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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

How long does the surface retain that heat before it radiates? A second? Less?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Incorrect? You doubt that the inside of my fridge emits fewer photons than the outside of my fridge?

 

[ding]

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.

Photons strike the surface of the planet, excite the atoms of the surface of the planet causing them to move and the friction of that movement produces heat. What waste heat that is left over from performing work radiates in all directions warming the air and rapidly dissipate without ever warming the surface of the planet like photons do which strike the surface of the earth.

 

[ding]

How long does the surface retain that heat before it radiates? A second? Less?

Why are you still arguing about something you have already conceded?

Less Infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after installing PV cells

 

[ding]

Incorrect? You doubt that the inside of my fridge emits fewer photons than the outside of my fridge?

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

You were the one to argue that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet so it’s a wash.

I argued that a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly I argued that even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dumbest statement ever made.

Liar.

This is dumber: the photons being converted into electricity more than offset the increased solar radiation absorbed by the lower albedo PV cells.

 

[ding]

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

Dumbest statement ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons strike the surface of the planet, excite the atoms of the surface of the planet causing them to move and the friction of that movement produces heat. What waste heat that is left over from performing work radiates in all directions warming the air and rapidly dissipate without ever warming the surface of the planet like photons do which strike the surface of the earth.

Photons strike the surface of the planet, excite the atoms of the surface of the planet causing them to move and the friction of that movement produces heat.

And then it radiates and heats the air.

 

[ding]

Liar.

This is dumber: the photons being converted into electricity more than offset the increased solar radiation absorbed by the lower albedo PV cells.

Less infrared radiation measured at six solar farms says otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why are you still arguing about something you have already conceded?

Less Infrared radiation was measured at six solar farms after installing PV cells

I'd never argue that less infrared radiation was measured in my fridge.
For the same reason less was measured at a solar farm.

 

[ding]

I'd never argue that less infrared radiation was measured in my fridge.
For the same reason less was measured at a solar farm.

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

You were the one to argue that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet so it’s a wash.

I argued that a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly I argued that even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[ding]

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

So dumb.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I argued that a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total

How much? Show your evidence.

 

[ding]

Photons strike the surface of the planet, excite the atoms of the surface of the planet causing them to move and the friction of that movement produces heat.

And then it radiates and heats the air.

Yes. After producing heat in earth’s surface it back radiates into the air.

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

You were the one to argue that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet so it’s a wash.

I argued that a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly I argued that even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Less infrared radiation measured at six solar farms says otherwise.

How much more heat is carried away by the air?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

You were the one to argue that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet so it’s a wash.

I argued that a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly I argued that even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

Yes, I'm still laughing about your claims.

Are you sure you're not SSDD?

 

[ding]

How much? Show your evidence.

Why? I already defeated your argument by showing not all electricity usage produces waste heat. And what waste heat that is produced radiates in all directions and does not heat the surface of the planet like solar radiation does by striking the surface of the planet.

 

[ding]

Yes, I'm still laughing about your claims.

Are you sure you're not SSDD?

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

You were the one to argue that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet so it’s a wash.

I argued that a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work and the amount of energy used to perform that work must be subtracted from the total and that only the friction created from doing that work created heat. Furthermore what heat that is created from electricity usage doesn’t heat the surface of the planet. It heats the surrounding air. And what heat that is close to the surface doesn’t heat the surface like photons do. It radiates in all directions. So a good portion of that heat does not heat the surface of the planet.

And lastly I argued that even if waste heat from electricity usage heated the surface in exactly the same way as photons do that there would still be an incremental cooling effect because the waste heat is the same in both cases. Replacing fossil fuels with solar does not increase the amount of waste heat generated. But the generation of electricity effectively reduces the incoming solar radiation by converting photons into electricity that would have otherwise produced heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My claim is that the widespread use of solar power is a bad idea in the middle of an ice age because converting photons into electricity reduces the effective solar radiation the earth receives.

Only a warm surface stops glaciers. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why? I already defeated your argument by showing not all electricity usage produces waste heat. And what waste heat that is produced radiates in all directions and does not heat the surface of the planet like solar radiation does by striking the surface of the planet.

Why?

You seem to think it's a significant portion.
More than the extra 35% retained by the panel.