I read it again. Which paper are you referring to? The essay? -That's not a scientific paper, it is speculation by a scientist.
You see, the problem is that the issue is too complex to wrap up like they did here. It is not sexy, but every component that could contribute to climate change requires careful data collection, analysis and objective consideration.
For example, the article seems to infer that solar panels would result in global warming because they are dark, and have a 15% efficiency converting sunlight to electricity. However, this does not take into consideration factors such as: estimates in increased efficiency as the solar panel technology matures, or (probably more important) the offset of warming effects of current fuel sources that solar panels will replace, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
The real problem here, IMO, is that people walk away from an article like this thinking an issue such as global climate change can be understood and resolved simply by having the correct perspective. However, the reality is that the issue is much more complex, and that more important than our perspective, is what we can infer from data and the diligent analysis of that data by people that are motivated to understand the issue, and not to sell the discourse.
I believe the paper is this one, published in PNAS (one of the top scientific journals):
Matthews, H.D., and K. Caldeira, Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (24): 9949-9954, 2007.
It's no more speculative than any other climate modelling paper. The methodology is to run a climate model with and without a forcing and compared the differences between runs. That methodology should sound familiar - it's the methodology used to show that global warming is anthropogenic in origin.
Yes, that happens to be the case. It comes down to data. If you don't have the science to back it up, then you cannot win me over with speculation about issues that require scientific investigation and supporting evidence without bringing some to the conversation. I don't make any excuses for that.
You see, the problem is that the issue is too complex to wrap up like they did here. It is not sexy, but every component that could contribute to climate change requires careful data collection, analysis and objective consideration.
For example, the article seems to infer that solar panels would result in global warming because they are dark, and have a 15% efficiency converting sunlight to electricity. However, this does not take into consideration factors such as: estimates in increased efficiency as the solar panel technology matures, or (probably more important) the offset of warming effects of current fuel sources that solar panels will replace, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
The real problem here, IMO, is that people walk away from an article like this thinking an issue such as global climate change can be understood and resolved simply by having the correct perspective. However, the reality is that the issue is much more complex, and that more important than our perspective, is what we can infer from data and the diligent analysis of that data by people that are motivated to understand the issue, and not to sell the discourse.