The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[jc456]

It means they have satellite data from before the six solar farms were installed and that's what they compared the post solar farm satellite data to for the six sites.

And says it sees no difference in emissivities before and after.

 

[ding]

And says it sees no difference in emotivities before and after.

Cooler daytime temps were seen due to panels capturing photons and converting them into electricity.

 

[jc456]

Cooler daytime temps were seen due to panels capturing photons and converting them into electricity.

that's not what that read at all. It stated emissivity, meaning the amount going into the air.

 

[ding]

that's not what that read at all. It stated emissivity, meaning the amount going into the air.

Maybe you should keep reading until you get to the part where they conclude the incrementally lower daytime temperatures above the six solar farms is the result of capturing photons that would have otherwise heated the surface of the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We are already in an ice age. It started 3 million years ago. You can see signs of it every winter when significant portions of NA, Asia and Europe are covered with snow. You greenies are all alike ignoring the consequences of your pet technology.

The issue is replacing a generating source which doesn't capture solar radiation with a technology that does capture solar radiation. Waste heat is the same for both cases.

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar energy.

Durr

The issue is replacing a generating source which doesn't capture solar radiation with a technology that does capture solar radiation. Waste heat is the same for both cases.

Waste heat with 0.05 albedo is more than waste heat at 0.3 albedo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cooler daytime temps were seen due to panels capturing photons and converting them into electricity.

Where do the adiabatic processes come into play?

 

[ding]

I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial cycle than the widespread use of solar energy.

Durr

The issue is replacing a generating source which doesn't capture solar radiation with a technology that does capture solar radiation. Waste heat is the same for both cases.

Waste heat with 0.05 albedo is more than waste heat at 0.3 albedo.

I get that you don't know that much of the last 3 million years has been extremely cold. Most greenies don't know that.

 

[ding]

Where do the adiabatic processes come into play?

Not there, greenie.

 

[jc456]

I get that you don't know that much of the last 3 million years has been extremely cold. Most greenies don't know that.

Todd is far from a greenie, when he's calling out greenies.

 

[ding]

Todd is far from a greenie, when he's calling out greenies.

He must be two faced then because he's taking a greenie's position here.

 

[jc456]

He must be two faced then because he's taking a greenie's position here.

nope, I don't agree with you either. I'm fking on another planet from a greenie.

 

[ding]

nope, I don't agree with you either. I'm fking on another planet from a greenie.

It's not me you are disagreeing with. It's the FLoT. It would be odd if solar power which captures solar energy didn't affect the earth's energy budget because solar radiation is the main component in the earth's energy budget. Greenies don't want people to believe solar power could affect the earth's climate. But even they aren't stupid enough to argue PV cells don't capture solar radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I get that you don't know that much of the last 3 million years has been extremely cold. Most greenies don't know that.

I blame those caveman solar panels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not there, greenie.

Don't pull a hammie running away from another of your silly claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He must be two faced then because he's taking a greenie's position here.

Only greenies can point out your FLoT errors?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would be odd if solar power which captures solar energy didn't affect the earth's energy budget because solar radiation is the main component in the earth's energy budget.

You're claiming solar panels affect the energy budget because you don't understand the First Law.

But even they aren't stupid enough to argue PV cells don't capture solar radiation.

The capture solar radiation. Just like the Earth's surface captures solar radiation.
Except they're better at it. Which is why they warm the planet.

 

[ding]

I blame those caveman solar panels.

Seriously. You are making their argument. You use the same tactics they do. I don't see any difference.

 

[ding]

Don't pull a hammie running away from another of your silly claims.

When you make the arguments they make and you use the tactics they use, I don't see a difference between you and them.

 

[ding]

You're claiming solar panels affect the energy budget because you don't understand the First Law.

But even they aren't stupid enough to argue PV cells don't capture solar radiation.

The capture solar radiation. Just like the Earth's surface captures solar radiation.
Except they're better at it. Which is why they warm the planet.

If incrementally cooler temperatures above six solar farms don't clue you in that there's less infrared radiation because enough photons were siphoned off that the net result is LESS infrared radiation, then you are a greenie.

 

[jc456]

If incrementally cooler temperatures above six solar farms don't clue you in that there's less infrared radiation because enough photons were siphoned off that the net result is LESS infrared radiation, then you are a greenie.

Again, the satellites don’t agree with you!