Cliff Hansen

Before we get too far, which modeling steps involve the solar constant? And, is it a problem if different values are used at each step?

I'm ok with this change `apparent_azimuth` --> `solar_azimuth` but I note that the scope from #2479 has crept to include renaming `apparent_zenith` to `solar_zenith`. I'm OK with this renaming on...

I don't think I agree with this change of name `g_poa_effective` to `effective_irradiance`. The current description is of a quantity that is not `poa_global` but also is not `effective_irradiance` which...

> "transmitted" terminology here instead, i.e. transmitted_irradiance? The De Soto model paper uses the term "absorbed irradiance" for this quantity, symbols $S$ and $S_{ref}$

> I suggest renaming to effective_irradiance and listing the caveats in the parameter description. The distinction between `poa_global` and `effective_irradiance` is probably not important to typical users of `pvwatts_dc`. If...

> any chance this preference has changed since September? I think yours is the only voice of opposition to effective_irradiance. I'm ok with `effective_irradiance`. I concur with the reasoning in...

> An argument against time in general is that it has the same name as a python standard library. Good point. I overlooked this when agreeing with "time" with the...

> As the shadowing only occurs within the function, this doesn't seem so serious. It will not cause any problems for the user of the function. Yes, but we can't...

I can't provide an example where code fails to run. And we've had `time` as a function parameter for years, so I yield my objection.

Working on this bug fix uncovers a related bug: the `pvsystem.PVSystem.get_irradiance` docstring says that irradiance parameters can be tuple of float, but that doesn't work: ``` system = pvsystem.PVSystem(surface_tilt=32, surface_azimuth=135)...