and allowed the underlying warming trend from CO2 to become more apparent.

So yes human industrial activities are on a sufficient scale to directly impact on the climate - this sulphates experience is clear historic evidence of this fact.

Only those who saw a slight cooling trend over a period of a few years and tried to view this as the start of a descent into a naturally occurring ice age were really wrong - yes these cycles do occur, but we're very unlikely to be at that point yet, with it being more likely based on previous cycles for us to be more than a millenium away from the start of a proper downward cycle (probably significantly longer than that).

ps link broken as I'm not allowed to post links apparently

Hi

If you actually took time to look at the recent debate and what it was about you would discover that it's about 'fact' vs 'consensus', not global warming.

There is one undisputable 'fact' here. In the 1970s I personally was taught (in England) that (i) there was a decades-long cooling trend which was contrary to the long term inter-glacial trend & (ii) that, based on glacial-cycle research, the northern hemisphere was both close to the max temperature before a new cooling period and close to the average interval between such events ... note, this is 'fact', however the science behind what was being taught was based on 'consensus'.

The curriculum being taught, along with the approved textbooks, were selected by whichever one of the major examining boards the particular education authority selected to use (Oxford, Cambridge & JMB in this area), therefore, they were either teaching based on what was then current consensus, outdated consensus, or no consensus ...

Note also that the curriculum at the time was based on the science at the time and how the individual examination boards selected the scientific consensus. Here stands a quandary for consideration .... The IPCC was set-up in 1988 specifically to review existing research and formulate a centralised, fully transparent, climatic consensus because there wasn't a single one available at the time - the remit has since been modified, but that's what it was in 1988. It is also noteworthy that the journal referenced was not published until 2008 ... if either were available in the 1970's then they could be considered to be relevant research in the 1970's, however, as it is they both merely support the position that consensus can change with time.

It needs to be fully understood that there are questions which can be answered by 'fact' and others which can only be addressed through logical conjecture, usually supported by consensus .... however, consensus is open to change.

As previously raised .... 'There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.'

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

It needs to be fully understood that there are questions which can be answered by 'fact' and others which can only be addressed through logical conjecture, usually supported by consensus .... however, consensus is open to change.

As previously raised .... 'There are vested interest groups which would have everyone believe that consensus is fact .... but 'in fact', it's not.'

HTH
Z

Hiya Z. Going back to the start of this, I wasn't suggesting that you were deliberately trying to mislead anyone, I was simply pointing out that whilst the media might have given the impression that scientific consensus had changed:

zeupater wrote: »

In the 1970's, consensus, based on the research-based evidence available at the time, was that the earth was cooling and we were on the cusp of entering into another 'ice age'. The facts remain the same, but consensus performed a complete U-turn over a period of only 15-20 years ...

as far as I can see, find, read, the fact is that scientific consensus at the time

zeupater wrote: »

Anyway, concerning 'scientific fact rather than opinion' ... the IPCC publish everything as opinion, not fact ... that's what scientific consensus is - current opinion based on what the majority involved believe (consensus) to be the most relevant current research.

appears to have been one of global warming. So rather than seeing the science as being weakened by changing consensus, it would appear to have been strengthened by consistent and growing consensus.

Why this might have happened at the time, I've no idea, I was only ickle, but perhaps 'some warming' just wasn't sexy enough, so the media focused on 'Ice Age', which is surely a far more dramatic headline.

I mentioned the Pugwash 'facts' as it's always fascinating to find out that what might at first be thought of as fact (in this case the fact that consensus was of cooling, or the cabin boy was Roger) might actually just be a commonly held myth. Another is that the two fingers up signal dates back to Agincourt when archers were threatened with losing their two fingers - but as QI explained, there is simply no evidence of this story/fact prior to the 70's.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Z. Going back to the start of this, I wasn't suggesting that you were deliberately trying to mislead anyone, I was simply pointing out that whilst the media might have given the impression that scientific consensus had changed:



as far as I can see, find, read, the fact is that scientific consensus at the time



appears to have been one of global warming. So rather than seeing the science as being weakened by changing consensus, it would appear to have been strengthened by consistent and growing consensus.

Why this might have happened at the time, I've no idea, I was only ickle, but perhaps 'some warming' just wasn't sexy enough, so the media focused on 'Ice Age', which is surely a far more dramatic headline.

I mentioned the Pugwash 'facts' as it's always fascinating to find out that what might at first be thought of as fact (in this case the fact that consensus was of cooling, or the cabin boy was Roger) might actually just be a commonly held myth. Another is that the two fingers up signal dates back to Agincourt when archers were threatened with losing their two fingers - but as QI explained, there is simply no evidence of this story/fact prior to the 70's.

Mart.

Hi M (/All)

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't change the 'fact' that as the result of a period of cooling, schools were actively including the possibility of entering a new interglacial 'cooling' period within the curriculum that I and others were being taught at the time.

Simply looking on-line for an article is different, especially when the article referenced twice recently is published on a site entirely devoted to get "skeptical about global warming scepticism." .... that's not what science is about, it should be open minded and consider all possibilities, not be devoted to laying out AGW propaganda in a format designed to counter alternative views - and before anyone 'blows their top' to defend their belief in AGW the same stands for similar sites devoted to the opposite position.

There are vested interests on both sides of the argument ... those connected to industries which would see their position weakened if AGW was universally considered as being correct, and on the other side stand representatives of renewables industries, governments interested in increased tax-take or using a 'terrible foe' approach, scientists themselves hoping that the research 'gravy-train' will spill more gravy towards their area of interest ...

Add to the above, the IPCC themselves ... how can they possibly be classified as not having a vested interest when their role is .. "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation" .. surely, if they were to accept that there was little or acceptable risk they would have their funding seriously reduced or even be wound-up. I don't think that I've seen such a biased brief for any scientific body. This is fully supported by asking the simple question ....

To address the requirement of the IPCC to be comprehensive, objective, open and transparent, exactly how many existing panel members would be classified as being sceptics, what's the history of the mix & what is the panel selection criteria ?

... you'll not likely get either an 'open' or 'transparent' answer to this simple question and it pretty apparent that 'objectivity' cannot exist if there is a policy of complete bias and bias is explicitly implied within their raison d'être ... say's it all really !!

I've posted this because it represents my own views, not the viewpoint of a vested interest body, the printed media, propaganda websites - or anyone else ... moreover, I know that I'm right and as such don't give two hoots whether everybody, anybody or absolutely nobody reading this agrees .... ...(see, I can be as open minded as the IPCC too .... :cool:)

HTH
Z