"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[Toddsterpatriot]

Less infrared radiation measured at six solar farms says otherwise.

More infrared radiation released in cities says yes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s nice. And meaningless too.

Meaningless because I ignored net? LOL!

 

[ding]

Where? Link?

In this thread.

I said most, if not all.
If you think the amount that doesn't turn into waste heat is significant, post the paper.

Nope. That’s not what you said.

 

[ding]

More infrared radiation released in cities says yes.

Nope. Got to subtract work performed. And what heat is produced heats the surrounding air and not the surface. And even if all of it did heat the surface, there’s no incremental change in waste heat because waste heat from electricity usage is the same regardless of the generating technology. So replacing fossil fuels with solar results in an incremental cooling at the generation site and no incremental changes in waste heat from electricity usage.

 

[ding]

Meaningless because I ignored net? LOL!

Meaningless because you can’t articulate your beliefs in a coherent fashion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In this thread.

Nope. That’s not what you said.

Which post in this thread shows how much isn't turned into heat after the work is performed?

Yes, that's what I said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Meaningless because you can’t articulate your beliefs in a coherent fashion.

You said less infrared radiation measured at six solar farms.
I can show less infrared radiation measured inside my fridge.
For the same reason.

 

[ding]

Which post in this thread shows how much isn't turned into heat after the work is performed?

Yes, that's what I said.

The one where you said solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet.

Which was an asinine statement.

 

[ding]

You said less infrared radiation measured at six solar farms.
I can show less infrared radiation measured inside my fridge.
For the same reason.

Actually you can’t. The incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms was due to photons being converted into electricity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually you can’t. The incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms was due to photons being converted into electricity.

Inside my fridge, electricity also reduced the number of photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The one where you said solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet.

Which was an asinine statement.

How long does that hot sand retain that solar energy before it emits a photon?

 

[ding]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that will still heat the surface of the planet.

I bet you feel dumb saying that now.

 

[ding]

Inside my fridge, electricity also reduced the number of photons.

That’s hilarious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I bet you feel dumb saying that now.

Well, if you want to claim that none of the waste heat created by my toaster ever hits the surface of the planet, I'd be interested in hearing your logic.

 

[ding]

How long does that hot sand retain that solar energy before it emits a photon?

Still arguing there wasn’t an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms?

Or is this an attempt to argue that Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that will still heat the surface of the planet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s hilarious.

And also true.

 

[ding]

Well, if you want to claim that none of the waste heat created by my toaster ever hits the surface of the planet, I'd be interested in hearing your logic.

It’s warming the surrounding air dummy. Unlike photons which strike the surface of the planet and produce heat on the earth’s surface, waste heat from electricity usage radiates in all directions. Why don’t you know this?

 

[ding]

And also true.

It’s as incorrect as your idiotic claim that Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that will still heat the surface of the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still arguing there wasn’t an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms?

Or is this an attempt to argue that Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that will still heat the surface of the planet?

Still arguing there wasn’t an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms?

Still arguing that retaining 35% more solar radiation doesn't "incrementally" heat the planet?

Or is this an attempt to argue that Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that will still heat the surface of the planet?

If you're arguing that only photons that hit the surface can be said to heat the planet, that heat in the atmosphere doesn't count, you're gonna make me laugh again.

 

[ding]

Any solar radiation that is converted into electricity is solar radiation that will still heat the surface of the planet.

Dumbest statement ever made.