- Thread starter
- #81
You've done no such thing.I already have. Many times.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You've done no such thing.I already have. Many times.
Sure I have.You've done no such thing.
Which I can say with certainty because you've not figured out how to violate the laws of science.You've done no such thing.
Then maybe you can tell me how electricity usage warms the surface of the planet exactly like solar radiation does.Which I can say with certainty because you've not figured out how to violate the laws of science.
Then maybe you can tell me how electricity usage warms the surface of the planet exactly like solar radiation does.
Just post your empirical data that shows how electricity usage heats the surface of the earth like solar radiation does. Because that was a silly statement you made.Ding found the only energy that isn't conserved!!
You're a shoe-in for a Michael Mann Nobel Prize.
Just post your empirical data that shows how electricity usage heats the surface of the earth like solar radiation does. Because that was a silly statement you made.
This has to do with how heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the planet and how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet.If you can show that the First Law of Thermodynamics is somehow fully or partially
repealed when discussing electricity from solar panels, I'll apologize for calling you an idiot.
This has to do with how heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the planet and how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet.
On a global scale I believe it would. Which would be on the order of 1% to 2% of the land surface area. Net warming is only 0.6 W/m^2. All it takes is a reduction of 0.7 W/m^2 to turn it into a net cooling. That and time.Your feeling that one study which supposedly shows cooling over a solar farm means that solar power cools the planet is cute. It reminds me of the simplistic thinking of Greta Thunberg.
On a global scale I believe it would. Which would be on the order of 1% to 2% of the land surface area. Net warming is only 0.6 W/m^2. All it takes is a reduction of 0.7 W/m^2 to turn it into a net cooling. That and time.
I'm not doing 15 rounds with you. We've been over that enough.On a global scale I believe it would.
Why?
None of the energy was destroyed by moving it from a solar panel to
a home appliance.
Net warming is only 0.6 W/m^2. All it takes is a reduction of 0.7 W/m^2 to turn it into a net cooling.
How is increasing the absorbed solar radiation from 60% to 95% causing a reduction?
I'm not doing 15 rounds with you. We've been over that enough.
This has to do with how heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the planet and how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet.I agree, no need to repeat your FLoT ignorance.
This has to do with how heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the planet and how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet.
I think all the work performed was overcoming friction.
No. Difference in how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet compared to electricity usage. Electricity usage isn't included in the calculation of net warming.Right, your FLoT ignorance.
No. Difference in how solar radiation heats the surface of the planet compared to electricity usage. Electricity usage isn't included in the calculation of net warming.
The incremental cooling measured at six solar farms says otherwise. You said electricity usage warms the planet like solar radiation warms the planet. That is incorrect. Electricity usage isn't included in the earth's energy budget, solar radiation is.Heat is heat.
Retaining much more with solar panels will never result in world-wide cooling.
The incremental cooling measured at six solar farms says otherwise. You said electricity usage warms the planet like solar radiation warms the planet. That is incorrect. Electricity usage isn't included in the earth's energy budget, solar radiation is.