There certainly appear to be some misunderstandings! But I understand that your position is always the same. I’ve observed this is SOP for ideologues.

However, in your post #25, you wrote:
The IPCC paper acknowledges that ‘evaporation’ was not considered in its models because, “Not enough is known on what effects such a phenomena would have on actual data.”

Where did you get that quotation from the IPCC “paper?” I searched for it but could not find that exact passage.

I find your claim rather odd since evaporation is discussed throughout the IPCC report. Indeed, it is analyzed in depth and shows up 33 times in Chapter 8 alone.

So, unless you can demonstrate where this quote can be found in the latest IPCC report, the rest of us will conclude that you know as much about this as you do about cloud effects. (For example, you do know that shortwave radiation hitting clouds causes the droplets to evaporate, right?)

I have no misunderstandings on your positions.

My position is always the same.

The ipcc ‘climate model’ did not allow for any effects of evaporation on globular wirming.

As stated previously, warmer air over the ocean causes increased evaporation which causes clouds to form, blocking sunlight from striking the Earth, preventing the sun from heating the surface as much as direct sunlight.

You refute that by claiming that the reverse is true.

So, this summer, while the rest of us are sitting in the shade to warm up, you can sit in the direct sun to cool off.

I just got back from an wire service story that reports 3,500,000 new voters in this election cycle, so far. Maybe there is hope.

And if you want to try to laugh off your “misunderstandings” by claiming things that I didn’t even suggest, again, that’s your problem.

But it was your own posts (#25, 33 & 36) that showed you really didn’t have an understanding of how clouds function.

But if you want to see the effects of cloudy nights for yourself, just check your thermometer in the mornings this summer. The temperature won’t have dropped as low if the night was cloudy compared to one of our typical clear nights.

As a homebuilder, I can tell you that I see interest in innovative utility solutions is skyrocketing. Many people are not just considering investment in solar and other sustainable technologies with a simple cost analysis. As Bruce86 pointed out, there is a moral component ( and, yes, even a patriotic one )to the issue.

It would be great if our governments would embrace and encourage the effort with the devotion they show to the oil and gas boys. We could change things in a hurry.

Just ask anybody that lives outside in the summer.

Or works and plays outside in the winter.

Now, if you would like to explain how sunny days are cooler than cloudy days,

I’m all for learning new stuff.

And if you can convince me that in the winter, it gets warmer when the clouds roll in and start dumping snow by the foot….

As for the costs of solar panels, it’s a free market sort of thing. Germany, Japan, California, etc are buying up panels as fast as they can. A new company in California with new technology opened up a second operation in Germany because of the demand.

As for our solar array, we chose our installers and told them what panels we wanted (we insisted on American made panels). They provided the services and the components that we identified for the total system output we wanted. No manufacturer directed our installation.

And if you recall, our legislators (i.e., our representatives) have directed the utilities that they must allow us to hook up to the grid without demanding exorbitant insurance or other fees.

So, you pretty much whiffed on every pitch there, WLJ. I’d say you’re ‘Out.’

(BTW, have you done your research and figured out how clouds affect surface temperature yet? Or does your “fact-checking” stop at identifying typographical errors? Don’t tell me you’ve been watching more TV!)

It’s a ‘math’ thing I suppose, often difficult to understand for some, but…

” Given that the average selling price for a house in GJ is now over $200,000, if a builder was to decrease the square footage by 1% and instead put up $20,000 worth of solar panels and maybe $5,000 worth of solar water, the buyer would not notice any significant change in their monthly mortgage payments but would notice a dramatic drop in utility bills. ”

1% of 200,000 is $2,000.

So, decreasing the size of the house by 0ne percent, then adding back on $20,000 for solar, plus adding on another $5000 for solar water, we come up with an additional $23000 that we are paying a monthly mortgage payment on.

Even deducting the savings for the energy bills, it’s still there.

However, 2500 sqft home, minus 10% would still be a 2250 sqft home, and the savings works nicely.

Now all we need to do is find out exactly why the cost of solar panel is still so high.

Oh, because the manufacturers choose the middlemen, and they choose the dealers, who in turn choose the installers.

All the while, the electric companies decide who, when, and how a person can connect to their grid.

Let’s consider an analogy (albeit, a flawed one, as all analogies are). Next year, instead of having teams play to determine the NFL champs in the Super Bowl, let’s have a 16 team debate instead. Each team can select one member as spokesman. After each head-to-head debate over why each team ought to be Champions, the audience in attendance will vote for a winner.

We will not set any criteria on who gets to vote or criteria for what to use to determine how you vote. For example, if you like the uniform, you can vote that way. If the spokesman says his team is good in an eloquent manner, that’s might be good enough for some. Why bother playing and having the winner determined on the field when an entertaining debate could be held?

Likewise, scientific hypotheses are tested by evidence and vetted by knowledgeable peers. This is like having to actually play the football game. To have a bunch of non-experts like us vote on whether or not something is a scientific fact is, well, absurd and utterly non-scientific.

Brilliant how you took my comment out of context. If you’ll recall I said: “the “cost” of solar panels, to the consumer, on new construction is barely noticeable.”

Note that I said new construction. Given that the average selling price for a house in GJ is now over $200,000, if a builder was to decrease the square footage by 1% and instead put up $20,000 worth of solar panels and maybe $5,000 worth of solar water, the buyer would not notice any significant change in their monthly mortgage payments but would notice a dramatic drop in utility bills.

I agree that retrofitting with solar panels is a hefty commitment (one that most of us can’t do out of pocket). Fortunately, our banker was very excited about the project and helped us with a loan on very good terms.

As for subsidies for renewable energy generation — this is what we do as a moral nation. We incentivise those activities we want to encourage (marriage, children, home ownership, food production, savings (oops, we don’t do that last one!)) for the good of the many.

(BTW, You may be familiar with the level of subsidies for nuclear energy, no? For instance, over 80% of our public energy research dollars for the last 50 years has gone to nuclear energy. No nuclear plant has been built in the US with private dollars. No private company carries sufficient insurance to cover an accident. For all this, what did we get? The most expensive form of electricity.)