"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[jc456]

You are out of your depth in this conversation.

Any mechanical machine that performs work will produce waste heat as a byproduct due to friction. The standard efficiency factor used for calculating power requirements is 90% for new equipment and 80% for used equipment. So there is somewhere between 10 to 20% losses due to friction. Which means that 80 to 90% of the electricity to power a mechanical device doing work is actually being used to perform work with the remaining 10 to 20% being lost as heat due to friction.

You’re clueless

 

[ReinyDays]

- which would have otherwise produced heat -

Do you mean kinetic energy? ... why not latent heat, why not reflected, why not chemical energy? ...

There's lots of ways to deal with energy that doesn't measure on a thermometer ...

Your math is wrong ... post it and I'll show you ...

 

[ReinyDays]

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

How does taking solar energy that would otherwise be reflected back out in to space change the effective solar radiation ... solar panels are black ... your desert sites are light tan to white ...

Your math is still wrong ...

 

[ding]

You’re clueless

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[ding]

How does taking solar energy that would otherwise be reflected back out in to space change the effective solar radiation ... solar panels are black ... your desert sites are light tan to white ...

Your math is still wrong ...

Satellite measurements, bro. So it’s your math that’s not matching the measurements.

 

[jc456]

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

I know your claim, it’s ridiculous at best. You keep pushing the false narrative over and exhaustingly over. The amount of stupid is overwhelming

 

[ding]

I know your claim, it’s ridiculous at best. You keep pushing the false narrative over and exhaustingly over. The amount of stupid is overwhelming

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[jc456]

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

Boring

 

[ding]

Boring

Not for me.

 

[jc456]

Not for me.

but is for everyone else.

We all can't wait for you to post that nonsense another ten times.

 

[ding]

but is for everyone else.

We all can't wait for you to post that nonsense another ten times.

You and Todd are the only one’s prolonging it. I’m going to keep posting my summary because it’s true. You don’t care about the truth.

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[jc456]

You and Todd are the only one’s prolonging it. I’m going to keep posting my summary because it’s true. You don’t care about the truth.

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

I'll keep disagreeing with it. For now, it isn't worth my time to do anymore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

Or it heats the air. Huge difference, eh? LOL!

 

[ding]

Or it heats the air. Huge difference, eh? LOL!

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[ding]

I'll keep disagreeing with it. For now, it isn't worth my time to do anymore.

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms.

You and Todd are arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[Crick]

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives. It’s based upon satellite measurements which measured less infrared radiation being emitted at six solar farms.

You and Todd are arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

A large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

It's astounding to see that many mistakes in that short a space, particularly when you've been arguing (and - presumably - thinking about) this topic for weeks now.

Temperatures were dropping beginning about 5,000 years ago and if humans hadn't invented the ICE and boilers and gas turbines (ECEs) it may well have led to an ice age. But that effect was overwhelmed by greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. If you want to worry about the onset of an ice age, you need to overcome AGW first. Of course, you don't accept AGW, so there may not be much point in you doing anything.

A large portion of the electrical energy generated by solar PV is used to perform work. That's correct. But then you say it has to be subtracted from the total. You say that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. The problem here is that ALL of the energy generated ends up as heat. Some of it may spend some time as potential kinetic or chemical or gravitational or elastic or even nuclear energy and it will be stored there for a bit; sometimes for fractions of a second and sometimes for millenia but it will always, eventually, go kinetic and kinetic becomes heat. It will become heat. All of it.

There is an enormous difference in the waste heat created by burning fossil fuels to boil water to spin turbines to spin generators and mounting solar panels out in the sunshine. In the end, though, with regards to this argument, that difference is completely irrelevant. Whether you make it with fossil fuels or hydroelectricity or solar panels or little kids pedaling bicycles, it will all end up as heat. If you wanted to reduce heating, you'd cover the Earth with mirrors to ramp up our albedo and send that solar back to space before it gets the chance to get absorbed. But solar panels aren't mirrors - they're as far from reflective as modern science can make them. So, putting our almost black panels out in the sun in the middle of what used to be plants and trees and soil decreases the Earth's albedo. What happens when you decrease a planet's albedo? Its temperature rises. Does the universe care how that albedo has been altered - with how that energy will be used? It does not. If the planet, as a whole, absorbs more sunlight and reflects less of it away, its temperature will rise.

I hope this is sinking in because you trying to argue that solar panels will lead to an ice age is a painful thing to watch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's astounding to see that many mistakes in that short a space, particularly when you've been arguing (and - presumably - thinking about) this topic for weeks now.

Temperatures were dropping beginning about 5,000 years ago and if humans hadn't invented the ICE and boilers and gas turbines (ECEs) it may well have led to an ice age. But that effect was overwhelmed by greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. If you want to worry about the onset of an ice age, you need to overcome AGW first. Of course, you don't accept AGW, so there may not be much point in you doing anything.

A large portion of the electrical energy generated by solar PV is used to perform work. That's correct. But then you say it has to be subtracted from the total. You say that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. The problem here is that ALL of the energy generated ends up as heat. Some of it may spend some time as potential kinetic or chemical or gravitational or elastic or even nuclear energy and it will be stored there for a bit; sometimes for fractions of a second and sometimes for millenia but it will always, eventually, go kinetic and kinetic becomes heat. It will become heat. All of it.

There is an enormous difference in the waste heat created by burning fossil fuels to boil water to spin turbines to spin generators and mounting solar panels out in the sunshine. In the end, though, with regards to this argument, that difference is completely irrelevant. Whether you make it with fossil fuels or hydroelectricity or solar panels or little kids pedaling bicycles, it will all end up as heat. If you wanted to reduce heating, you'd cover the Earth with mirrors to ramp up our albedo and send that solar back to space before it gets the chance to get absorbed. But solar panels aren't mirrors - they're as far from reflective as modern science can make them. So, putting our almost black panels out in the sun in the middle of what used to be plants and trees and soil decreases the Earth's albedo. What happens when you decrease a planet's albedo? Its temperature rises. Does the universe care how that albedo has been altered - with how that energy will be used? It does not. If the planet, as a whole, absorbs more sunlight and reflects less of it away, its temperature will rise.

I hope this is sinking in because you trying to argue that solar panels will lead to an ice age is a painful thing to watch.

If the planet, as a whole, absorbs more sunlight and reflects less of it away, its temperature will rise.

You're killing him with your logic!!!

 

[Crick]

You're having me on, aren't you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're having me on, aren't you.

No. He has a difficult time with logic.

He thinks that the retention of 95% of solar radiation (0.05 albedo solar panels) as opposed to the
retention of 60% of solar radiation (0.40 albedo sand) is somehow "offset" by 19% of the solar radiation (20% solar panel efficiency) being converted into electricity.

 

[ding]

It's astounding to see that many mistakes in that short a space, particularly when you've been arguing (and - presumably - thinking about) this topic for weeks now.

Temperatures were dropping beginning about 5,000 years ago and if humans hadn't invented the ICE and boilers and gas turbines (ECEs) it may well have led to an ice age. But that effect was overwhelmed by greenhouse warming acting on human GHG emissions. If you want to worry about the onset of an ice age, you need to overcome AGW first. Of course, you don't accept AGW, so there may not be much point in you doing anything.

A large portion of the electrical energy generated by solar PV is used to perform work. That's correct. But then you say it has to be subtracted from the total. You say that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. The problem here is that ALL of the energy generated ends up as heat. Some of it may spend some time as potential kinetic or chemical or gravitational or elastic or even nuclear energy and it will be stored there for a bit; sometimes for fractions of a second and sometimes for millenia but it will always, eventually, go kinetic and kinetic becomes heat. It will become heat. All of it.

There is an enormous difference in the waste heat created by burning fossil fuels to boil water to spin turbines to spin generators and mounting solar panels out in the sunshine. In the end, though, with regards to this argument, that difference is completely irrelevant. Whether you make it with fossil fuels or hydroelectricity or solar panels or little kids pedaling bicycles, it will all end up as heat. If you wanted to reduce heating, you'd cover the Earth with mirrors to ramp up our albedo and send that solar back to space before it gets the chance to get absorbed. But solar panels aren't mirrors - they're as far from reflective as modern science can make them. So, putting our almost black panels out in the sun in the middle of what used to be plants and trees and soil decreases the Earth's albedo. What happens when you decrease a planet's albedo? Its temperature rises. Does the universe care how that albedo has been altered - with how that energy will be used? It does not. If the planet, as a whole, absorbs more sunlight and reflects less of it away, its temperature will rise.

I hope this is sinking in because you trying to argue that solar panels will lead to an ice age is a painful thing to watch.

That’s nice. The last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular, so there was no orbital forcing to trigger a glacial cycle or cooling. You have falsely attributed a natural variation - of which the geologic record is littered with - to CO2. Correlation does not equal causation.

We know this because it was 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. If what you claim is true it should be warmer than the last interglacial cycle because there is more atmospheric CO2 today.