That was already explained too.If energy is conserved why do you keep saying "reduction in solar radiation"?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That was already explained too.If energy is conserved why do you keep saying "reduction in solar radiation"?
Incorrect. You misunderstood what I wrote. Conservation of energy requires that any solar radiation converted into electricity can not also heat the surface of the planet and that's why they measured cooler DAYTIME temperatures at six solar farms.Yes, keep changing the subject. Your original claim was embarrassing.
So how much does my freezer cool the planet?
I've addressed this at least a dozen times.
I've addressed this at least a dozen times.
Cooler DAYTIME temperatures MEASURED at SIX solar farms says otherwise.And you've been wrong, at least a dozen times.
Incorrect. You misunderstood what I wrote. Conservation of energy requires that any solar radiation converted into electricity can not also heat the surface of the planet and that's why they measured cooler DAYTIME temperatures at six solar farms.
Not in an incremental analysis comparing solar to fossil fuels it doesn't. In an incremental analysis comparing fossil fuels to solar the waste heat is the same in both cases. So incrementally solar results in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.All 950 heats the planet?
Already addressed. Try again.Any heat moved from the solar farm to the city....heats the city.
Not in an incremental analysis comparing solar to fossil fuels it doesn't. In an incremental analysis comparing fossil fuels to solar the waste heat is the same in both cases. So incrementally solar results in a net cooling relative to fossil fuels.
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
Already addressed. Try again.
Adiabatic processes
Correct. Converting to a generating source that converts solar radiation into electricity does. The waste heat is the same regardless of how the electricity was generated.Moving heat from A to B doesn't cool the planet
Adiabatic processes
Correct. Converting to a generating source that converts solar radiation into electricity does. The waste heat is the same regardless of how the electricity was generated.
I've already explained how dozens of times.Converting solar radiation into electricity doesn't heat or cool the planet.
I've addressed this already too. At least twice.Covering the planet with lower albedo panels will heat the planet.
I've already explained how dozens of times.
I explained everything to you.You explained how it won't heat or cool the planet?
I'd say legally yes but politically, probably not. Personally I'd prefer my politicians to moral.But, that's what happened, Boris broke the law and paid between £200 and £10,000. So he's complied with the law and the punishment (the fine), was dish out and served (and this paid). So that's the end of the matter, right?