| Solar panels 10:32 - Jul 2 with 9097 views | AguycalledJack |
I posted on the new site, but as that appears to be currently down, does anybody have them? Pros and cons? [Post edited 2 Jul 2020 10:33]
|  | | |  |
| Solar panels on 11:19 - Jul 4 with 1126 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 10:58 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
No, No & no. |
So what gives our planet a habitable climate? And what happens to the atoms of those molecules when they absorb heat? [Post edited 4 Jul 2020 11:27]
| | | |
| Solar panels on 11:46 - Jul 4 with 1098 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Solar panels on 15:26 - Jul 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes. Tax Breaks are not subsidies.
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-reliefs
Perhaps you are aware of something that Coal, Oil and Gas get in the same category as so called green technology, which is added to the basic price of the commodity and is direct profit to the company subsidised.
Let's take Oil, shall we, how much Direct Taxation is on Oil, especially in the form of Petrol or Diesel, about 70%.
How much Direct Taxation is on Wind power? |
The taxation on oli used to generate electricity is 5% . In fact VAT is 5% on all electricity irrespective of how it is generated.
Off shore wind power and solar farm power no longer need any subsidies as they generate electricity at below average wholesale electricity costs. They only subsidies they get these days are when they are asked to stop generating electricity when it is too windy as it is cheaper than shutting down gas fired power stations and nuclear power stations for short periods of over supply. | |
| |
| Solar panels on 11:58 - Jul 4 with 1092 views | londonlisa2001 |
Each of the three links is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
You don’t know that as you don’t understand the way it works.
If there are two companies and one gets a particular tax break and the other is not entitled to claim the same tax break, one is being subsidised to the amount of the money they get to keep as a result of that tax break.
Now please don’t post a hundred links to Janet and John websites. | | | |
| Solar panels on 12:25 - Jul 4 with 1077 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 11:19 - Jul 4 by Scotia |
So what gives our planet a habitable climate? And what happens to the atoms of those molecules when they absorb heat? [Post edited 4 Jul 2020 11:27]
|
Physics is what happens to those Molecules, they do not absorb "heat", they absorb and emit a photon. By the way CO2 in the upper troposphere is at about -60 degrees C as are all the other gas molecules.
However, usually before they can re-emit the photon they collide with a molecule of Oxygen or Nitrogen and lose that energy the photon imparted, if you like I can provide you with relative time both things take.
Now I thought we had established, well at least prof and I, that only the GHG molecules can emit that LWIR photon.
See this chart for where the various gases operate.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transmission-of-shortwave-solar-irradiation-
So, the energy that it had has been transferred to a molecule that cannot re-emit it as a photon of the same energy, they can only emit microwaves.
But when that molecule collides with a GHG molecule and hands back that extra energy that can then emit the photon out to space which Cools the Atmosphere.
So it is not the so called GHG gases that are the real holders of the energy and heat in the Atmosphere it is Oxygen & Nitrogen.
The only gas that send photons out to space in the 15 micron band are CO2, but I am not sure how much of those there are in the upper troposphere where there is virtaully no water or water vapour because the atmosphere is very thin. | | | |
| Solar panels on 12:27 - Jul 4 with 1073 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 11:58 - Jul 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Each of the three links is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
You don’t know that as you don’t understand the way it works.
If there are two companies and one gets a particular tax break and the other is not entitled to claim the same tax break, one is being subsidised to the amount of the money they get to keep as a result of that tax break.
Now please don’t post a hundred links to Janet and John websites. |
Yes I have noticed that everything is irrelevant to the discussion when it proves you wrong.
I will agree to disagree yet again. | | | |
| Solar panels on 12:32 - Jul 4 with 1069 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 12:25 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Physics is what happens to those Molecules, they do not absorb "heat", they absorb and emit a photon. By the way CO2 in the upper troposphere is at about -60 degrees C as are all the other gas molecules.
However, usually before they can re-emit the photon they collide with a molecule of Oxygen or Nitrogen and lose that energy the photon imparted, if you like I can provide you with relative time both things take.
Now I thought we had established, well at least prof and I, that only the GHG molecules can emit that LWIR photon.
See this chart for where the various gases operate.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transmission-of-shortwave-solar-irradiation-
So, the energy that it had has been transferred to a molecule that cannot re-emit it as a photon of the same energy, they can only emit microwaves.
But when that molecule collides with a GHG molecule and hands back that extra energy that can then emit the photon out to space which Cools the Atmosphere.
So it is not the so called GHG gases that are the real holders of the energy and heat in the Atmosphere it is Oxygen & Nitrogen.
The only gas that send photons out to space in the 15 micron band are CO2, but I am not sure how much of those there are in the upper troposphere where there is virtaully no water or water vapour because the atmosphere is very thin. |
Another non answer. Keep it simple because it is, so they do absorb heat.
How about water vapour does that play a role in climate at all? [Post edited 4 Jul 2020 12:43]
| | | |
| Solar panels on 12:37 - Jul 4 with 1064 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 12:32 - Jul 4 by Scotia |
Another non answer. Keep it simple because it is, so they do absorb heat.
How about water vapour does that play a role in climate at all? [Post edited 4 Jul 2020 12:43]
|
It’s not like burning hydrocarbons also produces water vapour too.
The paper from which the figure is derived is a developing a model to assess components of GHG for their role in heat retention | | | |
| Solar panels on 12:44 - Jul 4 with 1059 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Solar panels on 12:27 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Yes I have noticed that everything is irrelevant to the discussion when it proves you wrong.
I will agree to disagree yet again. |
Company A - Revenue £100, Costs £80 Profit £20 Tax on profit £4 Retained earnings £16
Company B - Revenue £100, Costs £80 Profit £20 Tax on profit £2 Retained earnings £18
Company B paid less tax as it receives a tax break. Company B has an additional £2 Retained profit not available to Company A. Company B has received a subsidy of £2.
Company B’s shareholders have had a better post tax return than Company A’s. Shareholders choosing to invest their money in A or B would choose B due to the subsidy. Company B can afford to cut its prices and still make as much profit as Company A due to the tax breaks it receives. The government is subsidising Company B’s activities through tax policy.
A Janet & John link doesn’t ‘prove me wrong’ anymore than any of your other failed attempts to prove me wrong on issues you don’t understand such as pensions. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Solar panels on 12:46 - Jul 4 with 1058 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 12:37 - Jul 4 by Professor |
It’s not like burning hydrocarbons also produces water vapour too.
The paper from which the figure is derived is a developing a model to assess components of GHG for their role in heat retention |
The last time I was in this position AFD linked a Russian paper which stated something like "there is no dispute regarding the thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect". | | | |
| Solar panels on 14:58 - Jul 4 with 1037 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 12:32 - Jul 4 by Scotia |
Another non answer. Keep it simple because it is, so they do absorb heat.
How about water vapour does that play a role in climate at all? [Post edited 4 Jul 2020 12:43]
|
Absorbing Photons is immaterial if within a few microseconds they re-emit it or a few nanoseconds they pass it as kinetic energy in a collision with another molecule.
I have already said Water controls the climate, not man made CO2, which by the way is a tiny fraction of natural CO2.
In fact despite the virtual shutdown of 50% of the most of the world for last 4 months CO2 is still rising at the same rate. | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:22 - Jul 4 with 1030 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 14:58 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Absorbing Photons is immaterial if within a few microseconds they re-emit it or a few nanoseconds they pass it as kinetic energy in a collision with another molecule.
I have already said Water controls the climate, not man made CO2, which by the way is a tiny fraction of natural CO2.
In fact despite the virtual shutdown of 50% of the most of the world for last 4 months CO2 is still rising at the same rate. |
China only shut down Wuhan. I don't think anywhere stopped power generation, The only big reduction in pollutants would be reduced transport | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:30 - Jul 4 with 1026 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 11:46 - Jul 4 by felixstowe_jack |
The taxation on oli used to generate electricity is 5% . In fact VAT is 5% on all electricity irrespective of how it is generated.
Off shore wind power and solar farm power no longer need any subsidies as they generate electricity at below average wholesale electricity costs. They only subsidies they get these days are when they are asked to stop generating electricity when it is too windy as it is cheaper than shutting down gas fired power stations and nuclear power stations for short periods of over supply. |
"Off shore wind power and solar farm power no longer need any subsidies as they generate electricity at below average wholesale electricity costs."
You are completely brain washed.
Future Off shore wind may not need subsidies, but none of those conrtrcted for have actually been built.
Have you any idea what price you and I pay for Offshore wind electricy now and for at least the next 15 years?
If you want a masterclass in Wind power costs read and digest these posts by an ex accountant using the Governments own data with links to it.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/06/13/dummies-guide-to-renewa
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/dummies-guide-to-renewa | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:41 - Jul 4 with 1020 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 12:44 - Jul 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Company A - Revenue £100, Costs £80 Profit £20 Tax on profit £4 Retained earnings £16
Company B - Revenue £100, Costs £80 Profit £20 Tax on profit £2 Retained earnings £18
Company B paid less tax as it receives a tax break. Company B has an additional £2 Retained profit not available to Company A. Company B has received a subsidy of £2.
Company B’s shareholders have had a better post tax return than Company A’s. Shareholders choosing to invest their money in A or B would choose B due to the subsidy. Company B can afford to cut its prices and still make as much profit as Company A due to the tax breaks it receives. The government is subsidising Company B’s activities through tax policy.
A Janet & John link doesn’t ‘prove me wrong’ anymore than any of your other failed attempts to prove me wrong on issues you don’t understand such as pensions. |
"Janet & John link"
Yes I can understand that the The Foundation For Economic Education doesn't know what it is talking about.
I can also understand how the Objective Standard wouldn't meet your non objective views.
And of course then there was the MISES Instute, the Austrian School of Economics haven't got a clue either. | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:48 - Jul 4 with 1015 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 15:22 - Jul 4 by Professor |
China only shut down Wuhan. I don't think anywhere stopped power generation, The only big reduction in pollutants would be reduced transport |
What there was no reduction in Industry, building etc?
What were those millions doing on furlough I wonder.
But isn't Transport supposed to be one of the major contributors according to all those pushing EVs and laughable electric planes.
The world experienced what the Green brigae say we need to "Save the world from burning up" at massive costs all around and it achieved nothing CO2 wise.
Which is good because CO2 is doing a great job of greening the world. | | | |
| Solar panels on 15:51 - Jul 4 with 1014 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 14:58 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Absorbing Photons is immaterial if within a few microseconds they re-emit it or a few nanoseconds they pass it as kinetic energy in a collision with another molecule.
I have already said Water controls the climate, not man made CO2, which by the way is a tiny fraction of natural CO2.
In fact despite the virtual shutdown of 50% of the most of the world for last 4 months CO2 is still rising at the same rate. |
And still no answer. Why mention co2 at all if plays no role? | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:10 - Jul 4 with 1013 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 15:48 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
What there was no reduction in Industry, building etc?
What were those millions doing on furlough I wonder.
But isn't Transport supposed to be one of the major contributors according to all those pushing EVs and laughable electric planes.
The world experienced what the Green brigae say we need to "Save the world from burning up" at massive costs all around and it achieved nothing CO2 wise.
Which is good because CO2 is doing a great job of greening the world. |
Worldwide -stop being so palpably dim
Anyway your learned organisations:
FEE- Right Wing libertarian think tank.
MISES.- right wing libertarian think tank. Funded by Ron Paul. Described as neo-confederate and a ‘voice for the south’.
Austrian School- an economic school of thought, not like LSE a school of economics. Holds a view of individualism is economics- libertarian and small state. Largely discredited as does not model or use mathematical-based analyses.
Load of right wing libertarian think tanks is not any sort of
Independent or balanced view is it? | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:25 - Jul 4 with 1008 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 12:37 - Jul 4 by Professor |
It’s not like burning hydrocarbons also produces water vapour too.
The paper from which the figure is derived is a developing a model to assess components of GHG for their role in heat retention |
Retention "the action of absorbing and continuing to hold a substance.".
CO2 cannot retain anything, you of all people should know that.
The time to emit the extra energy as aphoton is about 10 micro seconds, the time to collision about 10 nano seconds.
I am amazed you haven't brought up Down Welling LWIR as a last resort. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:29 - Jul 4 with 1004 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 16:25 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Retention "the action of absorbing and continuing to hold a substance.".
CO2 cannot retain anything, you of all people should know that.
The time to emit the extra energy as aphoton is about 10 micro seconds, the time to collision about 10 nano seconds.
I am amazed you haven't brought up Down Welling LWIR as a last resort. |
The energy is retained in the lower atmosphere as the levels of CO2, NOx, CH4 and water vapour are such not to allow the energy to escape this the energy heats the lower atmosphere. Simplistic,
But what most people who don’t read libertarian right-wing claptrap seem to get sorry. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:35 - Jul 4 with 1001 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 15:51 - Jul 4 by Scotia |
And still no answer. Why mention co2 at all if plays no role? |
You brought it up and wanted an answer.
I have given you my answer.
CO2 is in the atmosphere it can absorb LWIR photons at a wavelength of 15 microns, but it then immediately loses that energy.
It doesn't have time to warm anything other than other gas molecules by kinetic energy. But as I keep saying it is the only way that the atmosphere cools.
The Surface cools by more means in comprison.
If the CO2 is constantly heating the atmosphere it would still be expanding, it is not, it is contracting due to the Quiet Sun.
Admittedely it is at the top of the Atmosphere, but it is still contracting. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:47 - Jul 4 with 990 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 16:29 - Jul 4 by Professor |
The energy is retained in the lower atmosphere as the levels of CO2, NOx, CH4 and water vapour are such not to allow the energy to escape this the energy heats the lower atmosphere. Simplistic,
But what most people who don’t read libertarian right-wing claptrap seem to get sorry. |
No, they cannot stop the energy from escaping in the lower atmosphere.
70% of the Earth's surface is Water, Evaporation and Convection move far more energy to above the lower atmosphere, except for the Atmospheric window which goes straight to space.
They can slow the progress of a LWIR photon for microseconds, which is a minute delay. What does heat in the atmosphere do, it rises.
Now Cloud reflection is another story.
What does heat in the atmosphere do, it rises. | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:50 - Jul 4 with 988 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Solar panels on 15:41 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Janet & John link"
Yes I can understand that the The Foundation For Economic Education doesn't know what it is talking about.
I can also understand how the Objective Standard wouldn't meet your non objective views.
And of course then there was the MISES Instute, the Austrian School of Economics haven't got a clue either. |
Did you understand what I wrote? | | | |
| Solar panels on 16:56 - Jul 4 with 980 views | Scotia |
| Solar panels on 16:35 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
You brought it up and wanted an answer.
I have given you my answer.
CO2 is in the atmosphere it can absorb LWIR photons at a wavelength of 15 microns, but it then immediately loses that energy.
It doesn't have time to warm anything other than other gas molecules by kinetic energy. But as I keep saying it is the only way that the atmosphere cools.
The Surface cools by more means in comprison.
If the CO2 is constantly heating the atmosphere it would still be expanding, it is not, it is contracting due to the Quiet Sun.
Admittedely it is at the top of the Atmosphere, but it is still contracting. |
So what gives our planet a habitable climate? And what happens to the atoms of those molecules when they absorb heat?
That is what I want answered.
Plus does water vapour play a role in climate change?
For the purposes of this thread I'm not interested in Co2, it is the agenda of the sources that you use to attempt to prove it doesn't play a role in climate change. They have completely failed to do, they only seem to have convinced those who want to believe it to be the case.
I'm not getting involved in you pasting links to very spurious science (or links that demonstrate the opposite of what you intended) when the overwhelming evidence clearly shows Co2 causes the climate to warm, irrespective of source.
If you can show me something that demonstrates that neither Ch4, N2O or O3 cause the climate to warm I'd take a look. | | | |
| Solar panels on 17:17 - Jul 4 with 967 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 16:56 - Jul 4 by Scotia |
So what gives our planet a habitable climate? And what happens to the atoms of those molecules when they absorb heat?
That is what I want answered.
Plus does water vapour play a role in climate change?
For the purposes of this thread I'm not interested in Co2, it is the agenda of the sources that you use to attempt to prove it doesn't play a role in climate change. They have completely failed to do, they only seem to have convinced those who want to believe it to be the case.
I'm not getting involved in you pasting links to very spurious science (or links that demonstrate the opposite of what you intended) when the overwhelming evidence clearly shows Co2 causes the climate to warm, irrespective of source.
If you can show me something that demonstrates that neither Ch4, N2O or O3 cause the climate to warm I'd take a look. |
How can I demonstrate that the concensus is not correct unless I quote non consensus sites even when they use official data.
You are asking for an impossibility like all warmers who only believe what they have been fed.
So there is no point in my answering any of your questions is there? | | | |
| Solar panels on 17:23 - Jul 4 with 963 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Solar panels on 15:14 - Jul 3 by felixstowe_jack |
I looked up the official figures for UK deaths and they are in the range 28,000 to 36,000 . You only have to look up deaths caused by asthma and other lung dieseases. Everyone knows pollution causes deaths and the countries with highest pollution levels have the highest death rates. |
Would you say that China, especially their cities are a tad more polluted than the UK?
China Death Rates per 1000 population
2018 7.13
2017 7.11
2016 7.09
2015 7.11
UK Death Rates per 1000 population
2019 9.398
2018 9.382
2017 9.318
Yep definitely more pollution = more deaths. | | | |
| Solar panels on 17:30 - Jul 4 with 957 views | Professor |
| Solar panels on 17:23 - Jul 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Would you say that China, especially their cities are a tad more polluted than the UK?
China Death Rates per 1000 population
2018 7.13
2017 7.11
2016 7.09
2015 7.11
UK Death Rates per 1000 population
2019 9.398
2018 9.382
2017 9.318
Yep definitely more pollution = more deaths. |
That's deaths. China has a younger population. Our median age is over 40 whereas China's is 37. We also have a larger older population. Generally death rates are higher in older populations. You read a lot but you don't see the bigger picture. I found Beijing less polluted than Manila, Bangkok or even Addis Ababa | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
