Posted on 09/28/2004 8:12:49 PM PDT by ableChair
I love cryptic posts. What are you trying to say? I'll have to guess because cryptic posters never respond. Perhaps you're straw-manning me into saying that lasers couldn't blind people? Never said that and it has nothing to do with the current debate. Read my posts.
"Only 49 percent of the available solar radiation reaches the surface of our planet [all types - my comment], 5 percent through direct radiation, 22 percent through clouds and 22 percent by downwards scattering in the atmosphere".
That doesn't say that 95 percent is absorbed. It says that 49 percent gets through. Yes, of course, if you consider clouds, out laser-terrorist is going to be out of luck on a foggy day.
If the solar cell were 100% efficient and only 5% of the suns energy hit the ground you would get about 69 watts per square meter...
With a 13% efficient solar cell you'd get about 9 watts of electricity for every square meter of cells.
On top of that, solar cells don't convert long wave heat energy into electricity. Which is what would be predominant if the atmosphere absorbed 95% of the sun's radiation and then the atmosphere re-radiated that absorbed energy as heat.
Are you purposely debating this knowing otherwise just to get a response???
If so, I've unhappily wasted a large part of my day responding to you...
No clouds, and it's dark, clouds and it light... That makes sense... That's why it is so dark and cold in the desert when there are no clouds... Or ever how that works...
OMG!, now you're arguing the ENGLISH! It plainly says that only 5% reaches the surface. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
| 8 | “So, you're claim is that one of the most respected authorities on the subject is wrong because...you say so. Not very convincing.” |
University of Delaware says atmospheric absorption is 16%, not 95%...
University of Oregon says atmospheric absorption is 19%, not 95%...
How many more do you need?
--Boot Hill
The cockpit probably just flew through the reflection off Kerry's new bright orange bottled tan.
You're kidding, right? Can you read? It's not talking about radiative sunlight. You're still confusing radiative and convective energy. But, hey, I guess Cambridge can be wrong!
I wonder how much energy Kerry's face would absorb with all that fake tanner going on? It's late. LMAO.
Soviets did this some years ago during the Cold war, too.
Dude, read the fine print. You're confusing yourself. Now I see why so many people have this confused. THINK about it. Why do solar panels work so much better in orbit? Why do spacesuits get up to 200 or 300 degrees? If that much RADIATIVE sunlight reached the surface you would fry like an egg!!! Gotta go to bed but you guys have given me a lot of comedy material here tonight.
In other words, 95% is initially absorbed and some of that reaches the Earth through convection.
Just on a simple math level, your contention doesn't add up.
The Cambridge Atlas says of all available solar radiation, 49% reaches the surface of the planet. Therefore, 51% never reaches the surface of the planet, and best I can tell, is never accounted for in THIS balance.
The balance doesn't account for 51% of the energy. How do you know that the 51% "is initially absorbed"?
FWIW, a clinical view of "convection" has it transferring energy "up" as a column of warm fluid rises through cooler, more dense fluid. You may instead be thinking of diffuse (vs. direct) radiation, and conduction.
We're talking about RADIATIVE sunlight reaching the surface. Just because x% is absorbed at the surface, that doesn't mean it's all radiative. Some of it is by convection, just like the Cambridge Atlas says.
You're kidding right? You guys will argue anything to be right! Did you read the part about "available" radiation? Obviously the remaining percent was not ignored. Perhaps that's the reflected light, I don't know, but I doubt Cambridge made THAT big of an error.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept readily verifiable facts? Go to a library and read the Atlas. It's all there. Just be sure you read it correctly and you look at RADIATIVE sunlight reaching the surface as that's what's relevant for the laser discussion.
It IS talking about the atmospheric absorption of the sun's radiation and that's the relevant physical property under discussion. If you're talking about something else, then this would sure be the time for you to make that explicitly clear!
--Boot Hill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.