I think your estimate of a 30% alteration might be a bit high. Most scientists agree that man’s contribution to aerosols and green house gasses, or the atmosphere’s anthropogenic constituent, amounts to approximately 1%. What is being intensely studied in climatology circles is the climate’s sensitivity is to that 1%. This is important because the climate’s sensitivity then determines how much the “radiative budget” and thus the solar equilibrium is affected by man’s activities.

Climate sensitivity is not very well understood simply because it is a chaotic system with many short term and long term natural cycles and non-linear behaviors and interactions. Before climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic content of the atmosphere can be fully nailed down we need to have a better understanding of the natural climate variations and sensitivities to factor them correctly. We’re not quite there yet but we are getting closer. From the body of more recent peer reviewed literature, there is growing evidence that climate sensitivity to anthropogenic agents is not as high as previously believed and may be closer to 1/4 that suggested in the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report.

My point is I don’t think solar and wind harvest will unsettle the solar equilibrium simply because any effect the development of wind and solar energy has on the atmospheric constituents and solar insolation is negligible in the whole of our planet’s radiative mechanisms and their sensitivity to man’s activities. When you consider the small percentage of the earth’s total land mass solar and wind farms would take up then consider how small the contribution of earth’s land mass is to the total radiative budget, it seems that adding a few solar and wind farms here and there won’t upset the apple cart.

Here in Nevada, most solar power plant applications are stalled in the BLM amidst hot (no pun intended) environmental debate. The main issue is “Energy Sprawl.” Here is a good environmental research article that sums up the problem and concern:

Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America – [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006802#pone-0006802-g004]

The question I have is how are we going to transition to renewables if those, who in word, support government policy to force industry to transition are the same individuals who, in action, staunchly oppose it happening? Perhaps E&S could do a piece on this important and seemingly counterintuitive environmental debate. Specifically, an objective look at how we might balance land use issues in the pursuit of clean energy.