horse power includes alternative & traditional methods of understanding and implementing the fueling of progress
wind energy motor vehicles studies solar panels and solar power farming horses cars conversion 

main page 

safety break malfunctions in high wind and turbine explodes  useful links

convert horsepower to various wattages

view how windfarms look at night

check today's date

  horses for sale  horse supplies

auto and truck forums | | | | | |

fuel economy  Auto Spies

horsepower TV show

custom battery cables

last updated on 05/03/2016 06:37:35 AM

Weather Channel founder appears in new movie Climate Hustle and calls Bill Nye The Science Guy a pretend scientist

The movie argues that the climate change catastrophe scenarios are part of an “overheated environmental con job” aimed at creating hysteria to drive public support for bigger government and ever-increasing regulation. 

Let's move mountains to save the planet

Literally, people are causing the land to shift because they are "going green". Take the Tesla electric car for example, it all seems so great, electric cars emit nothing out their tailpipe because there is no tailpipe. No carbon dioxide, a greener planet. Not so fast, the metals used in these cars are rare and require MORE MINING. Yes that means more fossil fuels (fossil fuels is a misnomer, no fossils were killed in the process) are used thus more pollution. There are other factors such as most electric grids rely on the burning of natural gas to create electricity. All major cities even those in California rely on this carbon producing energy source, so basically the claims that electric cars are saving this planet are hype, unless you consider saving the planet from something that is not a threat saving the planet. 

"All electric vehicles rely on parts with similar environmental issues. Even solar panels depend on rare metals that have to be dug out of the earth and processed in less-than-green ways"

So all actuality we need to stop moving mountains and find ways to simply drive less, walk and bicycle more, and find other ways of cutting energy use such as washing dishes by hand and buying fewer processed foods which all require massive amounts of energy to produce and distribute. 

2017 Prius Electric concept shows square headlights are cool 

For years square headlights have been snubbed, but I have always liked them on my Wrangler and they are certainly going to make a return to design in cars, the Prius concept car has 8 of them! 


Fast and Furious 8 killed a real horse with a fake iceberg

In the shadow of Pikes Peak, we find Corvair Heaven

Glaciers are the result of global cooling!

As stated in an article written about a trip to Pategonia in Subarus: "One of only three growing Patagonian glaciers dams Argentino Lake until pressure from the rising water forces the glacier to rupture in spectacular fashion every four or five years."

Worrying about glaciers melting in spring is like worrying about that lake your kids skate on every winter will melt in the spring.


There were 1300 "Starsky & Hutch" cars made

The 1970's TV series featuring a red Ford Tourino with a bold white stripe was a popular show. No one ever seemed to question that undercover detectives don't normally go around in bold striped cars which attract attention, though many of the cars that are "undercover" seem to stand out, maybe more so, than a car that seems more likely to be driven by teenagers rather than police, so maybe they were on to something. 

Submersing server farms to cool them by ocen water will not save the planet

But that's what we are led to believe by this article which states that companies like Google and Microsoft are going to submerse their server farms for internet. These will warm ocean water, thus creating global warming. In fact why isn't any of these environmental groups up in arms, they are going to place them closer to icebergs than ever!

On community forums, some users questioned whether an undersea data center could have an environmental impact, including the heating up of the water around the data center. But Microsoft claimed on its website that the project envisages the use of data centers that would be totally recycled and would also have zero emissions, when located along with offshore renewable energy sources.

"No waste products, whether due to the power generation, computers, or human maintainers are emitted into the environment," it said, pointing out that the data center does not consume water for cooling or any other purpose. "During our deployment of the Leona Philpot vessel, sea life in the local vicinity quickly adapted to the presence of the vessel," it added.

Notice how the quesition about warming was ignored only mentioning waste products. That wasn't the question!

Microsoft said in an FAQ that deployment in deepwater offers "ready access to cooling, renewable power sources, and a controlled environment."

And how does that part of the ocean stay so cool? Icebergs! Why would any "environmentally friendly company" use icebergs to cool their computer servers?

Of course when we look from the perspective of sanity, and ask "how do icebergs keep their cool?"  our logical answers is that 452 degree below zero space and 6 month winters where there is little to no sun.really, keeps a constant cooling of the planet every 12 hour period when there is no heat source on it's dark side by 452 degree below zero is sufficient to deal with man's warming activities. Companies know this that's why they want to try this out as it could save them cooling costs.

But when we accept that the warming of arctic waters is ok as an offset to warming another part of the planet, we have to conclude that those who keep pushing the concept ignoring cooling by space is overwhelmingly taking care of man's warming in order to balance cooling with warming, we unerstand that the theory of warming without cooling doesn't hold water or ice.


Wind now powering 19 million homes?

Maybe, but how much of the power these 19 milthese homes are powered by wind? In other words, is this like saying that all 330 million people in the US are powered by vegetables? It doesn't break down how much of the total energy consumed by homes is coming from wind.

The article at NPR stated: The U.S. wind power industry is celebrating after reaching a new milestone in November: 70 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity. "That's enough to power about 19 million homes," says Michael Goggin, senior director of research at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

That is 70 billion watts. Sounds like a lot but there are problems with this statement and is an exaggeration. This figure "generating capacity" refers often to power plants in general, but with wind turbines, this becomes more complex. The power generating capacity in all forms does not take into account losses in the grid. The alternator in a wind turbine is matched to it's MAXIMUM possible output, but that is rarely achieved! Many times the wind turbine is not operating at all, thus not producing power, other times when it is operating it's producing 1/10th it's maximum rated capacity. How much power does that wind farm generate in watt hours though?? 

When a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h). In understanding how many homes can be powered by wind energy we find these claims are exaggerated as they are not expressed in watt/hours.

Let's break down that PEAK and unrealistic 70 billion watts capacity into watt hours. First, let's use a realistig figure of 20% of that, since we would never see peak capacity since wind is not constant 24/7 and it's speed varies. That leaves us with 14 billion watts, wich then "would power 3.8 million homes". That's about the city of Los Angeles.

So let's see how much electricity Los Angeles uses in a year. Now it gets really confusing, power companies refer to terawatt hours. One terawatt hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year.

One of the comments in the NPR article stated :

"Distributed generation feeding into the grid is fine as long as you are careful about feed-in rates. At this point, small scale distributed generation is considerably more expensive than conventional options. Advocates of distributed generation typically want Harry Homeowner to be able to sell to the grid either at retail cost or, even better, at a premium designed to subsidize the use of inherently less efficient technologies. The effect of this, of course, is to inflate the costs of power to all other customers of the system."

OMG so the more we convert to solar and wind the higher our base electric rates are going to be??


Tiny bubbles - how much water is on the planet?

The oceans hold about 96.5% of all Earth's water. Climate alarmists want me to believe that there will be a 1 to 3 meter rise in sea levels. ROFL. That simply makes no sense based on math. I get this data not from con men but from the website. Imagine a glass of water filled with ice and cool soda, and your friend telling you it will spill over the edges when the ice melts. Laughable! Tell your friend that global warming is going to melt all that 3.5% ice into the water and thus cause a massive flood like Noah's Ark. Then laugh again.

To return to sanity and seriousness, take a look at this image from the USGS showing the size of the earth and the total amount of water on it relative to it's mass. It's amazing to look at. It provides a perspective at how little water there is on the planet, basically a droplet. It's amazing that we have had in history many "chicken littles" pop up on various things, going around scaring everyone that the sky is falling, but now in the new millenium, hucksters with an agenda have convinced them that it's not the sky that's falling, oh no, it's that the oceans are rising.

3.5% of water is held underground, in lakes, streams, rivers, in people and your dog, in food, in plants, in water vapor seen and unseen, and in ice. About 2% is held in ice caps and glaciers.

GWA's (Global Warming Alarmists) want us to believe that 2% of the world's water is going to cause most coastlines to be submurged? LAUGHABLE. Yet they believe. Network television shows and news anchors like Rachel Maddow preach doom/gloom/warming gospel frequently. They preach the solutions are "clean energy". It's a product they all sell, whether it be to get your attention to sell ad space, or to sell carbon credit schemes, there's profit at every turn of continuing the farce.

Let's also compare it this way, there's about 7 million cubic miles of water stored in ice caps and glaciers. The entire amount of water on Earth is 332.5 million cubic miles. That's a ratio of 1/47.5 or again, 2%. Is 2% change in anything going to cause catastrophe? If we are talking precision bearings used on high speed rotation mechanical devices well yes that may be a problem, but we are talking about not even all 2% of ice caps and glaciers melting, at most .5%.

There is no way in science hell that a .5% rise in the oceans is going to cause catastrophe ever.

The other thing that's absurdly ignored is that if the planet was a little warmer, that would increase the evaporative cycle that same percentage .5%, thus we would see more clouds, rain, snow, and ice cap development. Why can't these alarmists understand this most basic of concepts?


What happens when the US no longer needs foreign oil?

It's not eutopia. Remember the "drill baby drill" mantra of conservatives like Palin? It was the promise of America's greatness to be independent of foreigh oil. That concept evolved from the beliefe that our purchase of oil from Iraq spurred the ability for 9 hijackers to commandeer planes and destroy the towers in NY. It's a pretty lame argument yet it subsisted on it's own energy to this day. So looking back now that there's a glut of oil, there are some warning signs alredy emerging as to why independence is not always cracked up to be what it is, need evidence? Just think of falling into an old mine shaft independently and trying to get out on your own. Dependence is not evil. We need each other. 

Paris climate conference caused global warming

There are a few things to point out.

1) The burning of fuels used to get all the participants there to this one global location is extrordinary. It's estimated it will produce 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide the building blocks of life. Why do all these global warming alarmists constantly keep creating more ways to producing more carbon waste?

2) The call to reforest as a solution doesn't address how much carbon based fuel will be used to maintain those trees, that is, trimming them and disposing of the waste. In the pre-oil pre-industrial revolution this was all done by hand. We are not going to have windmills provide us the energy to chop trees and haul them away, it can only be done by using fossil fuels (fossils don't actually provide fuel they come from breakdown of organic matter inculding carbon the building block of life). So it's rather fantastic to think that reforestation will solve the "problem" (as if space at 452 degrees BELOW ZERO can't handle it) as the more trees you have the more fossil fuels you will need to use to maintain them. I guess that takes us back to the drawing board, which these days is on a tablet and causes global warming.

3) Why do people want to regulate the building blocks of life? This takes Facism to a whole new level.

Published November 30, 2015 while typing with cold fingers sitting in 45 degrees in Palm Springs which is below normal temperatures that global warming alarmists never consider. They always scream when there's a head wave and not a peep when there's a cold wave all of which keeps billions of years of temperatures in balance. Keep in mind you cannot produce heat from something that is at room temperature (fossil fuels) without equal cooling. Cooling comes from O and 452 degree below zero space.

Combustion is photosynthesis in reverse ref so if we have too much forest (thus more photosynthesis) global warming alarmists will not be able to see through the trees that photosynthesis is combustion in reverse.

Heat is energy - it is not Satan.

Russia says it might be nice to have global temperatures increase 3 degrees

Some might say that is a very selfish stance, but then wouldn't it be equally as selfish for other countries to not want change? All my life I heard "change is good". Since they are a northern cold climate they reasonably believe that it might be beneficial to them. Maybe it would be beneficial to the entire world! What really gets me though is all the sky is falling countries seem to not understand, that if the world gets warmer, there will be more water evaporated into the air, and remain there, thus it would be nice to see those studies that quantify how much of the worlds ocean rise will actually end up suspended in mid air. Another interesting fact is that Russia has pushed repeatedly for these studies to include the forests, which absorb carbon dioxide (all plant life does this) in carbon emissions calculations. That means that all current climate science is basicaly bogus as it doesn't even calculate how much is absorbed in greenhouses let alone the rest of the world's plant life, ground, etc! reference

NASA: Antarctica gaining ice


Climate keeps changing! Now the world's largest desert is gaining ice more than it's losing it. reference

Anti-climate leaders

New term to my ears, the term "anti-climate leaders" is how political leaders are now described if they don't fit into the round hole of climate science. Just a reminder, climate is always changing yet these people claim it's set in icebergs. When we look at the use of the term it, like many terms used in climate science, doesn't make much sense. Who on earth is "anti-climate" really? Everyone knows climate changes, sometimes you have to wear a rain coat, other times you have to shovel snow, and yet other times you walk in the balmy breezes of summer. They really should say "anti-climate change" though that's not that accurate either, should be "anti-climate extreme permanent change due to invisible gasses" which one could acronymize to "ACEPCDTIG leaders".


Lexus new cardboard car

When you are done with it "you just throw it into the recycle bin". This is a real car that drives!

Day time running lights

I have been noticing a lot more cars with their headlights on or these newer GLED (Glaring Light Emitting Diode) lights on during the day. On the most part I have found them to be a distraction, annoying, glaring, and a nuisance. In looking into this it seems the National Highway Safety and Transportation Authority feels the same way.

NHTSA said that DRLs do not improve highway safety and may, in fact, INCREASE HIGHWAY HAZARDS. Quite simply, if most vehicles have DRLs, it's harder to spot those who do not. NHTSA also said glare from the DRLs of oncoming vehicles could bother some drivers.  -  source

So why are these popping up everywhere more than just one year ago?

Apparently the NHSTA has not made them mandatory here in the US but I have noticed like 1/3 of the cars around here with headlights on or those stupid running lights on during the day and it's like suddenly there's so many of them. They are so annoying, distracting.

Normally i drive focusing mostly on what's in front of me as that's what's most important to pay attention to, and now when one of these cars come from the other direction it takes my eyes off what's in front of me and to it and they are glaring.

I looked up some info and GM pushed the gov to allow them to put them on all cars and other countries have mandatory requirements. US government is smarter, doing it's job, hasn't made them mandatory from what I can tell so far. I read that they said repeatedly that research shows they are not any safer. source

So I figured out why there are so many of them, we have a lot of Canadians that drive down here to the Palm Springs area, some move here and they bring down a Canadian car, some have 2nd homes here and they bring down a Canadian car and leave it here and register it in California, others sell their Canadian cars here and fly back, etc.

It's mandatory for Canadian cars to have running lights.

So we keep getting Canadian cars that have these stupid lights on all the time. They are wrecking my country.

Jay Nygard, founder of Go Green Energy

Went to jail for not complying with city regulations regarding a smal wind turbine on his property.

Engine oil analysis, a "blood test" for your engine

Global warming blamed for "clipping bee's tongues"

Will the madness ever end. Why not just say "global warming causes everything".

evolution of bees tongues shorter


So this has happened before

Statements that are under water

written September 13, 2015

As you know I don't buy the climate science opinions that deem that carbon dioxide, the building block of life, is about to destroy the world as we know it so when I read an article on on the subject, I found it particularly amusing to read this quote:

“If we don’t stop dumping our waste carbon dioxide into the sky, land that is now home to more than a billion people will one day be under water,” Ken Caldeira, a co-author at the US Carnegie Institution, said in a statement.

Where is all that water going to come from??? Based on my science, there is not enough water contained in ice and snow in both poles combined to cause such a calamity. If someone could please provide these numbers in gallons it would be refreshing to pour over all the numbers.

Caldeira is an inventor, a scientist, and has quite a few credentials, but having proven successes does not quarantee that one can not overlook pertinent details.

As per the Stanford website:

Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon cycle/climate system. He also acted as an inventor for Intellectual Ventures, a Seattle-based invention and patent company headed up by Nathan Myhrvold.

As stated in the article:

Caldeira has argued for a policy goal of zero carbon dioxide emissions. In 2005, he said, "If you're talking about mugging little old ladies, you don't say, 'What's our target for the rate of mugging little old ladies?' You say, 'Mugging little old ladies is bad, and we're going to try to eliminate it.' You recognize you might not be a hundred per cent successful, but your goal is to eliminate the mugging of little old ladies. And I think we need to eventually come around to looking at carbon dioxide emissions the same way."

But we are not talking about little old ladies, we are talking about their beachfront property. I don't see his comparison as being flawless. He is comparing building blocks of life to muggings. The idea of not worrying about both examples being exact zero is comparable, but the choice of comparisons is not because one of them is discussing what to do about a building block of life, carbon, and how it affects coastlines, and the other is an action by an individual whereas throughout man's entire existence, muggings have occured and are not the building block of anything.

But let's say we don't even get to zero since that is the point, let's say it's an 80% reduction, it's still talking about a wacked out theory that carbon is an enemy of the state of the world. It's illogical, unworkable, the human race CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT CARBON EMISSIONS in so many ways and science shows that so called "clean energy" relies on our traditional sources. Even geo-thermal, another so called savior, emits heat!

So called "clean energy" cannot exist without carbon emissions. Even if the entire world was powered by wind and nuclear, there is need for oil in lubricating turbines, there is a need for the burning of oil and coal to fuel the steel furnaces (they are not going to be turned on by wind power) and for creating steel for Prius hybrids. Not only that, but as the world depends on plastics more than ever, guess where plastics come from? Oil. The world will never be carbon free unless it becomes Amish and goes back to living life like Native Americans and Native Mexicans who had the same immigration problem Trump and others describe we are having today.

Oh wait, back then they burned a lot of wood, carbon emissions!

So even if we lived like Native Americans and Native Mexicans who all lived and owned this land which you and I now call our land after it was "stolen" from them our reliance on carbon emissions would be paramount to our survival.

So how did the atmosphere deal deal with carbon emissions from the burning of wood? The same way it deals with it now, rain brings it back to earth. Now if only that same principle could be applied to those who study climate science and profit from it.

Why don't green energy advocates understand that geo-thermal power contributes to climate change

Watching Huell Howser interview a geo-thermal power company based near the Salton Sea area of California I caught the interviewee dancing around the question of how the power is generated and what happens to the heat when it's pulled up from the earth. His explanation made it sound like the heat was contained, never escaping into the atmosphere but that's impossible. Later as I looked up some things online I saw simple evidence of the reality, that the heat is dissipated. So it contributes heat to the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Of course some of us know that there is also global cooling which comes at a constant rate from space which is some 457 degrees below zero and has no trouble cooling the planet no matter how many blankets Al Gore wants to wrap around our minds. 

Jeep Wrangler pickup

Jeep will finally offer a pickup version of it's iconic vehicle. story here

Solar power is pretty noisy

Why doesn't Rachel Maddow understand erosion is not DO2 climate change

I was watching her show this evening August 24, 2015 and she kept saying in her report about Kivalina, Alaska, that the town was being relocated at a cost of $100 million dollars due to rising ocean waters. She seemed to be all for our government spending that kind of money on the project as if it's an indication of the coming costs if we don't do something about climate change as people like her are always touting. She's one of those reporters who I find to be a bit cocky when the talk is about oil companies, and climate change causes which is something I feel is misplaced. So could she be wrong about this supposed cause?

My studies indicate that it's not rising ocean waters, it's an erosion problem is what's causing the land to disappear, something that has been happeining there for billions of years. It's got a barrier reef. It's comprised of sand and gravel ocean spit, yes that is what it's called, gravel ocean spit. Now does that sound like a solid rock foundation? No it's sand and it's always changing because IT'S A BARRIER REEF. It's not because the oceans of the world are rising 100 feet, it's because the worlds climate always shifts and changes barrier reefs over time.

I would like to see these people and reporters who keep keep claiming climate change is causing ocean levels to rise, to start providing some calculations about how many gallons of water are being ADDED TO THE OCEAN due to melting ice caps as they claim, and how many gallons it takes to be added to the world's entire ocean surface for us to see a perceptible and quantitative rise in the ocean in a remote Alaskan penninsula subject to sever Arctic winters, wind, and natural erosion problems from pounding ocean surf, it would sure be appreciated. One really doesn't have to go any further than many places on the California coast to see erosion in action and in many places, not due to "rising ocean waters" and the need to add boulders for protection with no guarantees that the ocean isn't still going to erode these areas away over time.

But people like Rachel Maddow don't seem to get it or maybe they don't care to admit they were wrong, or somehow they can't fathom that Al Gore could have deceived them?.

I found this data here

$100 million for a village of 337 people (population data as per seems like a lot of money, that's about $330,000 per person. No wonder the US Congress is skeptical.

some reading on this

Touch screens in cars are dangerous

"That is exactly why touchscreens are hard to use in a car. I want to be able to reach down and hit a button to change stations, a button I can feel. I don’t want to have to take my eyes off the road and search for the right section of the screen to touch." - read full story

China carbon emission levels lower than previously thought

I thought that science was scientific? Oh, so we find out now that science is riddled with variables, interpretations, and errors. For the last decade we have heard the condescenting chants of those Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" followers saying that the science is in, it's indisputable, and on and on, including how bad China is for it's alleged horrific carbon emissions. I just don't understand how people can give carbon, THE BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE, such an evil tag. read article  

Solar panels in Palm Springs upsetting residents

They say they are blocking their views and lowering property values according to a story on KMIR news. According to the report the city had no jurisdiction, it was entirely up to the school district to decide what they wanted regardless of residents desires. Who knew school districts had so much power?

Tesla loses $4000 on every car they sell

Currently. This story could be the same with many new busines. details at Jalopnik

Solar wind

As I was reading about Pluto and discoveries about it's "tail" the article sated this:

"This giant tail is actually part of Pluto's atmosphere. Except that the bits of atmosphere are being stripped away by solar wind, a torrent of electrically charged particles that constantly pours out of the sun in all directions." - reference

If there are electrically charged particles emanating from solar wind, just like with our weather on Earth when we see electrical storms with lightning, these electric charges affect weather.  Are so called "climate scientists" also studying these effects when they make their claims about global warming without cooling?

Bees fading away due to climate change?

That's what the headline read, but it ignores the chemical pesticide problem. Cpoler climates have shorter growing periods for crops thus use fewer pesticides thus bees can survive there better.

image as seen on Google news July 10, 2015

California $4000 rebate for electric car

For lower income buyers the state has upped the rebate from $2500 to $4000 for those who fit in a lower income bracket, even though a new car is out of many a budget.

Carbon positive is good?

I thought global warming alarmists wanted us to be carbon neutral or at best carbon negative, but this article is touting how great this "carbon positive" home is, which produces energy more than it consumes.

This represents how mixed up the definitions are of the whole concept that the building block of life, carbon, is is considered to not allow thermal dissipation in space.

The home represented above, in order to be consistent with most definitions of carbon and it's alleged effect on the environment, should be called a "carbon negative" home.

You gotta wonder when they can't even get that simple concept to be used consistently though it fits with the change in definitions from "global warming" to "climate change".

Cooling off warmalarmists

"From 1940 to 1975, coal-fired plants emitted fumes with great abandon and without restraint by Greens. Yet the Earth cooled slightly in that time. And if man-made global warming is real, atmospheric as well as surface temperatures should have increased steadily. But they haven't. There was merely that one-time increase, possibly caused by a solar anomaly. In addition, an "urban heat island effect" has been identified. Build a tarmac runway near a weather station, and the nearby temperature readings will go up." 

Deceptive headlines

The headline read "The first Superbowl lit with LED lights will cut energy use by 75%. According to blogsite Reddit user arstin who says it's a "Rather deceptive headline. 75% is how much the energy use in lighting the field was cut by, not how much the energy use of the super bowl was cut by."

And commenter named kfuzion stated: 

310 kW = $50/hour of electricity, a bit on the high end. 1.2 MW = $200/hour.

Congrats, they save $600 of energy! They could get as much energy savings by requiring perhaps 5 additional people to commute locally instead of fly in to the Super Bowl.

IOW... many orders of magnitude more energy is used for people to travel to the Super Bowl, than to light it.


Fireball in the sky

To get an idea of how absurd it is to think that man has more to do with climate than the sun, here is a good representation of just how small we are. It's an image showing 1 million earths fitting inside the sun. 

Tesla 0-60 3.1 seconds 

That engine purrrrrrr might be fake!

Engine sound being fabricated 

1,700 private jets will fly to Davos to discuss 'global warming' 

2014 declared the "hottest year on record" by scientists at NOAA and NASA but other scientists say that is bunk

they are basically guessing at 50/50 odds


This biker's leather jacket has signal and brake lights 

Engine management

Atomic energy could be warming the oceans

Not from energy plants that use ocean water to cool them, that's a drop in the ocean, I'm talking about the energy that the earth's molten core provides under these vast oceans. Has any science group studied this? Not really, there's no way to study it, they can't measure the temperatures at all these places at the bottom of the ocean. This concept seemed to be especially noteworthy when the 10th anniversary of the horrific tidal wave hit on December 26, 2004. 

About 230,000 people were killed by the tsunami, with coastlines in 12 countries devastated, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Maldives, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Somalia, Tanzania, Seychelles, Bangladesh and Kenya. The extensive rupture produced the equivalent of two million atomic blasts of energy being released over 10 minutes across 1200km of the tectonic plate boundary, Mr Jaksa said. - source

It' might not have anything to do with carbon dioxide in our atmosphere at all, but rather the millions of "atomic blasts" underwater! And without these finite measuring indicators which are not available, all so called proven science blaming carbon above is incomplete. 

Peru gives free solar to 2 million of it's poorest citizens

A comment from a PHD in climate

There was an unusual dumping of snow in Buffalo this week, reaching 7 feet or more in places. It's brought out the climate change pushers once again, but refreshingly, I found this on 


I have a PhD in climatology and have been studying the effects of wind temperatures throughout the northern hemisphere, particularly the jet stream and the gulf stream in relation to those temps. None of the models put out by these "global warming" scientists computes, it's inherently flawed to show a bias toward man-made climate change, when in fact the cycles of temperatures directly correlates to the solar cycle. Two centuries worth of carbon deposits don't add much in the way of increasing or decreasing that temperature to cause even the slightest of a difference. The (fact) is, is that the global warming tax grab was just that. Climate change is merely the fashionable new term coined by the liberal/green elitists who took a note from seasoned researches who have been studying climate for many decades. Point being: there will be certain cycles in the century that will bring colder winters, hotter summers, mild summers, mild winters, wetter springs...

Stop looking at models and listening to doomsayers, they are paid well and have an agenda to further careers and book deals. Don't take my word for it, look back four-hundred years of temperature and you'll see that fluctuations do occur from time to time.

in response this commenter ThisNameInUse said:

Scientists aren't worried about solid carbon, they're warning us about carbon-containing GASES in the atmosphere. They don't get DEPOSITED. If they did, our problems would be solved.

But the fact is that gasses do change into solids all the time. Problem solved!!!!!

On the internet, nobody knows you're a horse

Said the engine. 

Guy in Ventura is trying to find his old 4x4 Toyota pickup

I guess he wants to buy it back. 

Short and Long Blocks

A short block is the main engine core with the pistons and crankshaft. A long block has the heads. 

Top 10 HIGH Horsepower Coupes 

Coal compared to biomass 

I thought this post from a "redditor" was interesting:

[–]Stardustchaser 1 point an hour ago

Environmental regulations and perceptions are (blanked) up. Here in California there is a "biomass" as in wood burning power plant around the corner from the school I teach at that belches out dark smoke nonstop. In fact, emissions on the plant are far more substantial and higher polluting than most natural gas and coal (because the air scrubbers on those plants are actually quite improved in the past couple of decades to where emissions are incredibly low) BECAUSE it is seen as "renewable energy" and gets a pass.

Runaway green house gasses

Where do they run to? 

In there's information on Venus, the second planet from the Sun, Mercury being closest. Venus has a mean temp of 863 degrees Farenheit. Venus is hotter and it's attributed to high CO2 levels. 

Studies have suggested that billions of years ago the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there may have been substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but after a period of 600 million to several billion years,[44] a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[45] 

I f this is true, then all the water that's melting into the oceans on Earth will evaporate into space, thus, no rising ocean levels, correct?

So what does the surface of Venus look like?


I was looking at weather sites and came across On the site regarding downloading data, I read this interesting statement "a lot of stations do not report precipitation amount". 

How in the world, if this is true, can we feel so confident in "global warming without cooling" if the scientists are not even using ALL THE DATA IN THE WORLD THAT'S AVAILABLE. Seems there's gaps here!

Wireless power  

Tesla blog 

Horse power

An individual horse has a peak power output of 14.9 horsepower

Atlantic Ocean is absorbing heat, delaying global warming

Space does the same thing. 

Now they're trying to figure out why there's no warming anymore

This is just too funny.

"The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for another 10 years, according to new research. Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere." -

Geeee maybe it has something to do with we are surrounded by cold space which cools what ever extra warmth there is and that CO2 has NOTHING to do with global temperatures? Or maybe none of those scientists figured in the effects of air conditioning?

Scientist says we are (blanked)

Now isn't that the utmost of professionalism to use swear words to describe climate change. Dr. Box made that statement according to an article in the Daily Mail. So now these sci-fientists want us to believe that methane bubbles are going to destroy the world.

Take a look at the picture showing man's demise below: 

What's really interesting is those "sustainable" people who are going to city councils and getting plastic shopping bags banned, don't realize that the bags trap methane, because they are made from methane!

No wind farm here! 

The Sahara Desert was once an ocean

If that isn't enough proof that the earth's climate and geography has always been changing, what is? 

This is why I like my Jeep 

Demonization of carbon

A comment from 2009 that compared climate change rhetoric to Nazi Germany. 

kw/h vs. kWh

A poster said in response to a discussion on solar:

"So, now I see what you're stating. You're stating that a home uses 30 kWh of electrical energy per day. Not 30 kw/h, but 30 kWh. I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- your (incorrect) use of label really was confusing."

This is a very confusing but important distinction to understand if one is to consider solar, are claims made in kWh or kw/h. One is kilowatt hours, the other is kilowatts per hour. 

Global warming is real, but so is global cooling

It was so easy to see on this world map of natural hazards. Take a look at the section called "observed trend in mean temperature 1978 - 2007"

Tesla has a competitor raised from the dead 

Misleading yet technically correct

June 19, 2014 published an article stating "Solar energy production breaks record in Germany. More than 50 percent of country's electricity demand supplied by solar power at start of June."

Reddit user 'keepthepace" summed up a great response:

The title is slightly misleading, though not technically false:

Analysis from the Fraunhofer ISE research institute showed solar panels in Germany generated a record 24.24 GW of electricity between 1pm and 2pm on Friday, June 6th.

The week was unusually hot with highs of 37C and Rothacher put the record down to the warm weather and the fact it was a public holiday.

So during one hour of exceptional weather conditions, during a low consumption day, solar power did provide half of Germany's needs.

We are still very far from providing half of a year's energy (measured in Wh) through solar means.

Hydrogen power uses a lot of energy

It's hard for me to understand why people keep making these wild claims about hydrogen power being able to save the planet. For one, the whole basis is due to bastardizing carbon.

Notice the claim as seen on the blog:

"Fuel Made from Hydrogen extracted from the sea and CO2 from the air used to power a 2 stroke internal combustion engine. Costs roughly $3 to $6 per gallon and it carbon neutral. ( " by CraicHunter

a comment by NOPD_SUCKS seems to put it all into proper sperpective:

What they don't bother to mention is that, yes, you can get Hydrogen from water, but it takes a HUGE amount of energy to release the hydrogen. So, it isn't like you can power a vehicle with sea water and CO2. That's absurd. The amount of energy required to release the Hydrogen from the water makes it less efficient and more expensive to operate than a gas powered car. They have not invented anything new. We've known for a very long time that Hydrogen can be extracted from water by running a current through the water. It's how they filled up the barrage balloons at D-Day so the technology is nothing new.

and then this comment by RagingRudolph is interesting:

"The combustion of hydrocarbons and O2 makes water and CO2. This is an exergonic reaction. They're talking about putting CO2 and H2 from H2O sea water together to make hydrocarbons. This is an endergonic reaction. In other words, this requires energy input. This is only carbon neutral if nuclear or renewable power is used for the energy input."

and this comment by semioriginality really makes one think:

"Sure it's 'Carbon neutral' but combusting hydrogen NOx emissions, which are ------- horrible." 

Tesla gives it's patents to the world

That's according to Reddit headlines. Many are saying that it's such a noble great thing they are doing. One user 'submittedby' stated: This is less self-less than it appears. Musk can't build out the electric car infrastructure on his own. Tesla will never be more than a niche car company without it. He needs other car companies to build the infrastructure with him. 

Salt and freezing temperatures

One needs to understand the properties of how salt water freezes and the temperature it does so based on the quantity of salt in the water solution when considering climate change models. In the Antarctic it may not be considered much but there may be an effect.

According to, 'Solutions of sodium chloride have very different properties from those of pure water; the freezing point is −21.12 °C (−6.02 °F) for 23.31 wt% of salt.'

But it's also said that ocean water tends to be about 8.0 ph which is basic or alkaline, not acid.

Tackling climate change

To tackle climate change effectively, one would have to first tackle solar storm change. 

Autos made from tomatoes

Ford and Heinz anticipate making various parts for cars from tomato fibers. The skins would be used in a composite material. 

Dam Cancelled

Chile’s new centre-left government cancelled the environmental permit for this controversial $9 billion hydroelectric project in the Patagonian wilderness.

Ford "Jeep" like vehicle not available in the US 

solar panels are a product of a complex chemical and mechanical process (hardly green)

They produce a fair amount of toxic waste and provide diminishing returns. 

"11,000 mw powers 18 million homes"

That's the claim made on a broadcast about a controversial dam being built in the Amazon rainforest. Compare to the claim stated by BLM in a solar installation that 8,000 megawatts was said to power 2.5 million homes. 

18,000,000/11,000 = 1636 homes per megawatt
2,500,000/8,000 = 312 homes per megawatt

This would seem to indicate that hydro-electric power is 5x more efficient than solar. These numbers should be analyzed in detail. Often they are over-estimations based on peak performance which seldom is reached.

terroh8er posted on Reddit:

"The 97% figure {scientists that believe global warming has been proven}distracts from the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate change models have wildly overestimated the amount of warming over the past several decades. You don't have to actually deny that humans are causing some degree of climate change to be labeled a "science denier," you merely have to question whether it's being exaggerated or whether it's actually possible/worth it to do anything about it. Fossil fuels save lives by giving the developing world access to cheap energy." 

Supercomputers predict the polar ice cap will be nearly ice free from within 5 years

They did this in 2009. It's now been 5 years. Plenty of ice. I post this because there's a flurry again of articles saying that supercomputers are predicting doom for year 2100.


Solar roadways are not feasible

This 30 minute video explanation as to why an Indigogo startup which has secured over $1.7 million for making solar roadway tiles cannot work based primarily on the need for traction and durability. The cost of the glass alone would cost $20 trillion dollars for all roads in the US to be made of these. As per the producer of the expose, "Solar FREAKIN roadways is a nice idea, but then again is a pogostick that can hop to the moon as a cheap, reusable trans-orbital vehicle." 

Godzilla movie: An anti global warming alarmism smash

Great review! 

Antarctic ice losses or gains

It was stated in a report on that Antarctica loses 159 gigatonnes of ice each year. Sounds like an awful lot. A commenter on Reddit xFyreFury posted: "To put things in perspective, if it continues losing ice at this rate, it will take around 135,000 years for all of it to melt." Yet NOAA just reported that the Antarctic received the most ice in April ever recorded.

Water wheel cleans up river after rain storm

A water wheel powers it's own collection of trash from river, and ingenious device, but look how slow it turns the conveyor. It creates no greenhouse gasses as it's a simple direct drive mechanism. Water wheels are not exactly new, they have been around for thousands of years, but this use for cleaning up rivers is. Notice there's NO "single use bags" in the stream of debris, it's all styrofoam cups and plastic bottles. This is in stark contrast to what those advocating for plastic bag bans keep saying about them creating a large pollution problem.

Water expands when it freezes, contracts when it melts

If there is one thing that blows away Antarctic rising sea level scare tactics it's this, when icebergs melt the melting water contracts.

I'll have an iceberg float with my global warming theory meal thank you 

Ever notice that icebergs are white, like snow. They should really be called snowbergs. They are comprised of both dense packed snow and ice. This means that they are made up of tiny air bubbles and frozen water molecules. An ice cube in a drink will often float if it has air bubbles in it. Another thing is that when ice is formed, it expands from it's original water state. Thus, when an iceberg melts, it does not melt into the same amount as what is seen, it melts into a smaller denser amount. All the hype about icebergs melting with their doom and gloom scenarios of ocean levels rising 10 feet excludes these basic observations and facts about the properties of H20. These fearmongering techniques always lead to claims that we must do something to stop what is happening naturally, blaming man's use of fossil fuels (which are not made from fossils) and calls for costly taxation schemes on carbon, which becomes a windfall for those invested in managing those credits. When presented with these facts, most all of those who have bought the error of global warming myths, can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that they have been misled. The facts about ice, density, and melting ice and snow which is basically what "icebergs" are made of are real science, and displacement volumes of these are not presented properly, as if they were, there would be no claim of rising sea levels of 10 feet, but rather, a more accurate claim that sea levels could rise .00001 (1/10,000th) of a foot.  

here is an image of an iceberg

Wikipedia states: "Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water."

So another dynamic we have going on here is fresh water/ice and sea water which is salty. 

I did a little experiment at home to show how this works. Take a look at these images, the first is a tray of ice strewn on a table, notice the ice cubes are not perfectly clear, but rather are cloudy. They are filled with air that somehow happens as water freezes. 

All of the ice cubes FLOATED in water. notice that the cubes float ABOVE the water line a bit. They are about 95% below the water line of their total size. An iceberg is known to be about 90% below water.

Here's a way to do this experiment for yourself using some colored water Note in this experiment the article mentions that when ice is on a land mass and melts, it raises sea level. That seems to indicate that global warming issues still exist, that sea levels could rise 10 feet as some wildly claim, but it ignores what happens when water melts and goes into the sea, it also soon thereafter evaporates and becomes water vapor, clouds, rain, sleet, snow, ice, and if the earth mean temp raised 1 degree, that would create more evaporation than ever, thus when this additional water vapor made it's way into the upper atmosphere (mind you it doesn't have to go more than a mile or two up in the sky) this additional water vapor becomes COOLED. That is because we are surrounded by space air which has a temperature of MINUS 455 degrees Fahrenheit. This cooled water vapor turns into snow, and deposits itself back down to places like Antarctica, and places on Earth that are in their winter seasons. 

2015 Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon Earn Top Crash-Test Ratings

They remain the safest SUV's on the market

Kansas City receives snowstorm on May 11, 2014

How's that global warming without global cooling theory going again?

How does .004% of the atmosphere trap heat?

Some big names in climate study & reporting came to a blog discussion, the ones who "helped create" the Third National Climate Assement Repot presented to Washington DC. This question a blogger asked got my attention:

oaktreelounge : How does .004% of the atmosphere hold warm air in?

Sustainabilist : It's not air that is being held in, it is radiation - in this case, solar radiation (insolation, if you want a technical term for it). Normally, Light comes in, bounces off the surface of the Earth, and a certain amount of it escapes to space. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses effectively "trap" that energy in the atmosphere by bouncing it back toward the surface - kind of like a mirror you can only partially see through. The more greenhouse gasses, the more reflective the mirror (toward the Earth), the more warming.

reference blog

So in all reality, we don't have a blanket, what we have is mirrors. If we add pollution from coal fired plants, we also have smoke, thus the cause of global warming is basically all smoke and mirrors. 

It's also interesting that in one sentence they say it's radiation, and in another they say it's energy that is bouncing back. Are we really dealing with a problem with radiation energy reflecting back to earth due to excessive CO2? Only .004% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, is that much of the atmosphere becoming a reflective mirror? If reflective properties of solar radiation are to blame as a causitive agent, what happens when we install vast acreage of solar panels on these farms? They have a reflective property. Does that reflection then bounce back up into the atmosphere, to only be bounced back down again? And if this is the case, what about this term "greenhouse gasses"? Are we to believe that it's the gasses of carbon dioxide in greenhouses that cause a greenhouse to warm? Or, are we to believe that the warming is caused by something entirely different, like the GLASS that encloses them, thus trapping heat which is generated by radiation? There is no glass surrounding the Earth.

The other thing that I wonder about it that if the Earth reflects radiation, what does a solar panel do? Traps it. Ohhhh not good. That means that these BLACK panels absorb the radiation, and create heat!


Treasurer Joe Hockey has attacked wind farms as “utterly offensive and “a blight on the landscape” in the latest sign that the Abbott government intends to cut back on renewable energy.

story here

Do solar installations cause global warming?

Before looking at this in more depth, let's first look at an excerpt from the Bureau of Land Management website:

Solar Energy

Solar radiation levels in the Southwest are some of the best in the world, and the BLM manages more than 19 million acres of public lands with excellent solar energy potential in 6 states: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. Since 2010, the BLM has approved 25 utility-scale solar energy projects, including connected-action projects that include electric transmission support authorizations, with a total approved capacity of over 8,000 megawatts of clean, renewable energy — enough energy to power roughly 2.5 million homes. In addition, the BLM currently has some 70 pending solar energy applications. 

One has to consider all factors when studying climate change, and one that I believe is routinely ignored, is the effect of solar farming may have on climate change. Most everyone simply thinks that solar is just peachy, but I suspect that as they put these solar panels on the ground, covering what was there such as sagebrush, that it affects the desert climate, and it could cause global warming to occur. It has to, any change affects climate and here's why I believe it does negatively. Prior to solar panels, when there was vast expanses of sagebrush, the brush would absorb heat and partially transfer it down into the ground, where the ground would also act as absorbing some of this heat, and as these brush pull what little water there is up the roots and from the air, there is a cooling effect. Also the sagebrush absorbs moisture from the air at night, so that when the sun comes up in the morning, a drying effect happens, and thus COOLING. Also, the earth itself will absorb some of the heat as the sun beats down on the sand. But when these solar projects that cover thousands of acres of brush, no longer is the sun beating down on the ground and the brush, it's on the panels, completely changing the ecosystem. The brush under these panels (if it's not bulldozed away) no longer functions as it did in cooling the desertscape. Also, these panels are DARK colored and get hotter than if the sun hit the earth. That's my theory and I'm pretty sure I'm on target. This change could be 1/2 a degree difference in the WRONG DIRECTION!

Are there any studies on this anywhere??? I couldn't find anything on their website 

And how much energy do the cleaning robots use? And how much water in a drought do they use? The manufacturer claims they use "demineralized water" - how much energy is used to demineralize water? Are these numbers on energy use by solar power ever calculated into these claims of "cars off the road"? I doubt it.

Their water use under the specifications is said by the manufacturer to be between 2.5 litre per hour minute to 3.5 litre per minute, that's 150 to 201 litres per hour of demineralized water being used. The power used is between 1.5 kW and 1.2kW running on 210-230 V.


image Serbot Swiss Innovations    

Their website states this "even a small layer of dirt leads to large performance losses", so how often are these going to be used? I have never heard that stated in any green discussion, that there's a large performance loss on these solar panels with a little dirt. And if there are losses, that means the numbers of "taking cars off roads" that are often touted by solar panel manufacturers and those claiming these will help solve climate change, that number will shrink as soon as they are dirty, and if anyone lives in the desert around Palm Springs or anywhere in southern California where these projects are going up, they know that the winds kick up often and dirty everything real quick!

Largest solar project in world sits on 3.75 square miles of desert

Here is the final report on wildlife and other issues: 

9,000 years ago Lake Huron was 250 feet lower 

Dirt bike parking trick 

Coal referred to as a "dirty habit"

I would call coal a "life extender" and "cheap efficient fuel to keep grandma warm where she can afford to pay for it with her meager government checks". The reference to coal being a "dirty habit" was in the following article. The small German town was able to save the relocation of 1,300 residents but in order to do that, the coal mine had to give up 1/5th of it's land ever being mined, hailing that the coal will remain buried. If coal is so bad, why is it so good for it to stay buried? Dirty things can always be cleaned up, and buried. I don't get the logic of bastardizing coal and replacing it with equally environment altering solar and wind, both of which are not efficient. When my vehicle is inefficient it wastes gas. We don't need inefficient energy. Coal is efficient. 

Corn biofuel is worse for the planet than gasoline

Creates 7% more "greenhouse gasses" every year. 

Is China's pollution affecting climate?

From an article at, "China's air pollution could be intensifying storms over the Pacific Ocean and altering weather patterns in North America, according to scientists in the US."

I think that is what we could rationally call climate change, now if only we could remove the predictions of rising seas I think we would be better off. Discussions about pollution and how it can affect weather patterns seem valid and could lead to viable discussions. On the other hand, China may say "well we manufactured and sold more winter clothes we sold at Wal-Mart than ever, why change the climate of our business?" 

other places to go

Today's Date

What's Playing!


Useful links

California Off Road Vehicle Association

Office of Medical and Scientific Justice

CARB approved parts California vehicles smog pass

Nickle Chromium winding wire

Lift Laws

MTS Company

Import Tuner

Climate Depot

Used Parts

Collins Brothers Jeep

JW Jeep

4x4 sites 

Custom off road Jeep parts



boating and fishing forums  privacy policy


page 2 >>