What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
31,765
Reaction score
21,981
Points
2,865
Apparently at current technology, I will show you a picture of how many solar panels it would take to power the U.S. That is both day and night. (With the stored energy for nighttime) The square in yellow shows the total amount of area in solar panels it would take to do it. Argue with that you naysayers.

View attachment 538042
If the solar panels are made on America it would make more sense to go solar

Not 100% of the homes

Thats not practical

But every home in the Sunbelt should have solar for part of their energy needs

But make the panels in America and in friendly countries only
 
Last edited:
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
Despite what you may think, anybody who is a member of the green party are just humans like anybody else.

With less common sense and no understanding of economics. Obviously.

Any economic system can be made to work. The one most people support right now is just a cult. Is that understanding enough for you? Or is it above your head. So what is more important to you, your cult or the planet.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Most certainly does. We are replacing coal fired plants with renewable in the US not because of government mandates, but because of economics.
What is it that you believe his point was in post #485?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
And the mechanism for this is?
The sun in conjunction with our landmass configuration and threshold for extensive continental northern hemisphere glaciation.

1632778440398.png
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
I already told you why that little square needs to be at least 4 times bigger and the batteries will cost over 2.5 trillion dollars

You tell me the same thing that other human caused global warming deniers tell me. Bullshit.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy): “The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.): “During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia: “The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China: “Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina: “The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991: “We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”

If any of those people think that the sun's output is responsible for human caused global warming, they are idiots.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
The beauty of all of this is that within 30 years the planet will get colder as CO2 emissions increase. Putting an end to this silliness once and for all.

You should have the word "bat" at the end of your username. In 30 years we will all likely be dead. Along with most of the rest of life on the planet.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
If any of those people think that the sun's output is responsible for human caused global warming, they are idiots.
scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.



1632186412722.png




Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
You should have the word "bat" at the end of your username. In 30 years we will all likely be dead. Along with most of the rest of life on the planet.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we will all likely be dead in thirty years.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Old Rocks , do you believe we will likely all be dead in 30 years too?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Crick , do you believe we will all likely be dead in 30 years too?
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
If the solar panels are made on America it would make more sense to go solar

Not 100% of the homes

Thats not practical

But every home in the Sunbelt should have solar for part of their energy needs

But make the panels in America and in friendly countries only

I am not the right person to be asking about solar panels in a day to day practical sense. Because I don't own any. Except for what is on my calculator. A good person to ask would be Ed Begley Jr. He has been using them for decades. But there is one thing that is a certainty. Our use of fossil fuels is destroying the planet. Anything we can do to change that, despite what other countries may do, is worth the effort.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
46,890
Reaction score
29,286
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Solar panels for electricity generation are a stupid Moon Bat's pipe dream.

There is a narrow belt in the SW where they are marginally economical. The rest of the US forget it. The father east and the farther north you go it becomes a joke.

Most of the time when the Enviornmental Wackos tell you how great the panels are they use optimal input data that never comes close to the real world.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.



1632186412722.png




Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

Do you know where you can stick your graphs and those who made them? There aren't many things that can seriously alter our climate. A super volcano going off like the one under Yellowstone could do it. An asteroid impact could do it. Nuclear war could do it. Changes in the earths orbit could do it. A serious rise in the sun's output could do it. Changes in the positions of land masses could do it. A shift in ocean currents could do it. None of that is going on. Humans putting around 32.3 billion tons of CO2 into the biosphere is happening. And who knows how much methane. Which is FAR more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. As for the amount of carbon monoxide we create and how much of a greenhouse gas that is, I don't know.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,397
Reaction score
16,549
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Any economic system can be made to work. The one most people support right now is just a cult.

Which one is that?
Why do you feel it is a cult?
Which definition of cult are you using?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Do you know where you can stick your graphs and those who made them? There aren't many things that can seriously alter our climate. A super volcano going off like the one under Yellowstone could do it. An asteroid impact could do it. Nuclear war could do it. Changes in the earths orbit could do it. A serious rise in the sun's output could do it. Changes in the positions of land masses could do it. A shift in ocean currents could do it. None of that is going on. Humans putting around 32.3 billion tons of CO2 into the biosphere is happening. And who knows how much methane. Which is FAR more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. As for the amount of carbon monoxide we create and how much of a greenhouse gas that is, I don't know.
Is carbon monoxide a greenhouse gas?

Given that you believe we will all likely be dead in 30 years, how is it that you think we can do anything that will change that? I mean it sounds like you belive it already too late to do anything about it, right?
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
That's pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we will all likely be dead in thirty years.

Human caused global warming is accelerating. Do you know what that means? It doesn't mean that things are accelerating at a steady rate. It means things go faster and faster and faster and faster.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
88,813
Reaction score
10,394
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Human caused global warming is accelerating. Do you know what that means? It doesn't mean that things are accelerating at a steady rate. It means things go faster and faster and faster and faster.
Does it mean we will all be dead in 30 years? That sounds serious.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
Solar panels for electricity generation are a stupid Moon Bat's pipe dream.

There is a narrow belt in the SW where they are marginally economical. The rest of the US forget it. The father east and the farther north you go it becomes a joke.

Most of the time when the Enviornmental Wackos tell you how great the panels are they use optimal input data that never comes close to the real world.

Newsflash. Basically, solar panels receive as much sunlight here as they do on the equator. That is when the sun is shining and the panels are facing it. Only the length of the day is different. And in Alaska where there isn't any sunlight for months, it makes a BIG difference there.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top