We Can Land an SUV on MARS, but can't Build an Electric Car or Solar Cell on Earth

You are completely clueless concerning the physics of global warming, as that very strange claim of yours just illustrated. It's not right. It's not even good enough to qualify as "wrong".

 

any chance of abstaining from mindless ad homs, or in other word insults instead of engaging in a debate?

And actually I was talking to Gator seeing him having intellect in difference from typical Warmista. What is your Warmista buisiness in the conversation?

 

If you don't want to discuss the issues, get off the thread. Everyone is getting tired of your endless spamming and insult tirades.

You claimed solar panels, by their operation, create global warming, more than burning fossil fuels for CO2 would. Given no one has ever made such a wild claim before, we'd all be very curious to hear how you came up with such groundshaking new science. This could get you a Nobel prize, so please explain your reasoning for us.

 

Warmista (that is Italian because Warmista is no different as I demonstrated in previous posts from Nasista) always say “we”. Since fascism as Hemingway defined it is a lie told by bullies here we observe that AWG is no different, it is a lie told by bullies. Warmista come in packs in the same way as Nasista.

I’d pointed to the physical fact that solar panels did trap solar energy and then released it into the atmosphere in the form of heat years ago. PF offers to anyone a way to check my posts from that time. One will see the panic of Warmista.

The allegation by Nasista that nobody did it before me is not worth of checking as it is not worth doubting the fact that Nasista is as far away from knowledge of basic laws of physics as it is far away from basic human decency and moral.

Solar panels do trap solar energy. It is a physical fact.
Then this energy is “used” by humans, that is converted in the form of heat (by friction, convection, boiling water, infared etc. ) It is the physical fact.
When the majorities of the scientific community are not aware of basic laws of physics it is no surprise, but an established fact.

Would I be the only one who is pointing that greenhouse gases do not exist in physics or in chemistry or in thermodynamics or in the theory of heat and mass exchange? That they are not following any special or different laws than laws written for other gases in the above mentioned disciplines? That scientists are grossly illiterate in the above mentioned disciplines? That they make up fantasies based on semantics and linguistic and having nothing to do to the abovementioned disciplines?

Would I be the only one pointing to the fact that solar panels do trap solar energy directly, no fiction back force radiation is needed? Can somebody help me to explain to IPCC and NASA scientists that this what solar panels do, - they trap solar energy? One would think a 4th grader knows and understands that but one would have a difficult time to find a IPCC or NASA scientist who is capable of understanding that.


Would I be the only one pointing to the fact that back force radiation does not exist in known laws of physics or thermodynamics or heat and mass exchange? It has never been demonstrated. Scientists want me to demonstrate God to them as a physical or statistical entity, when God is not such an entity; but they refuse to demonstrate physical phenomena of back force radiation, they all just believe it exists.



Now we will watch bobgnote coming and spamming with walls of garbage. let's watch.

 

So does dirt. Nice of you to finally catch up with the reason-based community, which has been closely studying albedo issues for many decades. Unlike you, however, they don't get it all laughably wrong.

Now, for your strange theory to make any sense, you'll need to demonstrate for us that:

A. Solar panels trap more solar energy than dirt.

B. That albedo change is so significant, it vastly outweighs the effect that burning fossil fuels and creating CO2 would create.

Note that waving your hands around, babbling about warmistas and screaming "I ALREADY SHOWED THAT!" is not considered to be support for your strange claim. Nearly everyone views such behavior on your part as your admission that you have no idea of what you're talking about, and that you're just making crap up and running away when you get called on it. If you wish to confirm that view, continue with your present behavior.

 

Oh my God, you figured out our evil scheme! Are you sure you don't work at NASA?

NASA is both science and engineering, they do both at that organization. The idiotic idea that IF liberals wanted to gut NASA completely requires a failure of Curiosity is simply idiotic. And no, the liberals aren't in charge of NASA right now, it's in the hands of both the republican and democratic party. The republicans in the house and the dems in the Senate.

As for global warming, it's amazing how the massive amount of data can't trump the desire of people such as yourself to justify what you believe. But I guess that's just how you are. OF course that also means that the folks at NASA should and will never listen to you as they rely on data and logic hence why man-made Global Climate change is real.

 

Omitting basics, dirt does not have batteries hooked up to it to store the trapped heat. Dirt releases caught fish back in the river. Solar cooks and eats the fish.

Solar panels are dirt with batteries and invertors. I wonder if I can find a single NASA scientist to comprehend scuh a simple concept.

 

Yo, einstein. When the panels convert sunlight to electricity, that means the sunlight isn't being converted to heat at that time. So it all evens out when it gets converted back to heat later. So there's the first way in which you're laughably ignorant of the physics involved. Your strange theory magically creates heat energy out of nothing, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.

The second way you fail hard is your claim that the direct albedo affects of the panels outweigh the effect of the CO2 reductions they bring about. You're never going to back that up, because you can't, being the actual evidence contradicts that strange theory. So, lacking any evidence, you're going to sputter out some crank ramblings about various groups you don't like, in the vain hope no one notices how you got called out for making up such weird science.

 

Some quick calcs on solar panels and albedo.

Solar panels have an albedo of about 0.3. That is, they reflect about 70% of incoming sunlight, absorb about 30%. If roof mounted, they are generally more reflective than the roof shingles, so they'd actually reduce heat. But let's do the worst case, and say the panels are arranged on a salt pan that has an albedo which is near 0.

Sunlight has an energy of about 6 kWH per meter-squared per day.

If the panel absorbs 30%, that's 1.8 kWH/m^2/day of heat added. It also turns 20% into electricity, 1.2 kWH/m^2/day.

Fossil Fuel power generation is about 30% efficient. So, to generate that 1.2 kWH, the plant would need to generate 4.0 kWH of heat.

4.0 is bigger than 1.8. Each meter-squared of solar panels means 2.2 kWH/day _less_ heat is generated on the earth. And that's not even taking any CO2 greenhouse effects into account.

Hence, Inquisitor's peculiar theory is decisively refuted.