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

[ding]

Right. Does the heat produced when the electricity is used heat the planet?

What difference does it make? It's in all cases, dummy, but reduction of solar radiation is only in the solar power case.

How do you know that? What percentage of the solar radiation is converted into electricity?

What percentage of the solar energy doesn't get reflected by the panel, compared to the surface?

Satellite measurements and modeling.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What difference does it make? It's in all cases, dummy, but reduction of solar radiation is only in the solar power case.

Satellite measurements and modeling.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

What difference does it make?

You're claiming net cooling.
I'm claiming, best case scenario, no change.
Ignoring the much lower albedo of the panels.

 

[ding]

Have you ever actually been in a solar farm?

Unless you're hiding under the panels there is no impact on local climate. AT ALL.

From Science
"The benefits of solar panels still outweigh their drawbacks, though. Realistic large-scale solar panel coverage could cause less than half a degree of local warming, far less than the several degrees in global temperature rise predicted over the next century if we keep burning fossil fuels."

WARMING not COOLING.

Try boning up on thermodynamics, meteorology,

I've got an engineering degree. You?

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What difference does it make? It's in all cases, dummy, but reduction of solar radiation is only in the solar power case.

Satellite measurements and modeling.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356860141_Direct_impact_of_solar_farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

We find that solar panels
alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar
energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar
panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily
in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures
which compensate the cooling effect.

LOL!

 

[ding]

What difference does it make?

You're claiming net cooling.
I'm claiming, best case scenario, no change.
Ignoring the much lower albedo of the panels.

Actually modeling and measurements have proven a regional cooling effect. They not only took albedo into account they measured the phenomenon. If you had read the paper you would have discovered it's more complicated than just the albedo of the panel.

 

[ding]

We find that solar panels
alone induce regional cooling by converting incoming solar
energy to electricity in comparison to the climate without solar
panels. The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily
in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures
which compensate the cooling effect.

LOL!

I'm sure you think that means the paper says exactly the opposite of what they concluded. I've wound you up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually modeling and measurements have proven a regional cooling effect. They not only took albedo into account they measured the phenomenon. If you had read the paper you would have discovered it's more complicated than just the albedo of the panel.

Actually modeling and measurements have proven a regional cooling effect.

And a regional warming effect.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Libtard logic 101, well we will just run an extension cord to Japan when it's daytime there.

Fess up. You've been dating AOC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure you think that means the paper says exactly the opposite of what they concluded. I've wound you up.

They "concluded" that the warming compensates for the cooling.

See?

The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily
in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures
which compensate the cooling effect.

 

[ding]

Actually modeling and measurements have proven a regional cooling effect.

And a regional warming effect.

An old study with flawed measurement techniques that did not capture the complexity between the panel and earth's surface or measure longwave radiation with satellites.

 

[ding]

They "concluded" that the warming compensates for the cooling.

See?

The conversion of this electricity to heat, primarily
in urban areas, increases regional and global temperatures
which compensate the cooling effect.

They studied the cooling effect. They waved their arms at the part you are harping on. You can't get past any electrical heat returned through the use of electricity being in all cases. But reduction of solar radiation is only in one case.

 

[ding]

WARMING not COOLING.

You do realize the earth has been in an ice age for the past 3 million years, right? Snow and ice covering significant portions of NA, Europe and Asia every winter should be your first clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An old study with flawed measurement techniques that did not capture the complexity between the panel and earth's surface or measure longwave radiation with satellites.

You gave me a link today based on an old study with flawed measurement techniques that did not capture the complexity between the panel and earth's surface or measure longwave radiation with satellites?

That was poor planning on your part.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They studied the cooling effect. They waved their arms at the part you are harping on.

You waved your arms at the warming portion of the equation as well.

You can't get past any electrical heat returned through the use of electricity being in all cases.

And you still don't understand net.

 

[ding]

You gave me a link today based on an old study with flawed measurement techniques that did not capture the complexity between the panel and earth's surface or measure longwave radiation with satellites?

That was poor planning on your part.

You are funny. You must have a "low productivity" job.

 

[ding]

You waved your arms at the warming portion of the equation as well.


And you still don't understand net.

I must really be in your head.

 

[Dadoalex]

I've got an engineering degree. You?

https://www.researchgate.net/public...farm_deployment_on_surface_longwave_radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283975603_Impact_of_solar_panels_on_global_climate

Mines in Computer Science.

As I said.

Bone up on thermodynamics, meteorology, and physics.

 

[ding]

Mines in Computer Science.

As I said.

Bone up on thermodynamics, meteorology, and physics.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Dadoalex]

You do realize the earth has been in an ice age for the past 3 million years, right? Snow and ice covering significant portions of NA, Europe and Asia every winter should be your first clue.

THAT is not the stupidest thing you've ever said.
But it is close.

Go learn thermodynamics, meteorology, physics, and since your being stupid, geology.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I must really be in your head.

Yes, I can't get over your ignorance.

Tell me again how a single mutation can create new species.