Solar panels and sheep

[ding]

Here is what I think your claim means.
Please correct me if I'm misstating it.

100 watts of sunlight hits an area on Earth. This warms the Earth by X amount.

If we intercept that 100 watts of sunlight with a solar panel, some amount of electricity is generated and somehow this causes the Earth, as a system, to warm by some amount less than X. Is that right?

And the evidence to support your claim is that the temperature above a solar farm is lower than it was before the solar farm was built.

Does that sum it up?

Here is what I believe your claim means, yes, there is a local cooling affect from large scale farms, most of the heat that would have heated the surface of the planet is released eventually but does not heat the surface of the planet like photons striking the planet, and if we replaced all fossil fuels with solar there would be no incremental change in waste heat but there would be in the amount of solar energy striking the surface of the planet.

Does that sum it up?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is what I believe your claim means, yes, there is a local cooling affect from large scale farms, most of the heat that would have heated the surface of the planet is released eventually but does not heat the surface of the planet like photons striking the planet, and if we replaced all fossil fuels with solar there would be no incremental change in waste heat but there would be in the amount of solar energy striking the surface of the planet.

Does that sum it up?

there is a local cooling affect from large scale farms, most of the heat that would have heated the surface of the planet is released eventually but does not heat the surface of the planet like photons striking the planet

How is the heating from 100 watts hitting the surface different, quantitatively,
if some portion is converted into electricity and consumed at a distance?

but there would be in the amount of solar energy striking the surface of the planet.

Obviously. All the extra heating from the lower albedo would warm the planet.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ole' Bag O' diks still shooting off his mouth:


Back-handing the STAIN on this site is just too easy. They are almost as dumb as on old commee Yahoo red.

I don't know if your source is accurate or telling the whole truth or nothing but the truth or not. For example there may be better and more efficient/effective solar power plants now, But for sure the Ivanpah plant did not pay for itself.

I would have more confidence in the pro wind/solar data if they would just be more transparent about the real costs of building, maintaining, operating these kinds of facilities. Then we might be able to know whether the energy they produce really is cheaper than other forms of energy.

Until then, we seem to be stuck with the pseudo science of a conclusion for which they search for data to support vs real science that produces the data and then draws its conclusions.

 

[ding]

Obviously. All the extra heating from the lower albedo would warm the planet.

Not according to satellite measurements, Apu.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not according to satellite measurements, Apu.

An albedo of 0.1 doesn't heat the planet?

 

[ding]

An albedo of 0.1 doesn't heat the planet?

I think I'll go with satellite measurements.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think I'll go with satellite measurements.

Of you could just use math and logic and physics.

 

[ding]

Of you could just use math and logic and physics.

I prefer empirical EVIDENCE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I prefer empirical EVIDENCE.

Right.

Because a satellite looking at one area allows solar panels to violate
conservation of energy.

 

[ding]

Right.

Because a satellite looking at one area allows solar panels to violate
conservation of energy.

116 solar farms comparing the farms to surrounding lands... before and after the farms. Empirical evidence is your friend.

 

[ding]

Albedo is related to how energy is distributed and exchanged in a system, particularly in the context of the Earth's climate. It's not conservation of energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

116 solar farms comparing the farms to surrounding lands... before and after the farms. Empirical evidence is your friend.

I looked at the empirical evidence, my freezer is cooling the planet, right?

 

[ding]

I looked at the empirical evidence, my freezer is cooling the planet, right?

Is it using electricity that was converted from photons from visible light before the photons struck and warmed the surface of the planet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is it using electricity that was converted from photons from visible light before the photons struck and warmed the surface of the planet?

My electricity is mostly coal and nuclear.
It's amazing, I'm cooling the planet simply by plugging in my freezer.

 

[ding]

My electricity is mostly coal and nuclear.
It's amazing, I'm cooling the planet simply by plugging in my freezer.

How much waste heat was produced from burning the coal? How much work was done in the form of kinetic energy by the compressor? How much friction was created by the compressor and the fluids?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much waste heat was produced from burning the coal? How much work was done in the form of kinetic energy by the compressor? How much friction was created by the compressor and the fluids?

How much waste heat was produced from burning the coal?

How much?

How much work was done in the form of kinetic energy by the compressor?

How much?

How much friction was created by the compressor and the fluids?

How much?

Why does it matter?

My satellite readings before the freezer was plugged in showed 72 degrees.
After the freezer is plugged in, the next reading was 0 degrees.
If that's not empirical evidence..........

 

[ding]

How much waste heat was produced from burning the coal?

How much?

How much work was done in the form of kinetic energy by the compressor?

How much?

How much friction was created by the compressor and the fluids?

How much?

Why does it matter?

My satellite readings before the freezer was plugged in showed 72 degrees.
After the freezer is plugged in, the next reading was 0 degrees.
If that's not empirical evidence..........

The satellite measured the net reduction in temperatures at the solar farms. Besides you already conceded this point. Move on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The satellite measured the net reduction in temperatures at the solar farms. Besides you already conceded this point. Move on.

I know. The power lines moved energy away from the solar farm, just like my compressor coils moved energy away from my freezer.

Both actions cool the planet in exactly the same way, right?

 

[ding]

I know. The power lines moved energy away from the solar farm, just like my compressor coils moved energy away from my freezer.

Both actions cool the planet in exactly the same way, right?

Empirical evidence is amazing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Empirical evidence is amazing.

I just stopped global warming; I left my freezer open!

In the real world, moving energy from A > B,
doesn't cool the planet. Even if you only get your "empirical evidence" from A.
Especially when the solar panels reflect so much less energy back to space than
the Earth's surface reflects.

You had me going there for a second, a bit too much of SSDD idiocy in your posts.