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

[ding]

How much more heat is carried away by the air?

Are you still arguing that converting photons - which would have otherwise produced heat on the surface of the planet - does not create an incremental cooling effect?

 

[ding]

Only a warm surface stops glaciers. LOL!

Only an idiot would believe the widespread use of solar in the middle of an ice age is a good idea.

 

[ding]

Why?

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

Any portion defeats you stupid argument.

 

[ding]

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

So very dumb.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dumbest statement ever.

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

Because the 19% turned into electricity is more than the extra 35% retained. DURR

 

[ding]

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

Because the 19% turned into electricity is more than the extra 35% retained. DURR

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]

Because the 19% turned into electricity is more than the extra 35% retained. DURR

If that were the case there wouldn’t have been an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.

Why do you keep arguing a point you have already conceded?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you still arguing that converting photons - which would have otherwise produced heat on the surface of the planet - does not create an incremental cooling effect?

Moving heat from the farm to the city doesn't cool the planet.
Moving heat from the inside of my fridge to the outside of my fridge doesn't cool the planet.

 

[ding]

Moving heat from the farm to the city doesn't cool the planet.
Moving heat from the inside of my fridge to the outside of my fridge doesn't cool the planet.

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]

If that were the case there wouldn’t have been an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.

Why do you keep arguing a point you have already conceded?

How much better does the air cool the panels than it cools the surface?

 

[ding]

How much better does the air cool the panels than it cools the surface?

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]

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

Obviously.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred.

 

[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.

OK SSDD

LOL!

 

[ding]

How much better does the air cool the panels than it cools the surface?

If that mattered there wouldn’t have been an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If that mattered there wouldn’t have been an incremental cooling effect measured at six solar farms after PV cells were installed.

More air circulation around the panels doesn't matter when you measure the temperature of the panel?

Now I know you're SSDD.

 

[ding]

Obviously.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred.

electricity usage used to perform work does not produce heat. It performs work. 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]

More air circulation around the panels doesn't matter when you measure the temperature of the panel?

Now I know you're SSDD.

The study didn’t measure temperature at the panel. It measured infrared radiation using satellites. That infrared radiation resulted in cooler temperatures above the solar farms after PV cells were installed.

You have already conceded the cooling affect of solar farms. So why are you arguing against yourself?

 

[ding]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The study didn’t measure temperature at the panel. It measured infrared radiation using satellites. That infrared radiation resulted in cooler temperatures above the solar farms after PV cells were installed.

Right. How much of that was due to air circulating around the panels all day?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can photons from 0 C matter hit 100 C matter?