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

[ding]

Ding believes electricity doesn't heat the planet....it's magic!

Your belief that all waste heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the planet like solar radiation does is incorrect. 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 like solar radiation does. 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.

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]

Not photons converted into electricity by PV cells. You are out of your depth too.

Used to reflect 40%, now you reflect 5%.

Doesn't matter if 19% magically creates no heat.

Still net warmer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why? What are you disputing?

Your claims.

Based on your long history of error.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don’t need a study to know that work requires energy. But you probably already knew that since you refused to explain how using electricity heats the surface of the planet.

You need one to back up your claim.

 

[ding]

Your claims.

Based on your long history of error.

Can you be more specific?

 

[ding]

Used to reflect 40%, now you reflect 5%.

Doesn't matter if 19% magically creates no heat.

Still net warmer.

Already addressed this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your belief that all waste heat from electricity usage heats the surface of the planet like solar radiation does is incorrect. 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 like solar radiation does. 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.

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.

a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work

Show how much electricity performs work that results in no heat.

Now your argument is that heating the air doesn't count? Ok SSDD. LOL!

 

[ding]

You need one to back up your claim.

It’s self evident. FLoT.

 

[ding]

a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work

Show how much electricity performs work that results in no heat.

Now your argument is that heating the air doesn't count? Ok SSDD. LOL!

Says the guy who claims all solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you be more specific?

You forgot your errors already?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s self evident. FLoT.

Your errors are self evident.

Now prove your FLoT violating claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says the guy who claims all solar radiation converted into electricity heats the surface of the planet.

Says the guy who claims 95% retained, versus 60% retained, is offset by 19% moved.

 

[ding]

a large portion of electricity usage is used to perform work

Show how much electricity performs work that results in no heat.

Now your argument is that heating the air doesn't count? Ok SSDD. LOL!

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.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

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 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]

You forgot your errors already?

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.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

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 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]

Your errors are self evident.

Now prove your FLoT violating claims.

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.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

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 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]

Says the guy who claims 95% retained, versus 60% retained, is offset by 19% moved.

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.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

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 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]

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

Show me how much performs this non-heating work.

 

[ding]

Show me how much performs this non-heating work.

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.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

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 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.

Hilarious. How does retaining 95%, versus 60% of solar radiation "reduce the effective solar radiation the earth receives"?

Where in physics is "effective solar radiation" discussed?

How do you measure "effective solar radiation"?

 

[ding]

Hilarious. How does retaining 95%, versus 60% of solar radiation "reduce the effective solar radiation the earth receives"?

Where in physics is "effective solar radiation" discussed?

How do you measure "effective solar radiation"?

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.

Todd is arguing that when the electricity is used it heats the surface of the planet just like solar radiation striking the planet does which is stupid.

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 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.