Generating electricity for cities in cities

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you keep ignoring the massive amount of waste heat from generating electricity from fossil fuels? If you are going to do an energy balance you have to account for it all, dumb dumb.

Because that's obvious and a dodge.

Tell me again why solar photons that are converted into electricity can't
heat the planet.

 

[ReinyDays]

Satellite measurements from 116 solar farms prove that photons converted into electricity are the cause of the localized cooling effect at the solar farms.

How are you measuring temperature from space? ... and has anyone tried to confirm the readings with actual thermometers? ... just because you keep claiming this doesn't make is true ...

Air temperature is taken in the shade ... not in direct sunlight ...

 

[westwall]

Satellite measurements from 116 solar farms prove that photons converted into electricity are the cause of the localized cooling effect at the solar farms.

Correlation does not equal causation. All those measurements show is sunlight is disrupted from all angles but one, thus the Sun isn't able to heat the ground in a uniform manner.

 

[ding]

Because that's obvious and a dodge.

Tell me again why solar photons that are converted into electricity can't
heat the planet.

It's part of the energy balance, dum dum. You have to look at everything.

 

[ding]

How are you measuring temperature from space? ... and has anyone tried to confirm the readings with actual thermometers? ... just because you keep claiming this doesn't make is true ...

Air temperature is taken in the shade ... not in direct sunlight ...

Read the papers.

 

[ding]

Correlation does not equal causation. All those measurements show is sunlight is disrupted from all angles but one, thus the Sun isn't able to heat the ground in a uniform manner.

You should write a rebuttal paper.

 

[ReinyDays]

Read the papers.

I did ... have you? ... we can't get surface temperatures from space, you've been fooled again ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's part of the energy balance, dum dum. You have to look at everything.

I'm glad you finally realized your error.
You never looked at everything.

 

[westwall]

You should write a rebuttal paper.

Why, it would never be published these days. Anything that argues against AGW isn't allowed to be.

 

[Old Rocks]

You should write a rebuttal paper.

Westwall writing a rebuttal paper? LOL For years he has claimed membership in the AGU, and then claimed that all the scientists that publish the videos from their annual meetings concerning AGW are liars. I have repeatedly challenged him to schedule a speaking appearance there, and prove all those scientists wrong. However, he knows he has no evidence to prove them wrong, and they have all the evidence needed to prover AGW beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, why doesn't he just post articles from the journals of the AGU or GSA presenting overwhelming evidence that AGW is wrong? Because there are no such articles in existence. How about from the Royal Society? Again, nothing. Some PhD geologist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why, it would never be published these days. Anything that argues against AGW isn't allowed to be.

Bullshit. You know damned well you have no argument. The evidence is evident to anyone that has a working brain. But for some cretins partisan politics is more important than real science. To argue against AGW you need real evidence. There is none. The vital experiments concerning the heating effects of the GHG's were done in the 19th century, and have never been disproven. The predictions of the scientists like Dr. Hansen have come to pass. Northwest Passage has been open multiple years since 2007. Extreme weather events are becoming more numerous, and both the atmosphere and oceans are measuredly heating up. King tides are becoming higher every year in coastal cities. But you will continue to deny reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

I did ... have you? ... we can't get surface temperatures from space, you've been fooled again ...

Well, yes, we can get surface temperatures from space. While not as accurate as high quality measurements at the surface, the measurements are pretty accurate.

Can​

Yes, we can measure surface temperatures from space using various methods and technologies. Satellites, such as those used by NASA's Constellr, use infrared technology to measure surface temperatures with high precision. These satellites capture infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, which is then processed to provide accurate temperature readings. Additionally, small satellites like the CIRiS instrument have been developed to collect and calibrate infrared images of Earth, further enhancing our ability to measure surface temperatures from space. These advancements are crucial for applications in agriculture, environmental monitoring, and climate research.

NASA+1

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. You know damned well you have no argument. The evidence is evident to anyone that has a working brain. But for some cretins partisan politics is more important than real science. To argue against AGW you need real evidence. There is none. The vital experiments concerning the heating effects of the GHG's were done in the 19th century, and have never been disproven. The predictions of the scientists like Dr. Hansen have come to pass. Northwest Passage has been open multiple years since 2007. Extreme weather events are becoming more numerous, and both the atmosphere and oceans are measuredly heating up. King tides are becoming higher every year in coastal cities. But you will continue to deny reality.

Awwww, cute little olfraud spewing silly nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Westwall writing a rebuttal paper? LOL For years he has claimed membership in the AGU, and then claimed that all the scientists that publish the videos from their annual meetings concerning AGW are liars. I have repeatedly challenged him to schedule a speaking appearance there, and prove all those scientists wrong. However, he knows he has no evidence to prove them wrong, and they have all the evidence needed to prover AGW beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, why doesn't he just post articles from the journals of the AGU or GSA presenting overwhelming evidence that AGW is wrong? Because there are no such articles in existence. How about from the Royal Society? Again, nothing. Some PhD geologist.

Farmers who owned their own arrays had to pay for the panels, equipment and installation, and maintenance. But even after covering those costs, their savings and earnings added up to $50,000 per acre of profits every year, 25 times the amount they would have earned by planting that acre.

Did you ever calculate the actual numbers behind this silly claim you support?

 

[sparky]

To argue against AGW you need real evidence. There is none

that's because anthropogenics is a theory Old one......

~S~

 

[westwall]

that's because anthropogenics is a theory Old one......

~S~

And a failed one at that.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. You know damned well you have no argument. The evidence is evident to anyone that has a working brain. But for some cretins partisan politics is more important than real science. To argue against AGW you need real evidence. There is none. The vital experiments concerning the heating effects of the GHG's were done in the 19th century, and have never been disproven. The predictions of the scientists like Dr. Hansen have come to pass. Northwest Passage has been open multiple years since 2007. Extreme weather events are becoming more numerous, and both the atmosphere and oceans are measuredly heating up. King tides are becoming higher every year in coastal cities. But you will continue to deny reality.

No, there is zero empirical evidence. There is only computer derived fiction.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, there is zero empirical evidence. There is only computer derived fiction.

AGW is a failure because their cornerstone predictions have not come to pass.

There is NO Hot Spot.

There is NO Positive Feedback Loop.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, yes, we can get surface temperatures from space. While not as accurate as high quality measurements at the surface, the measurements are pretty accurate.

Can​

Yes, we can measure surface temperatures from space using various methods and technologies. Satellites, such as those used by NASA's Constellr, use infrared technology to measure surface temperatures with high precision. These satellites capture infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, which is then processed to provide accurate temperature readings. Additionally, small satellites like the CIRiS instrument have been developed to collect and calibrate infrared images of Earth, further enhancing our ability to measure surface temperatures from space. These advancements are crucial for applications in agriculture, environmental monitoring, and climate research.
NASA+1

Those are experimental ... do they match up with actual measure? ... are you familiar with photometry? ... do you can a link or are you just repeating an AI hallucination again ...

I ask because no one is using the satellite data for their research ...

ETA: Constellr is rated ±5ºC ... hahahahahahahahaha ... ******* moron ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

that's because anthropogenics is a theory Old one......

~S~

Have you tried asking Google?

"Anthropogenics" is not a formal theory but a term derived from the word anthropogenic, which means "caused by human activity"

Checked facts?

Read the papers.

Indeed.