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
Human activity is the main cause of excess CO2, but
isn't the main source of CO2 emissions overall by any stretch. Nature
takes back in as much as it outputs, but it outputs a lot. "The
natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the
action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of
CO2 every year. In comparison, human activities only amount to 29
gigatonnes of CO2 per year."
Then there's this discussion about water in the atmosphere:
The water vapor is part of the problem.
Warm air holds more water vapor then cold air. (That's why it's only
humid on hot days, and why you get condensation when it gets cold.) So,
as we warm up the Earth with C02 and methane, we'll tend to get more
water vapor in the air, which will then heat up the Earth even more.
If you read the climate research, what it will say is that C02 and
methane are the "forcing" causes of climate change, while
increasing H20 in the atmosphere is a "multiplier" effect.
Basically, when we heat up the Earth with C02, the global warming
effects are multiplied because you also get more H20 in the atmosphere
because of the increased temperature.
Good point, your numbers are by weight tho? Not actual contribution
to the green house effect.
I read brielfy that water vapor compounds the effect via a
positive-feedback look with the other GHGs
Water vapor amplifies the effect of the other GHGs, yeah.
The thing with water vapor is that it has a saturation point - you
can't just pump oodles and oodles of H2O into the atmosphere and get
oodles and oodles of greenhouse effect. At a certain point, the air
can't hold any more water vapor, so the excess falls back out as rain.
However, you can just pump oodles and oodles of CO2 or methane up there
- there's no "CO2 rain" to dump it out.
But the saturation point of water is dependent on the air
temperature. So as you pump CO2 into the atmosphere, you raise the
temperature, raising the saturation point and allowing more H2O to float
up there without falling out as rain. By releasing CO2, you allow more
H2O into the atmosphere, effectively amplifying the greenhouse effect of
People keep talking about the "greenhouse effect" yet they
never mention that greenhouses do not ever just keep warming, they are
affected by the temperature of what's outside "the bubble" all
the plants live in. Earth is similarly surrounded by an outside
temperature influence, frigid cold air that is at a very constant
temperature. Carbon Dioxide does not block this temperature exchange no
matter how much is in the atmosphere. The "greenhouse effect"
theory fails when we understand this basic concept of temperature
Then there's this:
I wish people would stop being such incompetent, ignorant assholes.
This shit is real; - whether you call it global warming or climate
change, its happening. We can change it though, with science. You can
break apart any molecule some way, from what I know. CO2 isn't that hard
to break apart. You can, theoretically, turn it into pure oxygen and..I
don't know. A rock. Everything living is made of carbon.
I thought the statement that we can break apart any molecule some way
was important to note. Carbon dioxide simply can be broke apart by
vegetation, is one way.
You do realize that the biggest green house gas is water vapor, which
is about 50% of our atmosphere, and co2 is about .03% of that right?
STOP WATER VAPOR!!!!
March 31, 2014 the news was that the UN report on global warming has
dire predictions. Let's look at those for a moment. If it gets warmer,
more water will evaporate, as often they depict by showing cracked mud in
the bottom of lakes, but where does that water go. We are in a closed
system, that water turns into water vapor, goes into the atmosphere,
cools, falls as rain and snow. The entire fear campaign of global warming
alarmism makes no sense in the most fundamental of theories. If the planet
gets hotter, the water keeps evaporating, drying up lakes, but they keep
saying that the ice caps will melt and fill the oceans, raising levels 400
feet, destroying coastlines, but again, if this is due to warming, that
water will also evaporate much more rapidly, and rise, cool when it hits
the upper atmosphere, and fall back down to earth as snow and ice in the
winters, and as rain in the summers, thus feeding our dry parched earth
with needed water, refilling our lakes. The water cannot remain in
suspended state without at some point condensing and falling back to
earth. The green house effect is so interesting, the claim is that carbon
dioxide gets trapped, well yes it does, but the moisture condenses in a
green house, and falls back down trapping the carbon, so where's the
problem again? Like earth's atmosphere, the greenhouse is cooler outside
and causes condensation. The whole thing is about creating new taxes. I
was reading a report about the carbon tax in Canada's western province,
it's a 7% increase on gasoline, above what taxes are already in place!
Just say no to new taxes.
Tesla adds shield on model S to prevent
"Tesla said today it has started building the Model S with a
titanium underbody shield to prevent battery fires like the two that
occurred in the United States last year when Model S drivers struck road
debris." - AutoNews.com
Temperature is the main determinant of
range in electric cars
The idea of saving energy, being green for the planet, are both great
thoughts when considering buying an electric vehicle, but keep in mind one
thing, air conditioning and heating work directly from the battery,
whereas in a gasoline engine, heating and air conditioning run off the
heat or power of the engine already in process. Thus, electric vehicles
can drain a battery and affect range significantly due to weather
On March 20, 2014 CBS news reported that satellite images of possible
debris from the plane is being investigated. In the discussion it was also
stated that the weather conditions have changed in the last 4 days since
those satellite images were taken and that they are dropping buoeys into
the ocean to measure the weather. This emphasises the problem with climate
change science that claims that there is concensus, there are massive
swaths of ocean that are not routinely monitored.
Salt mines, according to CBS This Morning, are working 3 shifts, much
overtime, to keep up with this winter of 2013/2014 demand. I was
wondering, where does all that salt go? It ends up in the streams, lakes,
rivers, oceans. What effect does that have in increasing the salination of
the world's oceans? Does that have any affect on climate science?
It's the detection methods
Scientists say that the detection methods have changed, not climate,
"perceived change in storm numbers can be attributed to improvements
in storm detection methods over the past century".
The cooling continues, not even cooling, the deep freeze. Chicago is
sub zero, again, reaching 23 sub zero days this season 2013/2014, their
record was 25 in the late 1800's. It's pretty clear the atmosphere is
doing what it does, when there's some excess heat, dissipate it using cold
sub zero air from space.
Think of your oil filter like food maybe
This appeared in the RockAuto.com February 2014 newsletter:
"Rather than being tied to a particular oil
filter brand, I tend to think of oil filters like I do vegetables. One
brand of oil filter might have an advantage over another for certain
driving conditions, and broccoli might contain some vitamins that corn
does not. I use a variety of filters and eat a variety of
IF this is true, maybe changing brands of oil
filters regularly is the best thing to do. It would be like the
recommendations regarding nutrition, to eat a variety of foods. Then
again, maybe it would be better to match oil filters to oils, each oil has
different properties, including the type of oil from which it was refined.
Then again, the problem I see with changing brands is that one brand might
use a very thin membrane that particles can break through, and cause more
wear than another brand. Basically oil filters are paper membranes meant
to filter out particles, not provide nutrition or octane to your engine.
In this view, I think it's just simply better to stick with a known high
quality filter and not really compare filters to eating your vegetables.
Driverless cars can't drive in snow
The question is asked how well does the driverless car work in snow,
not well my friend, not well.
Stated during the coldest northeast winder in 100 years one has to
wonder if global warming alarmists ever consider or measure the variable
in temperature that volcanoes bring to the Earth's surface and atmosphere.
The Earth's crust is so shallow, and we basically live on what could be
considered, a molten sun. Global warming is real in a way, because the
Globe's inner temperature is thousands of degrees Fahrenheit. Of course
there's this nasty little thing called freezing cold space the surrounds
it, thus keeping temperatures overall the same over billions of years.
The new solar power plant is online producing electricity for mostly
Las Vegas and San Francisco. The incredibly bright glow is said to be an
eerie sight. There are thousands of mirrors that reflect sunlight and
concentrate it to the tower in order to boil water, thus create steam,
thus turning a generator to product electricity.
Here's a few things to keep in mind about how these things work:
they use water in a desert - currently California is in a drought -
the turbine uses water to create steam, and 170,000 mirrors need to be
kept clean. I think about this right now the deserts here in Southern
California have just as of this writing been experiencing heavy strong
winds, blowing dirt and dust everywhere. A nuclear power plant located
on the ocean or other body of water doesn't have this problem.
the mirrors "follow" the sun in order to reflect it to the
tower to create concentrated "solar flux", what happens to
the light if these motors break? What if the concentrated light of the
sun is directed elsewhere like a giant magnifying glass?
I recall this drive along the I-15 many years ago
before this project was up. It was a most spectacular view of pristine
undeveloped desert all around. Now it's towers, bright lights, mirrors, a
reminder of seemingly endless industrial expansion.
The Press Enterprise ran an article which stated,
"The $2.1 billion project is expected to provide enough carbon-free
electricity for 140,000 homes through contracts with Southern California
Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric. It was supported with some $1.6
billion in federal loan guarantees and has been hailed by President Barack
Obama." - PE.com
But since nameplate capacity or "full
capacity" of 140,000 homes is not the same as working capacity, that
number could be considered to be 75-80% less, as explained in this
article by KCET. Based on Ivanpah's gross capacity of 392 megawatts,
the project is 7.84 times bigger than the solar project in Nevada
discussed in the article. It appears the "140,000 homes" number
would be for if the Ivanpah project was running at full capacity which
would be rare.
Global temperature readings for 2013
I was looking over a report from NASA and NOAA regarding global
temperature readings and noticed this interesting chart. It shows
temperature readings starting 1880 to 2013. There were few temperature
reading points throughout the world in the 1880's so comparing today's
data to historical records is like comparing apples to appleseeds.
There is an abnormality in temperature of about 1/2 a degree. Is this
something to be concerned about? This hardly appears to be anything more
than "room for error".
Notice in my notations in the chart the red arrows highlight a few
in 1880 there were few automobiles around, thus traveling to
destinations efficiently and quickly to determine temperature readings
and set up, repair, and analyze measuring equipment was not at all
like it is today, nor was the technology at the time as accurate, even
well into the 1950's
starting in the 1960's clean air laws also changed over time, and
this could have an effect on temperature reading calculation formulas
by the new millenium, satellites were being shot up into space even
by amateurs. The number of satellites providing rather comprehensive
minute by minute data of temperature readings and weather patterns
grew massively, thus, by this era, the readings may be reflecting a
mostly accurate number, whereas in the past, the readings were primitive
and subject to greater rates of error. Thus, comparing temperature
readings then to those now and seeing a miniscule variation is nothing
more than room for error. It's like worrying about getting that penny
a cashier forgot to give you, it's not going to break the bank, it
won't even affect the ability of a child to buy a gumball from a candy
machine dispenser, as today, most cost a nickle.
In the report there is another chart which shows less ice in the north
and more in the south. Are we to worry about a small percentage of North
Pole ice being less, while it's greater in the South Pole, and run around
declaring sternly as the president of the United Stated did in January
2014, that "global warming is real" or are these numbers and
charts more proof that the planet's temperatures always adjust and
balance out itself?
Also, keep in mind this statement from an article from KCET regarding
solar power measurements "Averaging households across a wide region
made up of varying climates, cultures and lifestyles can create numbers
that aren't particularly useful in any real-world situation." This
concept also applies to climate studies.
The president of the United States stated in his State of the Union
address to the nation, that every 4 minutes a home goes solar. It was
stated in an upbeat, kind of inspirational way, as if to tout how fast
solar is expanding. It's a bit of a hoopla sales pitch really. Let's do
the math, if every 4 minutes a home is converted to solar, that comes out
to 15 per hour, 360 per day, but more important, it's 131,000 homes
converted to solar each year. So it will only take 763 years to convert
100 million homes to solar at that rate and thus, America will be all
solar at it's 1001st celebration of being a nation. Of course we all know
that global warming and cooling will have doomed the entire planet by
then, but back to today, what's most important, is that everything else in
his speech was 100% for the people, by the people, and of the people.
Has no one considered they effect mosquitoes have on climate? Any time
anyone wants to claim that what man does affects climate, they must by the
law of physics also consider what man does that affects anything in the
climate. For example, rare is the discussion of the effects on climate our
man made lakes have. It's well proven that bodies of water affect climate.
Temperatures near oceans remain stable, while those inland vary. Thus,
when man decides that it's burning of fuel causes climate change, man must
also consider the effects of killing critters in the climate has on
climate, and how creating dams and recreational lakes affects climate. We
could even go so far as to study this complex ever changing science to
death or insanity due us part, which ever comes first, or, we could
consider that the effects of climate change are ever so miniscule, that we
must now address the over emphasis that has been placed on it.
Some questions must be asked persistently until valid complete answers
Where are the studies indicating that mosquitoes do not affect
Did God make a mistake by making mosquitoes?
What are the effects of the food chain if mosquitoes are
Don't birds and other insects depend on mosquitoes?
How does eradicating one species affect the other, and the entire
These attempts to eradicate disease are all based on the myth that
mosquitoes carry disease. Disease is a complex condition of the body, no
mosquitoe nor a gang of mosquitoes could carry a complex condition of a
body and give it to someone. Standard medical science claims that the
mosquito carries viruses. Well so does the air, where does that leave us,
next we will start eradicating air? Another question is how much fossil
fuel is burned to create these mosquito eradicating machines? How much
energy will be used to transport them and how much energy will they use,
all of which contributes to climate change?
Questioning global warming is not like
ignoring the sun's existence
After weeks of unbearable cold snaps dubbed the "polar
vortex" that brought temperatures into the deep sub zero range, with
wind chills getting into the minus 50 range, I picked up a set of bits and
bytes online that stated this "No, global warming isn't a myth
because it's cold out".
That may be true, but it's the kind of statement that appears to be
used in a way as to kind of trick the reader into an illogical reverse
proof process which doesn't lead one to proof at all of one's position on
climate change aka global warming.
It appears the
logic of the global warming believers has become so obviously illogical,
as when we have the heat waves, they all so often immediately go into "see, this
is due to global warming, look for it to get worse" but when it gets
cold as in our recent cold snap of January 2014, they say "No this
doesn't prove global warming doesn't exist."
The article from which this headline quote came went on to say "The 'polar vortex' and severe cold weather don't mean
climate change isn't happening".
Correct again, yet it's also true that climate
change has always been happening, it's what we call weather. I think they
need an extra adjective to properly convey their message, like
"severe climate change" or "Irreversible Catastrophic
Inclimate Climate In Change" and for short, it would be dubbed ICICIC.
funnier to me is to view thearticle's cartoon which shows a man in heavy rain with an
umbrella, saying "It's raining out now, therefore the sun is a
hoax" and then caption the photo underneath with "The logic of
climate change deniers when applied to everyday weather".
To deny that the sun exists when it's so obvious that it is a
ball sitting in a spot in the universe, which we have abundance of proof
it sits there, and that when it rains, we don't see it, is like saying one
would deny they have fingers when they stick them in mud and can't see
them. The science would be indisputable regarding if the fingers existed.
In stark contrast, to deny or say it's not proven that so called climate change in
the form of global warming caused by excess carbon dioxide is so much more
a basic of scientific skepticism, as it's questioning an extremely complicated formula,
measurement system that's flawed, and causation theory that is constantly changing,
and theory that is affected by a billion different factors such as Earth's
magnetic field, is
based on readings that are not from an infinite number of points of
measurement, only limited ones, and there is question (actually
allegation) about what historic
data has been allowed to be viewed and by whom. Not all data has been released to
everyone to study.
Similarly, there is no solid proof that the
odorless colorless invisible gas of carbon dioxide, found in air, has created a blanket so thick, so solid, so in the way of the
normal processes of weather, as if a real blanket was over the earth, that the normal cooling/warming cycles are
completely distorted that the earth cannot cool, and thus warming would
hold, as the global warming alarmism would have us believe. In fact,
it's rather obvious that we are seeing the Earth's normal process of
heating and cooling occur, especially keeping in mind that
99.9999999999999999999999% of our heating of the planet comes from the
Sun, and 99.9999999999999999999999% of our cooling comes from space, and a
mere .0000000000000000000001% comes from our burning of earth's resources
for energy. No where in the global warming alarmism theory is considered
how much our planet is cooled by air conditioning either, have you ever
seen that data? I haven't. It doesn't exist, so I guess one could call me
a denialist because I deny that all data has been fully collected and thus
all alarm ringing conclusions are incomplete.
Global warming alarmists want us to believe there is a blanket, something
like it's filled with
goose down feathers up there covering the atmosphere, that traps warm air. The big problem with their
theory is that CO2 is a gas and moves with the wind as easily as the wind
moves, and the earth which also moves, unless CO2 is so heavy that it
The theory of global warming pretends that these gasses (not solids
like a goose down blanket) are solids, but they do not act as a
blanket at all because it's a GAS not a solid. This is basic physics.
For something to act like a blanket it must be like a blanket. CO2 is not
heavy and can move just like the air it's mixed up with, so it is no
blanket, it is a gas, and all references to it being a blanket are
erroneous and extremely misleading.
So basically I see a
huge difference in being skeptical of something that has not been
absolutely proven, and saying "global warming has never been proven
and thus doesn't or may not exist" and easily disproven things like
"the sun does not exist because I can't see it". I can deny and
be a "denialist" of something that has not been proven by solid
(not gaseous) standards of science.
Global warming embracists always seem to use that term "denialist"
in a way as to, rather than describe accurately one's position which takes
into consideration numerous factors that are extremely complex and not yet
proven, to rather, make it appear as though one is an alcoholic and in
denial. It serves their campaign agenda, and sometimes lobbying for
funding, but does not serve to provide accurate scientific scrutiny or
evaluation of the complex science of weather prediction. I mean think
about it, now we have people predicting the weather out 100 years. Does
that not strike us of being a bit impossible? One week predictions and we
often see they are off. They say sunny and warm, and suddenly there's a
California drought may be worst since
So much for that global warming oceans rise thing. Where did all the
Let's call it what it is, weather change. Weather/Climate = same thing.
The recent arctic polar vortex cold snap has proven once again, that the
weather does change like it has for billions of years.
Heated washer fluid modification
Ever had the fluid freeze on your
windshield? This modification for a washer fluid tank is pretty good, but
what I don't like about it is it puts holes in the washer tank in the
lower section which could be a point of leaks in the future.
read a recent post on a blog that told people to wake up, we invaded
Iraq for their oil. I guess that theory is still alive and well, but
reading it over a decade after that war, it made me wonder, is our
government behind invading North Dakota as well? That is where our local
oil boom is located. Of course, there was no invasion needed, nor is there
any invasion needed to get oil anywhere on earth, just trade agreements,
and it doesn't take much to see how glad countries are to sell us our oil
at premium prices. Thing is, North Dakota oil has long ago been mapped
out, so we never needed to invade anywhere other than North Dakota, so it
seems that whole theory that we invaded Iraq for oil falls flat. Finally.
Oh of course, the arctic is drunk that's why the
seems global warming alarmists will never ever let go of their beliefs,
this time it's claimed that the arctic is so drunk on warm air, that it's
"staggering around" like a drunk sailor saying "as the
arctic continues to warm we can expect the jet stream to take wild
swings". How funny. Did they not just say the arctic is warming at
the exact time there is a frigid sub-zero blast of freezing cold air
barreling down from there? The denial is unbelievable. It's not warm air
that's coming from the arctic it's cold. Where does this cold air come
from? Space. Abundant cold air in space.
is a video there which states "warmer air takes up more space than
colder air". Note the word "space". That word is so
interesting. These global warming doomists use the word space, as
if the only space there is, is within our atmosphere, and that we
are protected by a glass and blanket bubble surrounding the earth. Space
continues on billions of light years away from our atmosphere and we are
surrounded by FREEZING COLD. Our planet is 99% molten lava 2000 degrees.
We sit on a 1% crust that contains water and elements. The freezing cold
in space always normalizes any heat we generate in excess.
a look at what we are supposed to believe as presented in the video, the
claim is that warm air expands so the layer of cold in the arctic is less.
Let's say global warming takes over and eventually there's no cold in the
arctic at all, it's just one big warm air mass. What about the cold still
surrounding the earth? CO2 is said to create a blanket, this invisible
gas, a blanket. Compare a blanket to air. Next time you go camping in the
cold, take a blanket of CO2 instead of a blanket, because according to
global warming theory, you have a blanket of air to keep you warm.
see, everything regarding heat and cold on Earth are overwhelmingly
dependent on 2 things, the frigid temperature of space, and the radiating
heat from the fireball the Sun. What we do on Earth in creating heat
energy cannot happen without cooling as well, it's a principle of physics.
Global warming alarmism is like worrying about the heat from the space
shuttles and satellites being expelled into space causing universal
warming that will warm up the universe so much that it changes everything
about everything, causing planets to change orbit, reverse direction,
Scientists are measuring global temperatures with
we are relying on good science to accurately assess climate change, why
would these scientists be cutting the number of temperature collection
stations by 75%?
to National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration website which states:
Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface
temperature around the globe — from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern
technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer
accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has
actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs,
as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time
stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists
can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that
data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly
expanding number of buoys and ships – 71 percent of the world is
covered by oceans, after all – to determine the global temperature
when they say they have more data than before, this statement might merely
mean that they inputted data into their computer much like we collect
grumpy cat photos that we just found on another hard drive. Just because
we have more data doesn't mean we have more grumpy cats than happy cats in
the world based on the data we have on our hard drives.
Older outposts were no longer accessible in real time. Is this due to
budget constraints or what? If an "older outpost" is located in
a cold climate which would make it no longer accessible, they may be using
data from another source and averaging, but this could skew the data in
favor of a warming perspective. Let's exaggerate an example, say they have
an older outpost in northern Canada where it's extremely difficult to
access the data regularly because it's so cold there no one wants to live
there. They retire that outpost, and move it south closer to Toronto. The
temperature reading would be warmer, but that reading would be in a way
replacing the one further north and thus add to the data indicating
"global warming" because it's not the real global temperatures
that have changed, it's the locations that have, favoring more data in
warmer climates. This "warmer" climate may be only a fraction of
a degree difference or a few degrees, but it's a significant thing to
question of these experts.. I have not yet found details on this yet but
it's something to consider if we are to strive to understand climate
change we must know for absolute certainty that all measuring techniques
are coordinated evenly and provide a real picture of what is happening,
and not just relying on averages.
are the collections centers of data around the world spread out evenly and
at what time of day or nights?
thing to note in the other section of the FAQ is the collection of
temperatures in different times of the day/night when temperatures are
warmer/cooler and the calculated (not physical) adjustment to those
readings. There can be errors there. Another questionable practice is for
decades, the use of a bucket over the side of the boat was the method to
sample ocean water temperature. The newer method is automatically
monitoring it from engine coolant intake. I question whether this method
is more of a time and bother saving measure, AKA "automation"
and whether there can be any errors in the quality of those readings. What
level and depth are those readings being taken from compared to the bucket
readings? What if any influence is there of water traveling through a tube
to an engine for cooling, is the surrounding air around this tube warming
the water? Then there's the conversion to digital thermometers. Data today
is collected by these. Are they as accurate? There seems to be some
question of that in this
report. Methods that employ automation can be as frustrating to deal
with as those automated answering systems on virtually every company
phone. Automated temperature data collection can have it's flaws!
Then there are anomalies
per the NOAA website:
version 3b is currently used. ERSST version 3 improved upon version 2 in
several ways: first, by changing the low-frequency tuning, effectively
increasing the sensitivity to data prior to 1930; by internally handling
sea ice calculations to increase the timeliness of the dataset; and by
using satellite observations to increase data where in-situ measurements
are sparse (Smith
et al., 2008). In version 3b, the satellite observations were
removed from the product because they were found to have introduced a
bias that caused problems for many of our users. The bias was strongest
in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in-situ (ship
and buoy) observations are sparse. More
detailed information about the switch to version 3b.
are so many variables that can create bias, especially when it comes to
reporters looking for today's great global warming story!
100 mpg Ford c-max solar powered car
at the Las Vegas consumer electronics show January 7 - 10, 2014 it's said to
have a range of 21 miles on solar, and a full range of 620 miles when
fully charged on plug-in electric including the 21 miles from the solar
charge. In other words, 599 miles plug-in with an extra 21 from the solar. That's
ony 3% from the solar panels. Considering that most of our electricity
comes from traditional sources, such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas,
and that about 10% of the world's energy consumption comes from clean
energy sources as per EIA.gov
figures the amount this Ford C-Max solar powered car would be using of
"dirty" energy sources is around 88%. I think calling it a solar
powered car is bit like calling a dump truck a moving truck, it's still
basically an car that runs on so called "dirty" energy.
is back, this time it's the 40/60/100 watt incandescent light bulb.
Apparently drunken government neverminded that bulbs help heat a house in winter, fall, and
cold spring days, thus reducing the strain on any a heating system, in
weather that is throughout most of the country. The claim is they "waste
heat energy" but do they really? It's
time to get some clarity on this issue.
dream and plot of many a science fiction story, I'm not taking hydrogen,
I'm talking tap water. This is what this guy claims is happening to his
tap water in North Dakota due to fracking.
expansion so successful it's been halted Scientific American
causing circuits to be unreliable. Also "Utilities in states with
growing levels of solar have argued that fixed fees and other changes are
needed because customers with net metering bill credits don't pay their
fair share of transmission and distribution charges." This is why I
would be very careful if I were approached about solar installation on my
home. These utilities are starting to charge people for access to the grid
and that is going to diminish solar's cost saving benefits! In the article
commenters takes issue with the article, saying that grid energy is 20th
century, archaic, and that these utilities are out for money and not the
interest of the public. I read these kinds of responses often, and not one
of them ever explains what happens if the world goes 100% solar,
"dirty" energy is replaced with windmills and solar panels, and
we have 5 days of rain with no wind. They just go on and on about dirty
energy and the lofty unrealistic visions of creating so called
"pure" energy. The reality is that these power sources we have
been using for decades are RELIABLE and efficient.
Global warming will eventually evaporate all the
just gave us 850 billion more years on top of their prior d150 million
years as their research becomes more defined. But wait, I thought
global warming was supposed to make the oceans rise? And if global warming
causes oceans to rise, and the air to be warmer, then it only makes sense
that there would be more evaporation, thus lowering ocean levels. And
where does all this moisture go, into the clouds, then back down. Cycles.
either fail open or fail closed. Hydraulic brakes typically found on a car
use brake fluid. You press the brake, pressure forces the fluid to the
brake cylinder which expands, and presses brake pads against the drum or
rotor, causing friction. If the brake line fails, and there is no
pressure, the brakes do not work. On big trucks with air brakes, it's the
opposite. Air pressure holds the brake pads away from the drum or rotor.
When the brake pedal is depressed, it lets air out of the system and the
pads press against the rotor or drum, causing friction. If air brakes
fail, the truck comes to a stop.
Record cold in Antarctica cools off warming fears
live in a bubble, surrounded by constant frigid temperatures in space.
It's no surprise that when some areas of the planet are warmer, others
become cooler. We saw this just occur in Antarctica with a satellite
recorded 135.8 degrees Fahrenheit temperature which breaks all records of
the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth.
iceberg called B-31. Take a look at the "image location" map to
the right. It's located south of the most southern tip of South America.
What I want to do here is see a size comparison to the Earth and it's
look at a satellite image of Antarctica, showing how huge Antarctica is on
Earth, and imagine a few small
slivers of iceberg breaking off, about the size of the head of ball point
pen touching your screen on a part of the ice shelf, and think about how much that would make the
surrounding oceans rise. http://i.imgur.com/IcugVpr.jpg
say this one called B-31 is the size of Singapore. That's pretty big but
not in comparison to the size of the Earth and it's oceans. Let's look at
the world map with Singapore. Note that the dot on the map is about 1000
times the country of Singapore. If the dot were to scale, it would not be
visible as it would be smaller than the period at the end of this
credit Bing.com maps
on Earth is anyone worried about icebergs melting that are no bigger than
the size of the dot in this question mark?
don't see how even if all the ice melted it would raise ocean levels like
the alarmists claim. Frozen water takes up more volume than liquid water.
The icebert B-31 is a drop in the bucket, no, actually it's more like a
drop in a lake. Worrying about these glacier melts, which are normal, even
if they are accelerating, is like worrying about a bucket of ice thrown
into a lake, and worrying about the shoreline rising.
who is it that keeps telling this nonsense that the world's oceans will
rise when a blip of frozen ice cubes melt? It's like worrying that a
swimming pool will flood the house when someone takes their drink with ice
cubes into the pool and when they finish the drink they turn the cup
upside down and the ice falls into the large body of water.
Just when you thought climate science couldn't get
read the headline that says top scientists want environmentalists to
support nuclear power to combat global climate change. First, climate
always changes, always has changed, and always will change, why they call
it climate change is odd. Next, in creating electricity from nuclear
power, heat is generated the same as from other means. Water from oceans
lakes or other large sources of water is used to cool down the reactors,
thus, introducing heat into the environment. Of course our planet is like
a molecule on the head of a pin in a universe of haystacks all surrounded
with extreme cold so the exchange of heat by the universe is constant,
thus, the myth of global warming is nil as all excess heat is tempered by
our surrounding space atmosphere.
to Wikipedia.org there was a year that never was for the Jeep Wrangler.
"The YJ gave way to the TJ for the 1997 model year (note that there
was no 1996 model year; the 1997 TJ was released in Spring 1996)."
notice that solar panels are black? Black absorbs heat whereas white
reflects it. Ever touch a black car in the summer? Yeowwch! So why are
they saying that solar power lessens global warming when they absorb heat
instead of reflecting it. I wonder what the temperature of the surface of
a solar panel is in the summer in the desert where they are putting many
of these solar farms in Southern California. Seems they would be
contributing more heat.
new solar thermal power plant south of Phoenix named Solana has tested and
showing great results. In reading the article about how mirrors follow the
sun, reflecting and concentrating light to a tower which then HEATS UP
LIQUID which then produces steam then turning turbines thus producing
energy, I kinda got stuck on the idea that solar power is creating HEAT.
How do global warming alarmists feel about this? Seems that would be
contributing to the condition and not the cure.
Solar panels on roofs inhibit fire fighting efforts
across the nation are alarmed at the prospect of battling blazes in
buildings topped with solar panels, which can create new risks of roofs
collapsing, an inability to gain footing and even potential electric
refusal to send firefighters into buildings
where the weight of solar panels can cause roof collapse
panels continue to send electrical energy
into the building even when power is shut down
they block ventilation from roof -
firefighters make holes in roof to ventilate
slipping and tripping on slick panels injures
firefighters putting them in jeopardy
voltage can be as high as 600v
I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies start
doubling rates for homes with rooftop solar panels.
was stated that a faulty CO2 tank caused high ph levels in a pool
according to a Fox News article online.
high pH was caused by a defective CO2 tank, CO2 being the gas that buffers
(lowers) the pH.”
buffers/lowers ph. So if that is true for pools, maybe extra CO2 in the atmosphere
would normalize atmospheric ph in a way to get rid of acid rain. For that
matter, maybe climate ph has more to do with climate change than CO2 and
CO2 is exactly the element that fixes it!
Political appointees decide 95% certain "global
warming" is due to man
United Nations Climate Panel consists of political appointees chosen by
various countries. They decide what science is accurate and what science
is not. Appointees did this same thing for 60 years in suggesting that
Pluto was a planet, until one day in 2006 they VOTED differently, then
Pluto became considered not a planet, but more like a rock in space. One
of the interesting points of all this science is that these scientists
only share their more detailed findings with those who support their
theories if at all. They make reports about their findings, but their
actual detailed work is kept hidden from the world. Most climate science
of this type has never been seen by anyone.
Weather balance denialists now claim pause
headlines have been very clear and precise, much to the dismay of all the
global "warming" hype we have heard for years, that the planet
is now cooling. It fits in exactly with all valid research but the
alarmists cannot grasp it so they have deemed it merely a
Same volume engines can have different
a million more square miles of ocean are covered in ice in 2013 than in
2012, a whopping 60 percent increase -- and a dramatic deviation from
predictions of an "ice-free Arctic in 2013," the Daily Mail
hurricanes this year" is the headline on today's date September 9,
2013. "The truth is that scientists aren’t really sure why there
hasn’t been a hurricane yet this season, nor do they know why an intense
hurricane hasn’t made landfall in the U.S. since Wilma all the way back
in 2005". Climate change "science" has always tried to
scare us with such claims as "we will get more hurricanes" and
"they will be more intense". Oh well.
are increasingly being made with computers controlling many systems like
brakes, steering, and it's been shown that someone can remotely hack into
the system to disable brakes, or make a car brake suddenly.
largest wind turbine installation is located in South America in the
southernmost section of Argentina. I found this quite by accident today as I was simply
looking at a Bing.com map of this southern area to try to find a unique
area called Madre dos Dios Islands and as I zoomed into one
area, I noticed an unusual array of roads and odd dots. It didn't quite
look like homes, and soon I realized it had to be a wind farm, a really
really big one!
may be cheaper to buy a new electric car in Norway when considering all
the tax incentives, but there are critics who say that these incentives
may be creating the opposite of what's intended, clean air. As quoted from
the article "perhaps the biggest criticism of
Norway’s incentive policy is that it has encouraged rich suburban
dwellers to buy second and third cars and to give up public transport in
order to commute to work"
was thinking of a better term for "climate change", as it's so
charged with this concept that oceans will rise. How about "weather
change" or "changing weather". It's the same thing really. Let's
use it in a sentence:
weather will cause the oceans to rise 30 feet."
sound like that is possible anymore does it now?
Atmosphere holds varying amounts of water affecting
all the drama about oceans rising due to the alleged perpetrator
"climate change" which ignores the effect of the below
freezing normalizing temperature of space that envelopes the Earth, it's
refreshing to find out that climate change reports never tell us anything
about how much moisture is evaporated, and remains held in the atmosphere.
They only dramatize the moisture melt. No surprise though, after all, when
have the climate alarmists ever provided complete data?
story about how atmospheric conditions over the Indian Ocean during 2010
and 2011 absorbed so much moisture, it created a measurable effect on the
level of the world's oceans.
note for calculations: world ocean surface area of 361,000,000 km2 +
drop of 7 mm: 2.527*1015 liters = 606.3 mi3 which also equals
slightly more than a fifth the volume of Lake Superior.
Autos says they tested the Ford C-Max Hybrid for a week in varied driving
conditions and only got 32 mpg which is far from the 47 mpg Ford
advertised. A number of lawsuits and pressure from the EPA has led the
company to offer refunds of $550 to those who have purchased the vehicle.
If I had bought one of those, I would not accept that offer. Don't these
cars cost like $10,000 more than normal gasoline vehicles? If so, I would
feel like I could have saved $10,000 by buying a Toyota Camry instead,
which would have gotten around 30 mpg. A check from Ford for $550 does
nothing to make up the loss of $10,000 in my opinion.
the rubber stops meeting the road, and a vehicle crashes or flips, I
always wonder what kind of tires were on the vehicle. For example, here's
a picture of a truck that flipped. http://i.imgur.com/nnjKaLp.jpg
The driver said he was wearing his seat
belt and attributed his ability to walk from the crash to that.
there are accidents like this is there any logging of what tire and tread
design it had? Shouldn't there be a database that logs what brand, size,
and wear was on the tires?
polarity changes every 11 years
chart is a snapshot from a video featured on Space.com
shows the cycles of polarity shifts on our Sun. I never knew our sun's
north pole became a south pole and changed back, completing a full cycle
every 11 years. That means that the pole is completely opposite every 5.5
years. It's said to affect the entire planetary solar system weather. Why
is this not calculated regarding so called global warming without
that some years there is a stronger peak mangnetic force than other years.
This force affects the entire planetary solar system weather patterns. It
affects the earths magnetic fields. There is likely a correlation between
magnetic fields and weather cycles on Earth.
you watch this short movie over and over, you notice that the car spun out
and hit the guard rail, which bounced the car back into traffic, causing
these bad crashes. If the guard rail was not there, the car would have
just gone off the road in what looks like a flat area, 2 would have no
damage, driving as they were, the one that spun out, might have minimal
damage if any, unless if flipped in the grass and snow.
This makes me question whether when these "guard" rails are put
in, if those who decide that they are "necessary" or are making
a road "safer" if they are doing so from a real point of study,
or one of creating jobs for their friends.
horsepower 1972 Chevy Nova Super Sleeper
970 1/4 mile, trunk contains race fuel tank, roll bar cage, original
used to be called a warm winter
is that the North Pole has melted into a pond. This has raised the global
warming red flags once again. It's not the first time the North Pole has
melted though. Keep in mind the North Pole is little more than ice cubes
floating in a glass of water. There is no land mass there so the ice only
rises a little bit above the water line. I found this better explanation
as to why there's a lake formed.
concept is displacement. When water freezes, it expands. It takes up more
volume than water. Thus, when it melts, less volume. So what ends up
happening when all the ice melts, is the water level actually goes down.
Simple demonstration you can do at home. Take a glass of water and fill
it up to the brim, with the ice sticking up over the top.
Let the ice melt. As the ice melts, notice that the cup never
According to climate change science, the mass of ice above the brim
should melt and overflow, but that science does not take into account that
when water freezes it expands, thus, there is more volume in ice than in
So if all of the glaciers and ice around the world melted, water levels
across the planet would go down, as displacement is in effect.
explodes on a windy day
people realize that on brisk windy days the brakes are applied to stop
this very thing from happening. On this day the brakes had failed so the
blades were spinning freely and much too fast. They can only handle
power plant that burns natural gas is next to windmills
mega watt peaker power plant goes online in Desert Hot Springs California
just north of Palm Springs. It is located in the middle of numerous wind
farms. I thought wind farms were supposed to "power millions of
homes". Obviously not.
cost of gas vs. electric
government site shows users the comparison of how much it would cost per
gallon for a gasoline powered vehicle, to an electric powered vehicle.
Oregon it's $3.74 for a gallon of gas and the comparable amount for the
electricity is $.96
The comparisons are based on a car that gets 28 mpg.
In CA the difference is $3.98 for gas and $1.51 for electric, which is
almost 3x difference.
For a vehicle that gets 14 mpg, that is about a 5.5x difference.
If you are commuting to work 5x a week with a vehicle that gets 14 mpg
going 14 miles each way to work
that difference could be instead of spending $171 a month on gas, only
spending $31 a month.
The savings almost pays for the car payment for that Fiat 500e of $199 a
The thing that would scare me though with these electric cars is do they
ever just crap out on the road running out of power even when staying
within your allotted miles which is about 100 miles per charge.
I would guess these electric cars will become more popular in smaller
communities like Palm Springs and Palm Desert and areas like that where
shopping and everything is pretty close. Sure would beat driving in a golf
cart to the store and back.
am looking over the Honda Fit EV and it's intriquing. They have a $259 a
month lease for well qualified leasers. They pay for all maintenance and
collision insurance and unlimited miles. I never heard of anything like
that before. These EV's are supposed to get an equivalent of like 100 mpg.
For those who feel they are "chained" to old vehicle repairs and
problems these could be great. Imagine not having to live with those. Some
people say they cannot even drive their cars very far any more anyway as
the gas prices are so high. If you are concerned about the need to
occasionally take a trip that would be further than a local commute range,
Fiat will be offering a Fiat 500e at lease of $199 a month and they give
you 12 free days of rental cars. The Fiat 500e will be available in the
summer of 2013 according to the company. With deals like this and
estimated mileage ratinggs at around 100 mpge who wouldn't consider one of
are popping up along I-5 and some other roads. They offer a quick 20-30
minute charge. I see a couple of problems. 1) when there is a line of
people waiting for a charge and the person ahead goes off sightseeing or
sits down at the restaurant and they are waiting 1 1/2 - 2 hours for them
to get back and move their car. 2) unlike at gas stations where the hose
going to the car is there only temporary and provides only the most
minimal of tripping hazard as there is a person manning/womanning the
hose, these electric cords are a trip hazard.
the term "cools the planet" is not even totally accurate, it's
more like "regulates the planet's temperature" and it's great
news coming from NASA's Langley Research Center. “Carbon dioxide and
nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton
had bought 4 new tires for the Jeep, BF Goodrich AT KO and one of them was
a display model that ended up being a 2 year old "new" tire
which had silicon tire dressing on it which I did not want on my tires.
One other tire had a brownish tinge on it, which was a year old (unused
tire). They offered to replace the display model. When I was in the store
I asked to look at the new tire before they installed it. I looked for the
DOT numbers found on the white letter side, and saw that it was a 2013
which was what I was told when I asked if the tire was in stock yet. I
also noticed a bit of a tinge of brownish occuring even on this new one.
BF Goodrich website says this is normal. I ok'd the install if they would
clean that the new one and the other one. They look great and I am now
pleased. The one thing I loved about doing business with Sears Palm Desert
California was that the center was not overloaded with customers and the
staff was friendly and they have a comfortable waiting room. I had to ask
another customer though to get the TV remote to up the volume as I
couldn't get it to work. He had no problem. We figured out that the angle
of the remote to the TV was being blocked where I was sitting and not
where he was sitting. A great start to my Saturday.
who believes that the oceans will rise 8 feet, or even inches if arctic
ice melts, clearly could not have looked at the world's oceans and the
mass from this perspective as it shows how big the oceans are compared to
the ice which is more like a drop in a bucket.
large team of scientists used a deep ice core from the Western Antarctic
Ice Sheet Divide to produce records going back some 2,000 years. Their
analysis shown that recent melting in that area, which has caused a good
deal of hysteria* in climate alarmist circles, is in fact normal."
you can save just one bird, it's all worth it" so they said. Turns
out, that's about all that's saved, 1%. In the Gulf of Mexico oil spill
they spent millions of dollars trying to save them using detergent. Dawn
detergent used it as a part of their feel good about the product by
mentioning it. It all presents such a feel good ideal, save the birds,
great for TV and magazines, but the study indicates that only 1 in 100 end
up surviving. Next spill, how about we let nature take it's course, and
start using using those millions to help people instead? A study indicates
that they are better off being killed to spare them the misery. Though I
would dispute that waste of money as well, at least it sheds light on the
reality of the bird brianed idea that we can save them.
has been there for a long time, and it's sitting on ice buried in snow, in
a large frozen tundra. If global warming was an overall phenomena as
compared to a local occurrence we wouldn't have such evidence of global
According to wunderground.com, Nico, Antarctica had the lowest temperature ever
recorded anywhere on Earth. It was April Fool's Day at -96 degrees. If we are suffering from "global warming"
as many alarmists claim, why is the lowest
temperature ever recorded taken on April 1, 2013 on Earth a minus 96 degrees
Also of note, a record low was set in Garrison, North Dakota, USA, at 8
degrees Farenheit breaking the previous record low set in 2008 of 12
Numbers don't lie. The planet is experiencing both global warming and
global cooling, thus global normalization as it always has.
CO2 for sale
Greenhouses are buying CO2 to make their plants grow better. Quick,
someone notify the sustainability experts, all we have to do now is sell
all the green house gasses to green houses and create more green houses to
capture the green house gasses which are killing our planet.
The indigenous Indian Tribe was pushed out of the territory they lived in
for thousands of years. They lived off the land and were forced out due
to man's thirst for horsepower during the industrial revolition.
The winds of approval hit the seas, allowing wind farming to proceed and
Donald Trump who owns a golf course there says the pristine views will
be destroyed and it will not be good for Scotland's tourism. He has also said
that the wind farms just outside of Palm Springs have destroyed the beauty of
I bought "new" tires at Sears only to find that one of them had
silicone tire shine on it and one of the others had a dirty brownish look. The
other two looked like new tires and still look new after weeks of use. In
discussing this with 2 different managers at Sears in Palm Desert, they both
insisted that the dirty tire was "normal". I feel it's not normal,
it's a dirty tire. The other was a display model and should have never been
really sold to me without informing me that it had tire dressing on it.
Silicone tire dressing products make the tire appear more black but they tend
to wear off unevenly, show high and low spots of shine, and streaks. I decided
I didn't want any silicone on my tires when they are new. Maybe when they are
years old but not when new. They agreed to only replace the one tire, and
would only try to clean the dirty one. It has a dirty rusty look to it. Looking at the BF Goodrich website
regarding how to read the dates a tire was made, I had to do some sleuthing to
get this image below to show up. They have the picture location address at the
wrong spot. There are 12 letters/digits after the DOT code, usually on
the whitewall side of the tire. If you can't find this whole 12 digit number
on one side, look on the other. The 9th and 10th digits indicate the week of manufacture while the last 2
indicate the year.
Here is how they say to read it when the tire is made during the
Next time I buy tires I will definitely make sure they show me
the dates of all four tires before installation and look them over to make sure
they all look new and not dirty. As a customer who expects exceptional service
and new looking tires when they are sold as new, I think that tires should
probably be no more than 6 - 12 months old and they all should match, and again,
Peaker power plants & shale
Natural gas is typically the choice fuel to create electricity. When burned
it emits carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. It's called "clean"
energy but it's only "cleaner" than others like coal, not really
"clean", it's a hydrocarbon gas mixture!
"A peaker plant may operate many hours a day, or it may operate only a
few hours per year, depending on the condition of the region's electrical
grid. Because of the cost of building an efficient power plant, if a peaker
plant is only going to be run for a short or highly variable time it does not
make economic sense to make it as efficient as a base load power plant. In
addition, the equipment and fuels used in base load plants are often unsuitable
for use in peaker plants because the fluctuating conditions would severely
strain the equipment. For these reasons, nuclear,
coal, biomass and electrochemical energy storage systems are rarely, if
ever, operated as peaker plants."
As a peaker plant — able to run a maximum of 116 days a year once it
begins operating next winter — Sentinel and its eight 90-foot-tall
smokestacks could spew more than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year,
according to the final approval from the California Energy Commission.
That’s the equivalent of adding 188,334 cars per year to the valley’s
roads, using formulas from the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Taiwanese driver unloads a truckload of bamboo without
getting his hands dirty. Could this explain why the Orient has it over America
on productivity? I would imagine American unions wouldn't allow this for a
Greening the planet through use of carbon
Turns out, we have been making the planet more green directly due to the fact
that we are using more fossile fuels! Easy proof is seen by looking at Palm
Springs area 50 years ago saw nothing but sand, and today, it's a lush paradise.
That would never have happened without cars, gas stations, and electricity. Same
with Los Angeles which is an irrigated desert and many other places around the
Take a look at the video and see how it finally shatters
when it reaches a certain speed. The reason it shatters is not because of
the RPM'S going up, and causing outward stress as you might think, but rather, the wobble
effect, even though the CD seems completely flat. It's due to factors of the bearing
being not balanced absolute perfectly and the CD not being perfectly
balanced in weight. Though those amounts are extremely small, they play a
big roll when the item is spun at higher revolutions and thus the CD
finally shatters due to the vibrations.
you don't put the correct size tires on without doing the mods it will
throw off your speedometer and can mess with the abs example...computer on
the truck will "think" the truck is going slower than it
actually is therefore not applying the brakes correctly in an emergency
The European Union has proposed limits on how noisy tires should be. I
could see this coming to the US and become a problem with using mud tires
on the road. Goodyear Duratrac's say they meet the requirements.
This vehicle (Jeep?) was able to submerse in this canal
and pull itself out!
Liberals pay more
A business owner charges liberals $1 more for their
healthy smoothies, donates the money to conservative causes. This concept
could backfire though as liberals could also start adding fees for
Bad coal, bad
It's like everyone is now talking to coal as if it's a
spoiled unruly child. I don't see what the big problem is with coal energy
yet Canada's leaders apparently do as they are phasing it out. I wonder if
they know anything about the problems with San Onofre nuclear power plant
which is shut down. What happens when these nuclear plants fail? They
cannot rely on wind for a constant supply. I like the idea of having many
sources of energy to make a reliable constant supply. Having a coal plant
operating is a good idea.
According to Scientific American wind
power has grown from 400 MW of provincial power six years ago to more
than 2,000 MW now. By 2030, it is projected to provide roughly 10 percent
of Ontario Canada province's electricity supply.
I have to wonder if when these statements about wind power
are made are they talking about the total provided for the entire year, or
are they talking about the total possible if the windmills were actually
producing 24 hours a day, or are they talking about the total produced
only when the wind blows and is actually producing energy?
Here is an interesting concept in redesigning the wheel
but I wonder if something like this hasn't already been done and maybe
even patented before, like before rubber was readily available and put
into productive use for tires.
A biofuel train crossed the border 24 times back and forth
between Canada and the USA without ever unloading it's cargo. Why would it
do such an energy inefficient thing with such energy efficient products?
I'm watching some guy on TV who's trying to sell me on
solar for my home. In the presentation he shows an incandescent bulb,
talks about the heat generated by "old fashioned" bulbs. He said
the incandescent bulb would last 2000 hours. The LED 50,000 hours but that
one bulb would cost 50 dollars! He went on to say that bulb would last an
average home 50 years.
Not trusting anything any salesman says to me anymore at fact
value, I did the math. That bulb is said to last 5.7 years if turned on and
left on all the time according to the "life expectancy" of the
Cities have been installing LED bulbs for years in traffic lights at
great expense, and so many of them after a year or so start blinking,
where the LED's burn out and then the entire unit has to be replaced, not
in 50 years, more like 2 years. Each bulb contains not one, but many LED's
so the entire unit needs to be replaced when some of them go out.
Why is wind energy not being
fined for killing birds?
A 2008 study by the Fish and Wildlife Service that
estimates wind farms kill nearly a half million birds per year in the
United States yet the wind sector has not been fined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection
Act which can bring fines up to $250,000. Government has not prosecuted a
single case against the wind industry while they have prosecuted oil and natural gas providers for similar infractions.
He says his Jeep was cured of the dreaded death wobble by
replacing the bushing with polyurethane bushings for $10. This excellent
very short video shows it before the change. You can see the bushing move.
In 1978 a law was passed in the hurricane Sandy area that
mandated disaster planning in case of a catastrophic weather event. Due to
budget constraints not much was done such as building a breakwall out in
the ocean. In 2012 the weather event happened. If one looks back at the
period of time that law was created it was not based on carbon dioxide, it
was based on how climate cycles and huge storms come around every 20, 50,
and 100 years. The term "100 year storm" was not developed
during "awareness of climate change". Today all of these
"new storms" are blamed on carbon dioxide spinning around in
circles up above our heads and some are claiming that our oceans will rise
6 feet in our lifetimes due to carbon dioxide spinning around in circles
up above our heads.
Wrangler Duratrak tires review
do extremely well in the
General Grabber at2 tires do
extremely well in the mud
Pro comp all terrain tires
review don't get stuck in snow
Reading about tires I came across a Q & A page where
someone had a vibration issue yet when they looked the car over it seemed
everything was fine. The answer given was to first have the tires
balanced. Then the next answer that was given was more about
I ran into this issue once, had the tires balanced and
checked, then replaced all the shocks, wheel bearings, $500 + later and it
was still not fixed. It was bad universal joints. Check universal joints
FIRST. Driving a car with bad universal joints can be dangerous so make
that a first step.
Other things that can cause vibration are brake rotors,
suspension, and steering parts.
The shipping route located in the United States is drying
up due to the ongoing drought in that area. If it continues, which it
probably will not due to winter coming, it could stop a lot of shipping
through there. In the global warming scheme of things, it should really be
reversing flow from the rise in the oceans.
When the experts say the "current availability and
quality of climate observations and impacts data are inadequate for large
parts of the globe" one has to wonder who keeps telling us that
global warming is unequivocally real.
I always wonder whenever I hear about wind mill megawatt
numbers how it compares to nuclear or other sources like natural gas. One
thing to keep in mind is that the wattage is not equal to power output.
Arctic ice now expanding according to
Now Arctic ice expansion is being called "another
worrying trend in climate change".
Chevy Spark gets 38 mpg and has 84
It's bigger than a bicycle and safer and it's not
Public lands will be getting fast permitting by those
currently in the White House for solar farms. The winners are the
companies that will be building these farms. They will get truckloads of
free cash from the rest of us who support this system of redistribution.
How is this helping the little guy?
A Danish wind turbine company that received $50 million
from the United States treasury's stimulus funds has laid off over 800
workers in the US and Canada. They say demand for their products have
plummeted. I remember it being said by many "green energy"
fussbudgets that wind energy would create jobs and be sustainable, but it
seems that just like corn crops that need water, wind farming needs an
endless supply of energy subsidies to be SUSTAINABLE. It's yet
another example of the horrible drought conditions that are rendering the
jobs in green energy sector as unsustainable.
Go to any gas station and you see gasoline fuel pumps with
hoses and nozzles that sit there overnight and are there in the morning.
There is little incentive for anyone to steal them as they are not worth
much to a thief. Contrast that to electric vehicle charging stations which
have similar "hoses and nozzles" but they are made of expensive
copper wire. Thieves are taking air-conditioner parts these days now,
certainly they will take these thick copper wire power cords for
recharging electric cars. It seems the cords need to be locked up every
night, or locked and pass codes given to unlock or put away each
night. I see nothing but problems with these cords for charging
vehicles. My greatest concern though is about children and the elderly
tripping over these thick heavy electrical cords. Take a look one:
Electric car batteries can be damaged
The electric car has been deemed to be an answer to
"dependence on foreign oil" yet those that constantly proclaim
that solution to America's problems rarely if ever explain that swapping
dependence on oil for dependence on batteries can cause a whole new set of
concerns, some of which could cause the entire concept of replacing
gasoline powered vehicles with electric ones to hit a wall.
need to basically be left plugged in when not in use or risk battery
depletion which can cause the battery to be not just drain and need
recharge, but end up becoming what they call "bricked". That
means the battery is useless at that point and has to be replaced.
Another thing that should be
understood, is that electric vehicles that are left plugged in always draw
energy from the electric grid, which oddly enough, uses mostly fossil fuel
to create power.
One of these electric car tax subsidized companies states
on it's charging instructions: "Plugging it in every night eliminates
the risk of damage that could be caused by over-discharging the
A new replacement battery for an electric car can cost a car owner as much as
According to recent studies 15,000-12,000 years ago the
Antarctic Peninsula experienced significant warming. Dr.
Will they free us from
foreign oil? Not really. The idea that making our cars run on
electricity - renewable energy would depend on foreign minerals. We might
take note that our dependence on Canadian oil is
not creating any problems. Canada provide us more oil than anyone. A
move to so called clean energy would enslave us into buying
lithium from Bolivia. Wars would break out over lithium.
History would again repeat itself as has consistently happened with gold, farmland,
everything of value, all of which is in limited supply, when they become
unfairly controlled by only a few people, governments, corporations.
I stopped dreaming of a cleaner brighter future when I realized our future is
bright the way it is
1,100 miles on pristine energy
Lance Mackey starts off his dog sled race in the
Iditarod in Alaska using pristine friendly energy, dogpower!
Leading the sheep down a slippery
About 700 sheep have been employed by Turin officials
to keep the grass verges and lawns in city parks neatly trimmed. Officials
in Turin said they were paying too much in gardener fees to cut the
grass in just one of the bigger parks. They are saving a
bundle. Where will the savings go? Build homes for the
homeless? Buy iPods for everyone at city hall? Who knows but
it's going to make the German Shepherd business boom!