• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cooling Looms As Earth’s True Climate Calamity

Of course they do! That's why it's so hard to find people who'll admit to voting for Obama.

OK, I'll bite.

How did he get elected if so few people admit to voting for him?
 
See why functional adults read their sources?

Now, if we can just get functional adults to analyze what they read.

We have over 16 years now with no warming and I can tell you for a fact that this summer has already been much cooler than last where I live... (but forget this summer and where I live and focus):

"We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.

We're well past a single decade and are into an overall trend.
 
Electric cars are generally inefficiently powered by coal or gas fired power plants. (Batteries are notoriously inefficient.)

Reality bites, you know.

Electric cars as replacements for gas and diesel powered vehicles are pretty much a boondoggle to separate the gullible from their money at the personal and public levels and to compensate for self imposed visions of grossly reduced virility.

More inefficient than ICEs?

Got a cite on that?
 
More inefficient than ICEs?

Got a cite on that?
I would say it's hard to say. By the time the power is generated and brought to a place of usage, there is a great deal of loss. loss in transformers and transmission lines. each stage has a loss. It could total the same amount of loss. I will say this, the ICE losses are not as much as cited, and the electrical losses are probably over 30%. Once you add the batter losses, what Oftencold implies may very well be true. Personally, I don't know.
 
I look forward to cooler summers and the ice returning to Glacier Bay.
 
I would say it's hard to say. By the time the power is generated and brought to a place of usage, there is a great deal of loss. loss in transformers and transmission lines. each stage has a loss. It could total the same amount of loss. I will say this, the ICE losses are not as much as cited, and the electrical losses are probably over 30%. Once you add the batter losses, what Oftencold implies may very well be true. Personally, I don't know.

Once in the batteries, EVs offer efficiencies at 80%+, IIRC. ICEs at about 15%.

Everything else is more about centralized generation and sloppy distribution.

One of my favorite aspects of an all electric fleet is grid storage. Load levelling and all that.

Google is working on it.

Further, EVs don't care where the electricity comes from, so advances in energy production wouldn't require replacing the fleet. Just different "plugs".

Personally, series hybrids (like the Volt, and diesel locomotives) offer the best of both worlds.

An ICE functions at peak efficiency at a single RPM. Set one to provide a percentage over cruising energy requirements and the batteries provide the extra energy for acceleration and hill climbing. Much smaller battery banks are required as well.

Still not as profitable as gas cars, and not the best thing for petroleum profits. Hence the resistance.
 
When can we expect average annual global temperatures to start decreasing consistently?
 
By Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
June 26, 2013


Although we have been enmeshed in a long debate over global warming and climate change, this controversy has been politically motivated, not a response to actual global warming, as there has been no warming for 16 years.

In fact, it is likely we will soon need to take a long, hard look at adjustments in behavior based not on warmth, which, by and large, results in good things, but, rather, on cold, which creates endless problems for both individuals and society.

Solar Activity Waning
Scientists from Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, stated in the Voice of Russia on April 22 that solar activity is waning to such an extent that the global average yearly temperature will soon begin to decline.

Now, there is no reason to believe there will be any warming during the remainder of this century, says Vladimir Kotlyakov, head of the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Science, speaking with Vladimir Radyuhin for the Hindu newspaper on April 22, 2013. In the same article, Dr. Yuri Nagovitsyn, academic secretary of the Pulkovo Observatory, is quoted as saying coming generations will have to grapple with temperatures several degrees lower than those today.

On Jan. 8, on NASA's Science News website, Tony Phillips cited Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory as noting we are now in the final stages of Solar Cycle 24, which has been "the weakest in more than 50 years." By the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives shortly, they predict, "magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed," Phillips wrote.

Cold Temperatures Appearing
The effects of this weak solar activity have been notable. The United Kingdom just suffered through a winter with temperatures 5 to 10 degrees Celsius below normal, and German meteorologists report 2013 has been the coldest year in 208 years. Writing April 27 in England's Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker noted 3,318 places in the United States that had recorded their lowest temperatures for that time of year since records began. Similar records were set in every province of Canada, and the Russian winter has brought its deepest snowfall in 134 years.

Government Changes Needed
Cold causes more disruptions for people than warming, and mankind always has been more prosperous during warmer periods. However, with modern technology, we have the ability to plan accordingly and manage the slow change toward cooling that is likely upon us.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Cooling Looms As Earth

Of course our dear leader has claimed that the atmosphere is warming and wants to destroy our largest source of energy COAL. This produces the bulk of our electrical generation. We have since the inception of the EPA cleaned our water, atmosphere and conserved our forests. While China Russia, and India have continued to spew pollution into the air, water and ground, while destroying their forest lands. China and India is buying all the lumber they can from South America, Africa and even the US. That does not include coal, petroleum and rare minerals, while Obama is destroying America and the ability to recover from one of the worst Depressions is 80 years.

So we should emulate the government controlled economies of China and Russia?
 
You have me wrong. I'm not disputing the water vapor, I'm curious about it. I don't see CO2 as increasing temperature, but I don't doubt it can increase vaporization. In post 19, I said "and causes a great deal of evaporation." Increased CO2, and the sun warming up together, can increase moisture more than one by itself.

I did not say you where disputing it. I said you rightly asked for sources, something you did not bother to provide for your claims.
 
Of course they do! That's why it's so hard to find people who'll admit to voting for Obama.


If I ever make a mistake, I'll have to investigate this odd tendency.

Making a mistake like not reading your sources and looking silly when they blew up in your face?
 
Mr Lehr PHD believes there is no risk from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. He is "Science Director" at the well-known black hole of science known as the Heartland Institute
 
More inefficient than ICEs?

Got a cite on that?

I work in a power plant, I know these things.

Look it up yourself, I',m not here to teach a junior high school physics class.

Besides, if you'll employ you cranial neural mass for a few seconds, it will become obvious.

The electricity used to generate the electricity that foolish people use to charge their electric cars has most likely already been generated by combustion. Here for example, we use large diesel engines. Then power, much more than most laymen suppose, is lost in transmission. Then more is lost to heat and resistance in the transformer and rectifiers used to convert alternating current to direct current at a suitable voltage for charging the cars batteries. (Why do you suppose all these devices become warm? That's energy leaking away.)

Next, the batteries store some of the electricity as chemical energy, and loose some to heat.

Soon, the proud, but hapless rube who thinks himself a Friend of the Earth is ready to sally forth, albeit not very far. Now remember that the electricity was already generated by combustion, a fair amount was lost on the way, and in conversion and again in storage. But there's more, physics being a real downer. The original fuel if oil, gs or even coal was relatively lightweight. A gas powered car is using considerably less of its energy to move about a heavy power source. On every uphill incline, the electric car has to spend huge amount of its energy just to get the batteries lifted.

Of course, they could recover some of that energy on the downhill side, but will most likely have to lose still more energy in the act of barking to control the descent of the batteries.

Mind you, this is before we even consider the enormous quantities of energy needed to mine, refine, process, transport and form the exotic metals used to produce the oh-so-green electric automobile, almost all of which activities will be conducted by serious adults using fossil fuels.


You see what a few seconds of actual thought can do for one?
 
I work in a power plant, I know these things.

Look it up yourself, I',m not here to teach a junior high school physics class.

Besides, if you'll employ you cranial neural mass for a few seconds, it will become obvious.

The electricity used to generate the electricity that foolish people use to charge their electric cars has most likely already been generated by combustion. Here for example, we use large diesel engines. Then power, much more than most laymen suppose, is lost in transmission. Then more is lost to heat and resistance in the transformer and rectifiers used to convert alternating current to direct current at a suitable voltage for charging the cars batteries. (Why do you suppose all these devices become warm? That's energy leaking away.)

Next, the batteries store some of the electricity as chemical energy, and loose some to heat.

Soon, the proud, but hapless rube who thinks himself a Friend of the Earth is ready to sally forth, albeit not very far. Now remember that the electricity was already generated by combustion, a fair amount was lost on the way, and in conversion and again in storage. But there's more, physics being a real downer. The original fuel if oil, gs or even coal was relatively lightweight. A gas powered car is using considerably less of its energy to move about a heavy power source. On every uphill incline, the electric car has to spend huge amount of its energy just to get the batteries lifted.

Of course, they could recover some of that energy on the downhill side, but will most likely have to lose still more energy in the act of barking to control the descent of the batteries.

Mind you, this is before we even consider the enormous quantities of energy needed to mine, refine, process, transport and form the exotic metals used to produce the oh-so-green electric automobile, almost all of which activities will be conducted by serious adults using fossil fuels.


You see what a few seconds of actual thought can do for one?

You describe infrastructure issues, not flaws. Problems with how we generate and transmit power.

And I'm sure you are aware you get more from a gallon of fuel in a power plant than you do in a car. No acceleration/deceleration losses in the former.

And weight is a mixed issue too. Lithium technologies get lighter and more energy dense all the time. And a single electric motor is much lighter than an engine/transmission combo. Fewer parts to replace/service, etc, as well.

And of course you left out all the energy spent harvesting, processing and delivering that liquid fuel. And all the environmental negatives (some of which are more or less equalled by some battery technologies)

(You dont understand regenerative braking either)
 
Last edited:
You describe infrastructure issues, not flaws. Problems with how we generate and transmit power.

And I'm sure you are aware you get more from a gallon of fuel in a power plant than you do in a car. No acceleration/deceleration losses in the former.

And weight is a mixed issue too. Lithium technologies get lighter and more energy dense all the time. And a single electric motor is much lighter than an engine/transmission combo. Fewer parts to replace/service, etc, as well.

And of course you left out all the energy spent harvesting, processing and delivering that liquid fuel. And all the environmental negatives (some of which are more or less equalled by some battery technologies)

(You dont understand regenerative braking either)

*Sigh*

Infrastructure and the ways in which we generate, transmit and store energy are Real World issues, facts, and limitations. Electric cars as an energy-saving, environmentally freindly alternative is a marketing ploy.

Technology may well advance to some point to make such pretty dreams a reality, but we possess no such economically viable alternatives now. Sorry that's just reality, like the sidewalk, or a lightning bolt. Most "green-technology," on the other hand, is a swindle.

For instance:

https://www.google.com/search?q=aba...HD-GoiAKO8ID4Cw&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=690

Post-Industrial Junk – 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines | Are We Aware Yet? Political News Blog-Current News Political News Blog
 
Last edited:
*Sigh*

Infrastructure and the ways in which we generate, transmit and store energy are Real World issues, facts, and limitations. Electric cars as an energy-saving, environmentally freindly alternative is a marketing ploy.

Technology may well advance to some point to make such pretty dreams a reality, but we possess no such economically viable alternatives now. Sorry that's just reality, like the sidewalk, or a lightning bolt. Most "green-technology," on the other hand, is a swindle.

For instance:

https://www.google.com/search?q=aba...HD-GoiAKO8ID4Cw&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=690

Post-Industrial Junk – 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines | Are We Aware Yet? Political News Blog-Current News Political News Blog

Interesting.

I lived near the gorgonio pass facility. Drove past it all the time.

Are you aware it is an experimental technology facility, engaging in design and stress testing of a large number of different systems? For years they didn't even put the power they made on the grid due to various obstruction efforts.

And again, your article makes it sound like everything we have magically appears with no previous energy signature.

When I read an article in the tone of yours from an extreme "conservative" site I can't help but wonder if it was generated by those primarily interested in "conserving" market share.
 
Once in the batteries, EVs offer efficiencies at 80%+, IIRC. ICEs at about 15%.

Apples to oranges.

To get that 15% for ICE, you are taking the fuel from before it is refined. Do the same with any electrical source, and your results will be similar. Solar for example starts as a small percentage of the sum. That's OK, let's say you wish to start with the output electricity. By the time you go through an inverter it and step it up for distribution, it's probably 85% at best. You are probably down to 70% when you get to your distribution area, then to 50% or less by the time you go through a step-down transformer and charging station. Then you have battery losses, motor losses, friction losses, etc. By the time you get the power to the ground, you are at best double the percentage with solar over gasoline.

Only solar or wind will offer you that efficiency if you calculate starting from the electricity out.

You simply cannot "pipe" electricity via wire, for several miles, without notable losses.

Such examples I say are BS. I challenge you to show me in error.
 
I did not say you where disputing it. I said you rightly asked for sources, something you did not bother to provide for your claims.
My claims become a very complex series of links, if I could find all necessary. I've been years in researching this topic to come to my conclusions. If you would like a specific slice of what I said referenced, I will do so if I can without much time.

The climate sciences are very complex. Most people on both sides try to counter one simple claim with another simple claim. However, any seen effect usually has several things in play at once, making correlation to any single factor difficult to claim or disprove.
 
I work in a power plant, I know these things.

OK, what type of power plant?

Again, that 15% for cars is from crude oil to output at the tire.

What is coal to battery to tire?

Oil?

Natural gas, etc.

Now hydroelectric may be efficient, but how much power is lost thru the turbines before we get the power? Step it up to high tension... what are we at? Maybe 85% if we are lucky? Output impedance, input impedance, line resistance, inductance... When we step down now to our 48V 3 phase, what do we have left? maybe 50%?

Please do, tell us.

On a side note, what do you think of the 3.1 giga-watts sent down path 65?
 
Apples to oranges.

To get that 15% for ICE, you are taking the fuel from before it is refined. Do the same with any electrical source, and your results will be similar. Solar for example starts as a small percentage of the sum. That's OK, let's say you wish to start with the output electricity. By the time you go through an inverter it and step it up for distribution, it's probably 85% at best. You are probably down to 70% when you get to your distribution area, then to 50% or less by the time you go through a step-down transformer and charging station. Then you have battery losses, motor losses, friction losses, etc. By the time you get the power to the ground, you are at best double the percentage with solar over gasoline.

Only solar or wind will offer you that efficiency if you calculate starting from the electricity out.

You simply cannot "pipe" electricity via wire, for several miles, without notable losses.

Such examples I say are BS. I challenge you to show me in error.

Electric Vehicles

So I was a little off.
 
And:


I assume they mean carbureted older designs. Modern engines are close to 25%.

Also notice:


They are not claiming from the power source.

There weren't any electric vehicles the last time a carb was in a car. What? Mid eighties?

I'm quite sure the data is current.

And you'll notice I said "once in the batteries".

And what percentage is "lost" getting fuel from the ground to the tank? Drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, transporting? How much evaporates off in the process?
 
There weren't any electric vehicles the last time a carb was in a car. What? Mid eighties?

I'm quite sure the data is current.

And you'll notice I said "once in the batteries".

And what percentage is "lost" getting fuel from the ground to the tank? Drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, transporting? How much evaporates off in the process?
Electricity simply isn't as efficient as you initially thought. Is it.
 
Back
Top Bottom