Does the correct number for solar power during totality explain why it gets cold before it gets dark?
The article was not wrong, it was an approximation, which he stated clearly. Did you perhaps not understand this sentence: "Anyway, there is never really "zero" radiant energy to detect. In reality there's always some kind of background noise, maybe at -90 dB or so."?
If he had used the correct number, you would see that it is approximately 0% power. Again, and I'll state it as fact now rather than rhetorical question, the article was accurate to more than 3 significant figures.
BTW, the discrepancy between night time levels and the darkness of totality is due in part to atmospheric scattering during the eclipse, so you're introducing a red herring.
> he could have definitely plotted that
Given that the heat plot goes from 0% to 100%, and that the brightness plot goes from -70dB to 0dB, will you estimate for me how many pixels in both plots would be different if he used really precise numbers for solar power during totality? My current estimate is 0 pixels would change across both plots. Do you think the number is higher? If so, why?
Even during totality it's not as dark as night. It's around the illumination of just after sunset, and he could have definitely plotted that - it's not that hard to lookup how much there is then, he doesn't have to measure it himself.