If all of mankind’s energy was supplied through solar panels would the effect be big enough to decrease the temperature (since light is converted in part to electricity)?
If all of mankind’s energy was supplied through solar panels would the effect be big enough to decrease the temperature (since light is converted in part to electricity)?
Burning coal doesn’t significantly heat the planet directly. The CO2 released by this causes solar heating to be more effective by trapping the escaping infrared radiation. It’s the greenhouse gases that are the issue, not the energy released by combustion. “Watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. Burning coal makes watts from the sun more effective at heating the earth.
Participate pollution melts glaciers which increases the temperature long after it fucks shit up by trapping heat in the atmosphere and blocking photosynthesis.
Just saying “watts staying underground” is a poor explanation. That’s an insignificant amount of energy compared to what the sun is delivering and what’s being trapped by CO2. “Carbon staying underground” is much more the priority.
Which is why I clarified for someone what someone else likely meant…
I’m not sure what you’re doing here, do you want me to go complain to the person who first used that phrasing on your behalf?
Didn’t realize users changed, my bad.
That’s not really relevant. Fine particulate emissions from coal power plants, which are already mostly gone in the US but are still used around the world, don’t travel a really long distance.
No, they do.
Precipitate pollution from coal use in India and China is making it to the northern glaciars.
It doesn’t need to be a lot, a small speck on a glacier can “snowball” into a substantial melt because black soot gets hotter than white snow.
https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/coal-soot-darkened-melted-glaciers-during-industrial-revolution-8C11069699
It’s not like the soot has to blanket it, especially when they’re already melting.