- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #101
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
You were asking about glaciation, silly. It's increasing albedo which is a result of increased glaciation/snow cover which is a result of temperatures at the threshold of extensive continental glaciation.
As for the solar panels, the only effect you need to know is that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet. The discussion of albedo does not apply to solar panels. It's about the reduction of solar radiation warming the surface of the planet.
I already explained the heat from electricity to you earlier. All you need to know is that in the case of fossil fuels generating electricity, fossil fuels do not reduce the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet whereas solar power does. Electrical usage is the same in both cases so whatever heat you think is heating the planet by using electricity is in both cases.
You were asking about glaciation, silly.
Was I?
"Decreasing the Earth's albedo is gonna cool us down good, eh?"
As for the solar panels, the only effect you need to know is that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet.
Why do you feel that's the only effect? Is it your ignorance?
Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.
Researchers discover solar heat island effect caused by large-scale solar power plants
Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.
The discussion of albedo does not apply to solar panels.
Depends. Is the albedo of a panel higher or lower than the albedo of the Earth?
Electrical usage is the same in both cases so whatever heat you think is heating the planet by using electricity is in both cases.
Using electricity heats the planet?
Wouldn't that offset the imagined cooling from solar generation?
You should look at the context of my answer in the light of the post you were replying to. I'm not going to argue with you about albedo. I understand it. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.You were asking about glaciation, silly.
Was I?
"Decreasing the Earth's albedo is gonna cool us down good, eh?"
As for the solar panels, the only effect you need to know is that any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that does not warm the surface of the planet.
Why do you feel that's the only effect? Is it your ignorance?
Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.
Researchers discover solar heat island effect caused by large-scale solar power plants
Large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a solar heat island effect that, though much smaller, is similar to that created by urban or industrial areas, according to a new study.phys.org
The discussion of albedo does not apply to solar panels.
Depends. Is the albedo of a panel higher or lower than the albedo of the Earth?
Electrical usage is the same in both cases so whatever heat you think is heating the planet by using electricity is in both cases.
Using electricity heats the planet?
Wouldn't that offset the imagined cooling from solar generation?
You are trying to make this about albedo when it's about conservation of energy. Any energy from solar radiation that is converted into electricity reduces the solar radiation the earth would have received by that exact same amount of energy. Therefore, relative to other methods of generating electricity that do not reduce the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet there will be an incremental decrease in the total solar radiation striking the planet. The electrical generation and usage from both cases is exactly the same so there is no incremental difference in the heat that you think is being returned to the planet through using electricity.
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #104
That's a Ridiculous opinion/REPEAT and Refuted by 97% of Climate scientists, and 100% of International Science orgs.You should look at the context of my answer in the light of the post you were replying to. I'm not going to argue with you about albedo. I understand it. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.
You are trying to make this about albedo when it's about conservation of energy. Any energy from solar radiation that is converted into electricity reduces the solar radiation the earth would have received by that exact same amount of energy. Therefore, relative to other methods of generating electricity that do not reduce the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet there will be an incremental decrease in the total solar radiation striking the planet. The electrical generation and usage from both cases is exactly the same so there are no incremental difference in the heat that you think is being returned to the planet.
And the opposite of My many Linked and sources.
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..
`
I think you got lost somewhere. Your reply has nothing to do with the post you replied to.That's a Ridiculous opinion/REPEAT and Refuted by 97% of Climate scientists, and 100% of International Science orgs.
And the opposite of My many Linked and sources.
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..
`
You should look at the context of my answer in the light of the post you were replying to. I'm not going to argue with you about albedo. I understand it. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.
You are trying to make this about albedo when it's about conservation of energy. Any energy from solar radiation that is converted into electricity reduces the solar radiation the earth would have received by that exact same amount of energy. Therefore, relative to other methods of generating electricity that do not reduce the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet there will be an incremental decrease in the total solar radiation striking the planet. The electrical generation and usage from both cases is exactly the same so there are no incremental difference in the heat that you think is being returned to the planet.
I'm not going to argue with you about albedo. I understand it.
Then you understand that darker panels reflect less solar energy back into space.
Which results in a warmer Earth.
You are trying to make this about albedo when it's about conservation of energy.
You're free to show where the electrical energy ends up, you know, after we use it.
Therefore, relative to other methods of generating electricity that do not reduce the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet there will be an incremental decrease in the total solar radiation striking the planet.
You know the important number is the amount bounced back to space.
Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus by the IPCC on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.That's a Ridiculous opinion/REPEAT and Refuted by 97% of Climate scientists, and 100% of International Science orgs.
And the opposite of My many Linked and sources.
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..
`
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #108
"many" is a BS and relative term.Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus by the IPCC on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.
There are FEW relative to the those agreeing with AGW.
See my last.
Nonsense gratuitous posting... like all of yours.
`
That's not what Aixue Hu model results show.I'm not going to argue with you about albedo. I understand it.
Then you understand that darker panels reflect less solar energy back into space.
Which results in a warmer Earth.
You are trying to make this about albedo when it's about conservation of energy.
You're free to show where the electrical energy ends up, you know, after we use it.
Therefore, relative to other methods of generating electricity that do not reduce the solar radiation heating the surface of the planet there will be an incremental decrease in the total solar radiation striking the planet.
You know the important number is the amount bounced back to space.
All heat goes back into space.
It's enough to prove there isn't a consensus."many" is a BS and relative term.
There are FEW relative to the those agreeing with AGW.
See my last.
Nonsense gratuitous posting... like all of yours.
`
That's not what Aixue Hu model results show.
All heat goes back into space.
Thanks for the link.
What has a higher albedo, the sandy soil or the solar panels?
That's not what Aixue Hu model results show.
All heat goes back into space.
All heat goes back into space.
What's the typical efficiency of a solar panel?
What happens to the solar radiation that isn't converted into electricity?
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,216
- 2,565
- 315
- Thread starter
- #113
No it isn't, nor is your empty say so.It's enough to prove there isn't a consensus.
AGAIN Wiki (you Lying Troll)
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does ANY National or International scientific body reject the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change....
Post away TROLL
I'm done with you now BOY.
Thanks for the Bumps an page views
`
`
Last edited:
The sandy soils but the sandy soils aren't converting some of that energy into electricity. It's a net thing. Not all of the energy being absorbed by the panels is radiated back out.Thanks for the link.
View attachment 596561
What has a higher albedo, the sandy soil or the solar panels?
Dunno. Nothing is 100% efficient.All heat goes back into space.
What's the typical efficiency of a solar panel?
What happens to the solar radiation that isn't converted into electricity?
It is radiated back out. It's the net that matters.
The sandy soils but the sandy soils aren't converting some of that energy into electricity. It's a net thing. Not all of the energy being absorbed by the panels is radiated back out.
The sandy soils but the sandy soils aren't converting some of that energy into electricity.
Sand bounces about 35% of solar energy back toward space.
Not all of the energy being absorbed by the panels is radiated back out.
How much is radiated back out?
Dunno. Nothing is 100% efficient.
It is radiated back out. It's the net that matters.
Nothing is 100% efficient.
Never said it was. What's the range?
Sure it is. The IPCC is trying to force consensus but all it's really doing is impeding science. There is no consensus.No it isn't, nor is your empty say so.
AGAIN Wiki (you Lying Troll)
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does ANY National or International scientific body reject the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.
They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change....
Post away TROLL
I'm done with you now BOY.
`
`
Don't know. The authority for my beliefs are the results from Aixue Hu's modeling. That and the results make sense. Energy that would have heated the surface of the planet is being converted into electricity. That's a hard number. We don't have to guess what that number is. We can measure it. Everything else is modeling.The sandy soils but the sandy soils aren't converting some of that energy into electricity.
Sand bounces about 35% of solar energy back toward space.
Not all of the energy being absorbed by the panels is radiated back out.
How much is radiated back out?
My last answer should consolidate the two lines we have going.Nothing is 100% efficient.
Never said it was. What's the range?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 701
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 762
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 186
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 320
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8080
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-