Cooling Looms As Earth’s True Climate Calamity

[What if...?]

*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

I also found this in response to your article:

Solar Panels Now Make More Electricity Than They Use | Popular Science

 

[Oftencold]

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?

I'm not sure which side of the argument you're supporting -- or which side you think I'm supporting.

I mention the fossil fuels because they are really and truly what is fueling most electric cars, and doing so inefficiently since so much power mucus be lost in transmission and charging. If one runs an electric car off of a grid powered by coal, it is in effect an inefficient coal powered automobile. If on is in one of the relatively few areas serviced by hdro power, a case could be made for the environmental superiority, but probably not the economic Superior of electric vehicles, for limited applications, such as saving wait time at fueling stations for serious drivers engaged in productive activities.

And sadly, since my electrical grid is purely a distribution grid, with no transmission grid (rural Alaska and all,) I have no opinion about "3.1 giga-watts sent down path 65."

 

[maquiscat]

And here it is, albeit a lot sooner than I expected. I remember when there was a worry about global cooling in the 70's. Several years ago, one guy did some research back through news stories and found that recently was not the first time we had a global warming "scare", but that this has been alternating back and forth for a while.

 

[Oftencold]

I also found this in response to your article:

Solar Panels Now Make More Electricity Than They Use | Popular Science

How wonderful for people living in sunny climes, especially if they are serious about supplying major urban centers with solar power, and willing to live in areas denuded of agriculture, parkland and forests.

I live in a place that gets something like 45 sunny days in a typical year, and where for half of the year flat surfaces tend to be quickly buried or encased in ice.

One wonders too, though I admit to never reading anything about it, what would ever happen in the Midwest if the went if for large solar farms, when a tornado strikes all of those thousands of kite-like surfaces.

Solar is very good for some spot applications. But people often have fantastical expectations for solar power.

OK I've done some quick calculations to try to bring enlightenment.

Assume solar cells with an impossible 100% efficiency, and a solar farm completely filling 10 acres. Mind you, that's 10 ares now in the dark, so if you're going to use it for agriculture, you'd better stick to mushrooms.

So our posited solar farm has 430,560 square feet converting all the sunlight that falls on it to electricity. Great so far. Let's imagine using to power a single fairly large building.

Think of the Empire State building. It has 2,768,591 square feet of floor space to be heated, cooled, and illuminated before we ever power up the elevators, computers, pumps, hand dryers, telephones, paper shredders, printers, clearance lights and servers and restaurant equipment. When we divide our 10 acre farm;s sunlight, we've only got about 0.156 of the power per square foot that raw sunlight provides, for each square foot of surface space. Again this assumes an impossible level of efficiency.

But wait! Unless one is an exceptional thinker, such as myself, it gets better! Most people hear "solar" and immediately picture a bright summer's day at noon. They forget that whole "night thing", or even early morning and late afternoon, when insolation is much lower, as well as cloudy days, snow days, high winds and so forth.

And one might be unaware, but it is generally thought that the Empire State Building comprises a rather small portion of the floorspace requiring power in Manhattan - Manhattan alone.

Now I made these calculations on the fly, so there could be errors, I suppose. The point is that the Law of Conservation of Energy is utterly pitiless, and very, very real. "Green energy" no matter how pretty the dream, it is still a dream, and for the foreseeable future, barring small, or localized applications, it will remain just as unreal as any other dream.

 

[Oftencold]

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.

Market share? energy companies want to sell energy. Oil, coal and gas are expensive, nasty and hard to bring to market. If any of these magical green energy schemes were commercially viable, the big energy companies would be on them like Bill on Monica.


By the way, one of the articles I cited discusses 14,000 abandoned windmills, I doubt that they're all at this "experimental technology facility," where the technologists curiously never seem to have heard of scale models.

Does God hate windmills?






A proper "experimental technology facility," for windmills:

 

[What if...?]

Electricity simply isn't as efficient as you initially thought. Is it.

Good lord. Are we on the same thread?

I have said that generation/transmission issues exist and are more about HOW we do ot than fatal flaws.

I also qualified my ICE/electric vehicle comment as "once in the batteries".

My off the cuff numbers were a little off, but not by much.

Is this the part where you declare victory and go home?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good lord. Are we on the same thread?

I have said that generation/transmission issues exist and are more about HOW we do ot than fatal flaws.

I also qualified my ICE/electric vehicle comment as "once in the batteries".

My off the cuff numbers were a little off, but not by much.

Is this the part where you declare victory and go home?

LOL...

Cherry picking.

Fine.

 

[What if...?]

Market share? energy companies want to sell energy. Oil, coal and gas are expensive, nasty and hard to bring to market. If any of these magical green energy schemes were commercially viable, the big energy companies would be on them like Bill on Monica.


By the way, one of the articles I cited discusses 14,000 abandoned windmills, I doubt that they're all at this "experimental technology facility," where the technologists curiously never seem to have heard of scale models.

Does God hate windmills?






A proper "experimental technology facility," for windmills:

You're trying to "school" me and you think scale models would be useful for testing?

 

[What if...?]

LOL...

Cherry picking.

Fine.

Call it whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Call it whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Well, if you are looking at electricity from a cost viewpoint, you have to use it from you wall socket price, or the cost at an EV charging station. Not at the battery, and compare that with fuel. If you are looking at it from an environmental standpoint, then you must remember that on demand energies are generally oil or coal fueled, and then have those long distance transmission and power transfer inefficiencies..

Take your pick, but talking about it from "the battery" is cherry picking.

 

[Lord of Planar]

these cooling lings may very well be correct. Even before solar cycle 24 started, real scientist (not climatologists) predicted it would be less intense and may be the start of cooling. Of course, the AGW community laughed.

Now sunspots are only loosely tied to TSI, and have spectral changes as well. However, it is also predicted Solar Cycle 25 will be smaller yet.

Both graphs below have links attached. The first is wiki, the second is very interesting.

 

[What if...?]

Well, if you are looking at electricity from a cost viewpoint, you have to use it from you wall socket price, or the cost at an EV charging station. Not at the battery, and compare that with fuel. If you are looking at it from an environmental standpoint, then you must remember that on demand energies are generally oil or coal fueled, and then have those long distance transmission and power transfer inefficiencies..

Take your pick, but talking about it from "the battery" is cherry picking.

And NOT including costs/losses in fossil energy delivery to the tank isn't?

Your original challenge was to efficiency per ICEs and electrics.

I provided a cite in support.

I also clearly stated that inefficiencies and losses in production transmission of electricity are addressable issues, and NOT a flaw in EVs themselves. (There weren't any gas ststions when the first cars hit the road. This fact was used in arguments against them.)

Now you fall back to some cherry picking claim when your assertion is disproved rather than posting countering info, expecting me to accept your self proclaimed great knowledge as refutation.

Whatevs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

For any of you who can grasp science, please look at this:

Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle

 

[What if...?]

Well, if you are looking at electricity from a cost viewpoint, you have to use it from you wall socket price, or the cost at an EV charging station. Not at the battery, and compare that with fuel. If you are looking at it from an environmental standpoint, then you must remember that on demand energies are generally oil or coal fueled, and then have those long distance transmission and power transfer inefficiencies..

Take your pick, but talking about it from "the battery" is cherry picking.

Oh, and when did COST come into this conversation?

We were talking about efficiency. Specifically EV vs ICE.

Dollar amounts never entered the conversation until your reply above.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And NOT including costs/losses in fossil energy delivery to the tank isn't?

Your original challenge was to efficiency per ICEs and electrics.

If you are looking at delivery costs and losses of fuel, then you must for electricity also for a valid comparison. Not just at the battery.

 

[What if...?]

If you are looking at delivery costs and losses of fuel, then you must for electricity also for a valid comparison. Not just at the battery.

I never mentioned costs, just losses/inefficiencies.

I clearly understand that there are losses involved in electricity generation and distribution as well as the fact that some of these losses can be addressed.

What you failed to do is address the issues of losses and inefficiencies in the fossil fuel supply chain to the tank of the discussed ICE vehicle.

You subtract transimssion losses from overall EV efficiency but not from ICE efficiency.

Which is necessary for a valid comparison.

 

[Vern]

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.

Now Lord, I really enjoyed your linkless "losses and stuff" narrative but 16 kW the Volt needs to travel 38 miles. at 10 cents a kW, that a 1.60. If you have a car that gets 38 mpg, a gallon of gas costs about 3.71. Now before you start your "taxes and stuff" narrative, the cost of just the oil for a gallon of gas at 98 dollars a barrel is 2.34 (63%). Refining costs are about 60 cents.
What do I pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
"
1. Crude Oil: 63%. The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price varies over time and among regions of the country. Refiners paid an average of about $98.00 per barrel of crude oil, or about $2.34 per gallon, in March 2013.
2. Refining Costs and Profits: 16%
3. Distribution, Marketing, and Retail Costs and Profits: 10%
4. Taxes: 11%. Federal excise taxes were 18.4 cents per gallon and state excise taxes averaged 23.47 cents per gallon
“

I also have to chuckle at the cons who post “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism”. They think it says “global warming is a hoax”. It actually says “yes global warming is real and man made but it wont be as bad as predicted”. But cons either don’t read the articles or cant understand it.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,”

This is actually the future narrative for cons. The old timey cons still cling to the easy and basic “ it’s a hoax”. The younger generation of cons are starting to embrace the latest narrative “ its real but natural”. Of course both of these narratives are false. I hope their latest narrative is true but sadly cons don’t care if its true. And they're 'narratives' have a terrible track record.

 

[LowDown]

In the Real World, functional adults actually read sources. Let me quote from your first source:



Wait, that sounds like they are not saying AGW is not real. I wonder if they are more clear later in the article...



See why functional adults read their sources?

Let's look at the other sources you give us. Functional adults tend to check who is telling us something. Peter Ferrara is not a scientist, but in fact is a lawyer. Larry Bell is at least a scientist, too bad his degree is not in anything related to the environment. James Taylor is a lawyer again, though he at least minored in atmospheric science. He is however not a scientist.

So what we learn is that any functional adult who bothers to look at your sources learns that scientists actually studying the issue say AGW is real, while those who are not scientists are trying to say something else. I wonder who a functional adult would find more credible in a discussion about science?

This boils down to an argument over which authorities should be trusted.

There is a strong tendency to trust "mainstream" scientists, but in climate science the "mainstream" has been co-opted by agencies and foundations that are wedded to a predetermined narrative. Billions in research funding are tied to a willingness to toe the AGW party line. The imperative to obtain funding propagates through the whole system of science infecting grant review boards, journal editorial boards, tenure review committees, dissertation review committees, and on and on. Despite loud claims that skeptics are funded by corporate interests, the corporations are actually all funding the AGW agenda, and there is no evidence that they contribute any really significant amounts to skeptics.

Tossing appeals to authority aside, it comes down to what one thinks of the science and whether it makes sense. For me, having looked at the data and methods, it's obvious that the most publicly visible advocates of anthropogenic global warming have made claims that can't be supported by what is actually known. Specifically, it cannot be said whether or not human activity contributes significantly to warming or if there is anything that humans can do to change climate trends. This is becoming more and more obvious year by year.

 

[Vern]

T
There is a strong tendency to trust "mainstream" scientists, but in climate science the "mainstream" has been co-opted by agencies and foundations that are wedded to a predetermined narrative.
.

Amazeballs. How you say that seriously? Cons are married to the false narrative. read this slowly, scientists don't just post silly things they really really really wish were true like you just did. They publish papers for peer review. And guess what? the evidence is in, the earth warming and its man made.

the rest of your post was just inane.

 

[LowDown]

Amazeballs. How you say that seriously? Cons are married to the false narrative. read this slowly, scientists don't just post silly things they really really really wish were true like you just did. They publish papers for peer review. And guess what? the evidence is in, the earth warming and its man made.

the rest of your post was just inane.

Open your eyes.

 

[Vern]

Open your eyes.

Inane 2. The Sequel. mmmmm, question for you lowdown. Aren't the people telling you that climate scientists are liars and are being 'paid' to conclude global warming is real and man made the same people who told you

President Obama was born in Kenya?
his BC was fake?
we would have hyperflation?
the dollar would collapse?
trying to kill old people?
his spending is out of control ?
He's a secret muslim?
the market is going to zero?
SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM?
stimulus failed?
He made GM build the volt?
will confiscate all guns?
will impose Sharia law?

notice a trend? can you tell us one thing that the 'conservative entertainment' foretold that actually happened or was true?

 

[maquiscat]

notice a trend? can you tell us one thing that the 'conservative entertainment' foretold that actually happened or was true?

From your list:

his spending is out of control ?

As well as those of the last 3 or 4 administrations.

stimulus failed?

Yeah, we're recovered alright.</scarcasm>

will confiscate all guns?

Not for lack of trying.

 

[danarhea]

The Sun is not waning, Death Valley had 129 degrees the other day with a LOW of 104. Every decade has been warmer than the last and sea water temps keep rising.

The weather in death valley does not tell us anything about global warming. Death Valley holds the record for highest temperature ever recorded on Earth, at 134 degrees, which was set way back in the 1930's. Weather and climate are 2 different animals. That being said, the earth IS warming. That has been proven by taking measurements over the ENTIRE Earth over a long period of time.

Global warming doesn't mean that every place is going to heat up. Some places will get colder, as climate shifts. For instance, the Atlantic Gulf Stream is not working as well as it used to, due to the melting of glacier ice in Greenland, and also in the Arctic. Fresh water is heavier than salt water, so sinks to the bottom. Once the layer of fresh water is big enough, it will stop the flow of the Gulf Stream, and London could become very much like Siberia. But, all in all, the average temperature of the whole Earth still rises. Some say that we are already past the tipping point, and there is no longer anything we can do to stop the rise in temperature, and thus the rise of the oceans. On that basis, most of Florida is going to be under water by the year 2100, and many coastal cities throughout the world will no longer be habitable. In Florida's case, you cannot build dykes to keep the ocean out, since Florida sits on very porous rock, and no matter what we do, seawater is still going to seep in at a faster rate than can be pumped out.

 

[ForcedAppeal]

Fresh water is heavier than salt water, so sinks to the bottom.

That's just wrong.

 

[danarhea]

That's just wrong.

Want to explain why you believe it's wrong? Can't wait to hear your answer. LOL.

EDIT.... I got it backwards. I am an idiot.. Gulf stream would be shut down by the fresh water overlaying the salt water and thus blocking the flow. LOL.