Man-Made Causes

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Man-Made Causes

Page 1 of 6

Man-Made Causes21-03-2017 15:27
samijafri ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming?
21-03-2017 18:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-03-2017 21:09
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? Sami, there is no global warming because the sites from which the temperatures have been measured are within massively growing urban areas which strongly effect the temperatures measured. "The dispute over the hockey stick caused the United States Congress to decide to investigate the matter. The US National Research Council (NRC) held public hearings and prepared a report in 2006 for the US House of Representatives Committee on Science. The NRC Report made no criticism of the McKitrick and McIntyre papers. The report concludes "strip-bark samples should be avoided in temperature reconstructions." These strip-bark Bristlecone/Foxtail samples are responsible for the sharp increase in the graph in the twentieth century, but the growth spurt is not related to temperatures. It also confirmed that Mann's algorithm, which used non-centered principal component analysis, mines for hockey stick shapes from random red noise data as previously shown by McKitrick and McIntyre, and notes that "uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated." Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states "Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. It also states "In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the "independent" studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here. Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports. David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here. David Holland says "it is scandalous that the WGI Chapter 6 authors ignored most of its [NRC Report] substantive findings. Despite the clear analysis in Wegman et al. showing the lack of independence between the various temperature reconstructions, the authors of AR4 WGI Chapter 6 persisted with their reliance on a spaghetti diagram of reconstructions in Figure 6.10(b) to continue to justify the claim that Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years." Now I could also argue that CO2 rather than being a "greenhouse gas" is exactly the opposite - that it in fact tends to cool the atmosphere. But we needn't go into this when it has been plainly shown that there is no warming trends beyond the recovery from the Little Ice Age (the Maunder Minimum). Man has a VERY short memory on both geological and geographical basis. So he doesn't know that there used to be smaller ice extents in the Arctic. And that the Northwest Passage was once known as that because it was a fairly reliable passage in warm years.
21-03-2017 21:49
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? I don't know. I don't care. The reason I don't knopw is that I do not understand the science enough to say. But then I have seen stuff by professors at CERN who think that the warming we have seen (well, probably seen) is not due to CO2 etc. So really anybody who says with absolute confidence that humanity is responsible for more than half of the warming is foolish/lying. The reason i don't care is that the extreme top end of the projected warming, which seems remarkably beyond the laws of physics, does not seem at all scary to me. I see lots of benefits from a slightly warmer world and no signoficant problems. When I ask people to say what they see as problems I don't get a decent answer.
21-03-2017 23:46
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: I don't know. I see lots of benefits from a slightly warmer world and no signoficant problems. When I ask people to say what they see as problems I don't get a decent answer. And as it turns out in the end we are NOT in a warming period but have been in a cooling phase for the last 20 years or so. All of this ice melting etc. is nothing more than a recovery from the little ice age.

22-03-2017 12:29
samijafri ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming? Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming.
22-03-2017 12:34
samijafri ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Tim the plumber wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? I don't know. I don't care. The reason I don't knopw is that I do not understand the science enough to say. But then I have seen stuff by professors at CERN who think that the warming we have seen (well, probably seen) is not due to CO2 etc. So really anybody who says with absolute confidence that humanity is responsible for more than half of the warming is foolish/lying. The reason i don't care is that the extreme top end of the projected warming, which seems remarkably beyond the laws of physics, does not seem at all scary to me. I see lots of benefits from a slightly warmer world and no signoficant problems. When I ask people to say what they see as problems I don't get a decent answer. Somehow i agree with you but the point you raised that you see lots of benefits from warmer climate then let me quote you the real life example of that, i belong to South Asia and in 2015 there was an extreme hot weather which broke all the previous records had caused several human causalities due to heat stroke. and if you take an example of Canada there was a record cold temperature form last few years.
22-03-2017 14:56
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	i belong to South Asia and in 2015 there was an extreme hot weather which broke all the previous records had caused several human causalities due to heat stroke. and if you take an example of Canada there was a record cold temperature form last few years. Seems to always find a balance though, right? January 2016 East Asia cold wave In late January 2016, a cold wave struck much of East Asia, parts of mainland Southeast Asia and parts of northern South Asia, bringing record cold temperatures and snowfall to many regions. Sleet was reported in Okinawa for the first time on record, and many other regions saw their coldest temperatures in decades. Snowfall and frigid weather stranded thousands of people across four countries. At least 85 people in Taiwan died from hypothermia and cardiac arrest following a sudden drop in temperature during the weekend of January 22–24. The cold claimed a further fourteen lives in Thailand, and snowstorms resulted in six deaths across Japan. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
22-03-2017 15:28
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: In late January 2016, a cold wave struck much of East Asia, parts of mainland Southeast Asia and parts of northern South Asia, bringing record cold temperatures and snowfall to many regions. Sleet was reported in Okinawa for the first time on record.... Ah... "old sick sleepy sleezy reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" highlights Arctic weather forced to the south by....... an excess AGW energy warm front that pushed into the High Arctic, elevating temperatures of 4 million square millions & simultaneously forcing cold Arctic weather to the far south. Quite often, excess AGW energy warm fronts push Arctic cold to the south to Mexico & Central America & at other times, to southern China & India, to Iran, Iraq, & snows to the mountains of northern Africa. Again, thank you "AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" for highlighting excess AGW energy & its effects. Edited on 22-03-2017 15:42
22-03-2017 16:27
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	samijafri wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming? Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming. This is nothing more than an appearance because men as individuals have such short lives. Circa 1000 AD we had warm weather that was actually much warmer than today. Then we had the Maunder Minimum (the Little Ice Age) around 1500 and most of the glaciers that have been melting recently were formed. So our weather is actually normal conditions and the melting glaciers is nothing more than a recovery from the Little Ice Age. Now we discover that NOAA improperly gauged the heating by both taking a very large amount of their measurements around areas that grew up heavily urban and improperly corrected for it (adjacent areas in farm country showed no warming at all) and then since they didn't have any data at all for the polar regions they used a method that was nothing more than educated guessing. Later research has shown that they gauged far too high. With these corrections in place what we see is nothing more than cyclic weather oscillations. Today, contrary to those pushing AGW, we are in a cooling phase. As for CO2 it turns out that ONLY ONE PERSON has written a paper actually measuring the effects of CO2 in a mixture at different pressures. The paper is somewhat technical so here is the conclusions: "Conclusions: This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature. On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue. Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth's surface and the Earth's atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases. Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when Oxygen is included into the mixture, giving a value of (delta epsilon) = 0.3814, which is lower than the value of obtained by considering only the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide." So as I have been saying all along, rather than CO2 being a "greenhouse gas" it is a coolant. Do not be fooled by your own experience with weather which is too transitory to give you any gut feeling of what is happening.
22-03-2017 19:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	samijafri wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming? Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming. There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions. We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers. Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-03-2017 20:43
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming? Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming. There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions. We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers. Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory? Don't try to change the language of AGW. Simply prove them wrong. As I've been saying for several years now, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and just as I said http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf with actual measurements and the math to back it up proves my statement in no uncertain terms. And the proper corrections to the NOAA data base to properly correct for the temperatures recorded in growing urban areas show that there not only isn't any global warming but that presently we are actually in a cooling phase.
22-03-2017 21:05
James_ ★★★★★ (2230)	samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? The attached graph shows that when Ice Ages end there is warming. What humans are effecting in my opinion is helping to accelerate warming by dumping waste heat and ash into the atmosphere and depleting the ozone layer. Since most waste heat is in the northern hemisphere we can expect some change. And with that heat directed towards the Arctic, we help to cause glacial melt. And as glaciers lose mass the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates can rise. When this happens the North Atlantic Ridge and Gakkel Ridge Rift / Fault System will release more heat. Jim http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160808-the-volcanoes-hiding-in-the-ocean
22-03-2017 21:14
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? The attached graph shows that when Ice Ages end there is warming. What humans are effecting in my opinion is helping to accelerate warming by dumping waste heat and ash into the atmosphere and depleting the ozone layer. Since most waste heat is in the northern hemisphere we can expect some change. And with that heat directed towards the Arctic, we help to cause glacial melt. And as glaciers lose mass the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates can rise. When this happens the North Atlantic Ridge and Gakkel Ridge Rift / Fault System will release more heat. Jim http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160808-the-volcanoes-hiding-in-the-ocean Be careful that you make sure that everyone understands that the speed of these occurrences are in hundreds of years and not within a man's lifetime. This is a problem that too many people make with "climate change". They see weather patterns that can be decades long moving from one extreme to the other and assume that this is an indication that the climate is changing in real time.
22-03-2017 21:55
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	samijafri wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? I don't know. I don't care. The reason I don't knopw is that I do not understand the science enough to say. But then I have seen stuff by professors at CERN who think that the warming we have seen (well, probably seen) is not due to CO2 etc. So really anybody who says with absolute confidence that humanity is responsible for more than half of the warming is foolish/lying. The reason i don't care is that the extreme top end of the projected warming, which seems remarkably beyond the laws of physics, does not seem at all scary to me. I see lots of benefits from a slightly warmer world and no signoficant problems. When I ask people to say what they see as problems I don't get a decent answer. Somehow i agree with you but the point you raised that you see lots of benefits from warmer climate then let me quote you the real life example of that, i belong to South Asia and in 2015 there was an extreme hot weather which broke all the previous records had caused several human causalities due to heat stroke. and if you take an example of Canada there was a record cold temperature form last few years. As we measure the temperature better we will always get more and more records. Just a facet of the measuring. Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. There is 30% more leaves around the world today as a result of increased CO2. I think that's a good thing. How many more people would have died in the heat wave in India without airconditioning or fans?

22-03-2017 22:01
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
22-03-2017 22:23
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming? Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming. There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions. We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers. Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory? Don't try to change the language of AGW. Simply prove them wrong. As I've been saying for several years now, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and just as I said http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf with actual measurements and the math to back it up proves my statement in no uncertain terms. And the proper corrections to the NOAA data base to properly correct for the temperatures recorded in growing urban areas show that there not only isn't any global warming but that presently we are actually in a cooling phase. Note that the "paper" to which you refer has merely been posted on the Internet. It has not been published in any scientific journal, nor could it, because it is junk. The author doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what he's talking about. Anyone with the remotest grasp of the subject matter could see that immediately. In the abstract, for example, the author claims to be reviewing the "common AGW argument on the carbon dioxide increasing the potential of the water vapor for absorbing and emitting IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands". This is simply nonsense. Nobody claims such a thing. It is precisely the fact that the CO2 and H2O IR absorption bands don't fully overlap that allows CO2 to have a warming effect. The whole paper is complete drivel.
22-03-2017 22:30
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tim the plumber wrote: samijafri wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? I don't know. I don't care. The reason I don't knopw is that I do not understand the science enough to say. But then I have seen stuff by professors at CERN who think that the warming we have seen (well, probably seen) is not due to CO2 etc. So really anybody who says with absolute confidence that humanity is responsible for more than half of the warming is foolish/lying. The reason i don't care is that the extreme top end of the projected warming, which seems remarkably beyond the laws of physics, does not seem at all scary to me. I see lots of benefits from a slightly warmer world and no signoficant problems. When I ask people to say what they see as problems I don't get a decent answer. Somehow i agree with you but the point you raised that you see lots of benefits from warmer climate then let me quote you the real life example of that, i belong to South Asia and in 2015 there was an extreme hot weather which broke all the previous records had caused several human causalities due to heat stroke. and if you take an example of Canada there was a record cold temperature form last few years. As we measure the temperature better we will always get more and more records. Just a facet of the measuring. Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. There is 30% more leaves around the world today as a result of increased CO2. I think that's a good thing. How many more people would have died in the heat wave in India without airconditioning or fans? Good grief, Tim, you're surely not still flogging this dead horse! As has been pointed out to you many, many times, on this forum and elsewhere, nowhere near 20 million people die of hunger annually in total, which means that it is impossible for 20 million people to be dying as a result of the use of biofuels. Why do you keep repeating this obvious lie? Edit: I'm no great fan of biofuels myself, but you're not helping the cause at all with your made-up statistics and ridiculous exaggerations. Edited on 22-03-2017 22:32
24-03-2017 17:43
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. It is the agri-industry jumping on the back of the bad science of AGW to subsidize rich farmers. Very little protest from the greens.
24-03-2017 17:51
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Surface Detail wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: samijafri wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? I don't know. I don't care. The reason I don't knopw is that I do not understand the science enough to say. But then I have seen stuff by professors at CERN who think that the warming we have seen (well, probably seen) is not due to CO2 etc. So really anybody who says with absolute confidence that humanity is responsible for more than half of the warming is foolish/lying. The reason i don't care is that the extreme top end of the projected warming, which seems remarkably beyond the laws of physics, does not seem at all scary to me. I see lots of benefits from a slightly warmer world and no signoficant problems. When I ask people to say what they see as problems I don't get a decent answer. Somehow i agree with you but the point you raised that you see lots of benefits from warmer climate then let me quote you the real life example of that, i belong to South Asia and in 2015 there was an extreme hot weather which broke all the previous records had caused several human causalities due to heat stroke. and if you take an example of Canada there was a record cold temperature form last few years. As we measure the temperature better we will always get more and more records. Just a facet of the measuring. Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. There is 30% more leaves around the world today as a result of increased CO2. I think that's a good thing. How many more people would have died in the heat wave in India without airconditioning or fans? Good grief, Tim, you're surely not still flogging this dead horse! As has been pointed out to you many, many times, on this forum and elsewhere, nowhere near 20 million people die of hunger annually in total, which means that it is impossible for 20 million people to be dying as a result of the use of biofuels. Why do you keep repeating this obvious lie? Edit: I'm no great fan of biofuels myself, but you're not helping the cause at all with your made-up statistics and ridiculous exaggerations. 800 million people are cronic undermorished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve#/media/File restonCurve2005.JPG This graph shows the relationship between poverty and life expectancy. It is about 40 for those on the left of the graph. The divisions on the x axis are in $10,000 so for those who are earning less than $400 a year, about a billion people, the graph does not really work They are below the line. If you live on $400/yr and the price of your food is 50% more than it should be then by stopping this crime against humanity your income would effectively rise by 25%. For those who live on $3/day the effect would probably be something like moving life expectancy from the mid 50's to the mid 60's. 20% increase in life expectancy for the poorest 3 billion people in the world adds up to far more than 20 million per year. This policy is second only to the Mongol invaisions in terms of absolute numbers of deaths.
24-03-2017 17:55
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	I only disagree with "rich farmers". If you've been farming a while, like a couple decades you're probably OK. They had some damn good years. I know a lot of young guys around here(Iowa) that are in real trouble. Corn prices are right around input costs and most grain last year was just put in storage in hopes of higher prices later. Huge stockpiles still, so this year doesn't look great either. I don't know what the solution is, but it certainly can't be burning food when the world is starving.
24-03-2017 18:01
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. It is the agri-industry jumping on the back of the bad science of AGW to subsidize rich farmers. Very little protest from the greens. These same farmers could grow any other crops. Only 1% of corn is eaten by people and the majority is used as livestock feed. But corn is easy to grow and harvest. Every part of it can be sold for one thing or another. So as long as it's profitable that's what they will grow.
24-03-2017 20:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Into the Night wrote: samijafri wrote: Don't you think that humans are the main reason behind Global Warming? How do we know there is any global warming at all? We don't have sufficient instrumentation to get any idea of global temperature to any degree of useful accuracy. Dynamic change in climate, melting of glaciers aren't the signs of global warming? Can't you see that there are billions of cars all over the world which use gasoline and diesel(burning of fossil fuels) which results in Carbon Emissions. There are many example from which we can relate global warming. There is no global climate. Climate is also not a thing that can 'change'. There is no unit to describe such a change by, since 'climate' refers to unspecified times and regions. We don't know which glaciers are melting, growing, or just staying the same. No one is recording that, except for a very few glaciers. Fossils don't burn. Burning oil products like gasoline produces carbon dioxide and water. So what? No one yet has provided a 'greenhouse gas' theory that doesn't violate physical laws. Perhaps you would care to try? What is your theory for how carbon dioxide magickally warms the surface? Do you favor the Magick Blanket theory, or the Magick Bouncing Photon theory? Don't try to change the language of AGW. Simply prove them wrong. As I've been saying for several years now, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and just as I said http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf with actual measurements and the math to back it up proves my statement in no uncertain terms. And the proper corrections to the NOAA data base to properly correct for the temperatures recorded in growing urban areas show that there not only isn't any global warming but that presently we are actually in a cooling phase. I'll attack any politically correct speech I wish. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' is a politically correct term to refer to any fuel source that is 'evil', while 'alternative energy' refers to any fuel source that is 'good'. I'll also happily attack any attempt of the Church of Global Warming to try to rename itself to escape it's past. As far as falsification of the greenhouse effect goes, it never even gets that far. Greenhouse effect is not externally consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That alone makes the 'theory' of greenhouse effect null and void. It's problems range from obtaining additional energy from a non-energetic source (carbon dioxide) required to warm the planet surface in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, preventing energy from leaving (the various Magick Blanket and Magick Bouncing Photon theories), which would reduce radiance while increasing temperature, in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the attempt to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As far as the falsification of Global Warming theory, that's easy. There is no available test for falsification. That alone makes the theory a non-scientific one. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to calculate it either. Anyone that claims a global temperature of any kind is just spewing BS. We have no idea if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. Similarly, we have no idea what the albedo of Earth is, since albedo can change dramatically every few inches on the surface of the Earth. Due to the requirements of Stefan-Boltzmann, albedo must include ALL colors of light, which also shoots down any attempt of the 'Visible Light In, Infrared Light Out' argument. We also don't have any idea of sea level. Tidal stations and satellites ALL base their references using references on the land surface. This surface moves. The reference for the land surface is sea level, which is what you are trying to measure. Circular references like this mean there is no valid reference. You can't use orbital velocity, since that is affected by things like the solar wind, atmospheric drag (as little of it there is, it is still drag), and variances of mass density across the surface you are orbiting. We don't have any idea about ice content either. No one is monitoring all ice or glaciers. No one is even close. Lately, we've sent up satellites for this purpose, but they have no historical data and they can't see everything due to cloud cover. Ice is basically the same frequency of sense that liquid water is, you see. I have my doubts about the CO2 measurements themselves. There are problems with that instrumentation that are NOT being addressed, not the least of which is the very few number of stations even capable of monitoring it. We do not know what the gradient of carbon dioxide density is in the atmosphere. It being such a rare gas, no one has bothered to try to determine it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-03-2017 20:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft. The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway. The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it. Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan. I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-03-2017 20:18
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft. The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway. The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it. Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan. I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution. Have you been ingesting lead? IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-03-2017 21:44
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: I'll attack any politically correct speech I wish. The use of the term 'fossil fuels' is a politically correct term to refer to any fuel source that is 'evil', while 'alternative energy' refers to any fuel source that is 'good'. I'll also happily attack any attempt of the Church of Global Warming to try to rename itself to escape it's past. As far as falsification of the greenhouse effect goes, it never even gets that far. Greenhouse effect is not externally consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That alone makes the 'theory' of greenhouse effect null and void. It's problems range from obtaining additional energy from a non-energetic source (carbon dioxide) required to warm the planet surface in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, preventing energy from leaving (the various Magick Blanket and Magick Bouncing Photon theories), which would reduce radiance while increasing temperature, in direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the attempt to warm an already warmer surface using a colder gas, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As far as the falsification of Global Warming theory, that's easy. There is no available test for falsification. That alone makes the theory a non-scientific one. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to calculate it either. Anyone that claims a global temperature of any kind is just spewing BS. We have no idea if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. Similarly, we have no idea what the albedo of Earth is, since albedo can change dramatically every few inches on the surface of the Earth. Due to the requirements of Stefan-Boltzmann, albedo must include ALL colors of light, which also shoots down any attempt of the 'Visible Light In, Infrared Light Out' argument. We also don't have any idea of sea level. Tidal stations and satellites ALL base their references using references on the land surface. This surface moves. The reference for the land surface is sea level, which is what you are trying to measure. Circular references like this mean there is no valid reference. You can't use orbital velocity, since that is affected by things like the solar wind, atmospheric drag (as little of it there is, it is still drag), and variances of mass density across the surface you are orbiting. We don't have any idea about ice content either. No one is monitoring all ice or glaciers. No one is even close. Lately, we've sent up satellites for this purpose, but they have no historical data and they can't see everything due to cloud cover. Ice is basically the same frequency of sense that liquid water is, you see. I have my doubts about the CO2 measurements themselves. There are problems with that instrumentation that are NOT being addressed, not the least of which is the very few number of stations even capable of monitoring it. We do not know what the gradient of carbon dioxide density is in the atmosphere. It being such a rare gas, no one has bothered to try to determine it. If you "attack any politically correct language I wish" you run into the problem that the greenies have built up a language of their own. You know it all a bunch of crap as do I but you simply get yourself ignored as a kook. So argue using their own BS and showing it incorrect all the way. In my 72 years I haven't seen any rise. And it does appear that low tide is lower than I recall from childhood - insinuating that either the land is rising (most likely) or the sea level is falling. The little ice age generated a HELL of a lot of ice. If it's melting now so what? You can look around on the web and discover sites that say that the ice in the Antarctic is melting away despite the records showing that it is growing. We even have sites that claim that Walrus and Polar Bears can't breed except on ice. These people are not sane and don't mind showing it. My calculations and those of other neutral parties say that there should be a LOT more O2 in the atmosphere than there is and that it isn't growing like it should. So something is rotten in Denmark and we don't know where it's hidden.
24-03-2017 22:07
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft. The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway. The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it. Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan. I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution. Are there any conspiracy theories that you're not signed up to?
24-03-2017 23:20
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. It is the agri-industry jumping on the back of the bad science of AGW to subsidize rich farmers. Very little protest from the greens. These same farmers could grow any other crops. Only 1% of corn is eaten by people and the majority is used as livestock feed. But corn is easy to grow and harvest. Every part of it can be sold for one thing or another. So as long as it's profitable that's what they will grow. The removal of such vast quantities of food frm the market has resulted in a 30% to 70% increase in food prices. The spikes caused by this practice have produced the Arab spring and the Syrian civil war. The ongoing mass hunger in Africa is the cause of the flood of desperate people dying as they cross from Africa to Europe.
24-03-2017 23:23
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: I only disagree with "rich farmers". If you've been farming a while, like a couple decades you're probably OK. They had some damn good years. I know a lot of young guys around here(Iowa) that are in real trouble. Corn prices are right around input costs and most grain last year was just put in storage in hopes of higher prices later. Huge stockpiles still, so this year doesn't look great either. I don't know what the solution is, but it certainly can't be burning food when the world is starving. How about stop farming if the price is so low? How about not using the land so intensively so we keep th soils for the future? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble?
24-03-2017 23:30
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: How about stop farming if the price is so low? How about not using the land so intensively so we keep th soils for the future? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? So your suggestion for hunger is to increase it?

24-03-2017 23:39
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	How about stop farming if the price is so low? Pretty tough, lot of farms been in the family for multiple generations. Many are still family operations. How about not using the land so intensively so we keep the soils for the future? If they own it I see no reason why they can't do as they wish. Why would they not take care of it when they need the land to feed their family for decades to come? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? What makes you think they have this idea? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? Not quite so easy. If you sell on contract, you'd better come up with those bushels out of your fields, or you will have to buy it on the cash market. You will deliver the contract bushels, one way or the other. Guys get burned on the futures because if they contract to sell and then have a down year, chances are a lot of guys had a bad year too and the cash price is way higher than contract price. It's all a gamble with markets and weather.
24-03-2017 23:55
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzzler wrote: How about stop farming if the price is so low? Pretty tough, lot of farms been in the family for multiple generations. Many are still family operations. How about not using the land so intensively so we keep the soils for the future? If they own it I see no reason why they can't do as they wish. Why would they not take care of it when they need the land to feed their family for decades to come? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? What makes you think they have this idea? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? Not quite so easy. If you sell on contract, you'd better come up with those bushels out of your fields, or you will have to buy it on the cash market. You will deliver the contract bushels, one way or the other. Guys get burned on the futures because if they contract to sell and then have a down year, chances are a lot of guys had a bad year too and the cash price is way higher than contract price. It's all a gamble with markets and weather. I think that he is losing his way in his own argument. I completely agree that the government should NOT be subsidizing ethylene production through subsidizing corn production. Studies have shown that ethylene does NOT reduce any kind of emissions from car engines and both increases the cost of gasoline and produces pollution of it's own via the manufacturing process. Farmers should grow what they can make a profit off and not be forced into growing corn because of the financial rewards. So I think that we all pretty much agree and that it was simply his language.
25-03-2017 12:52
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: How about stop farming if the price is so low? How about not using the land so intensively so we keep th soils for the future? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? So your suggestion for hunger is to increase it? No. My suggestion is to get all subsidies out of the agricultural industry. Then the possibility of well managed food production in the poor world is open. Today any investor looking at farming in Kenya thinks that at some point the first world will dump vast stocks of food on him at below production price. That the price today is high is no indication of tomorrow.
25-03-2017 12:56
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: How about stop farming if the price is so low? Pretty tough, lot of farms been in the family for multiple generations. Many are still family operations. That is no reason for them to be economically special. Coal miners whose grandfarthers died in a mine collapse do not have special rights to do the same. How about not using the land so intensively so we keep the soils for the future? If they own it I see no reason why they can't do as they wish. Why would they not take care of it when they need the land to feed their family for decades to come? Why incentivise them to act to destroy the soils? Just get out of the way. How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? What makes you think they have this idea? Your replies for a start. How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? Not quite so easy. If you sell on contract, you'd better come up with those bushels out of your fields, or you will have to buy it on the cash market. You will deliver the contract bushels, one way or the other. Guys get burned on the futures because if they contract to sell and then have a down year, chances are a lot of guys had a bad year too and the cash price is way higher than contract price. It's all a gamble with markets and weather. Surely the contract you would look for would be that you would sell your crop whatever it is. That is the opposite of the above. That you would look to get the gambling out of your situation and not increase it. Edited on 25-03-2017 12:58
25-03-2017 22:49
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: How about stop farming if the price is so low? How about not using the land so intensively so we keep th soils for the future? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? So your suggestion for hunger is to increase it? No. My suggestion is to get all subsidies out of the agricultural industry. Then the possibility of well managed food production in the poor world is open. Today any investor looking at farming in Kenya thinks that at some point the first world will dump vast stocks of food on him at below production price. That the price today is high is no indication of tomorrow. I don't follow you on this Tim. Killing subsidies that encourage farmers to grow corn in the US has no effect on the third world. And perhaps massive farming of normal products like other grains could end up with the US dumping produce overseas when they get a glut on the market. I agree with you that the US government has NO BUSINESS in agriculture beyond advice since they can have advanced information on weather and crops that people are planting.
25-03-2017 23:05
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Wake And perhaps massive farming of normal products like other grains What are you referring to here Wake?
25-03-2017 23:09
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzzler wrote: Wake And perhaps massive farming of normal products like other grains What are you referring to here Wake? Factory farming methods were taken on to grow corn. But wheat uses the same methods as do many other grains. Driving the price of wheat down would drive the price of bread down for the poor which might be a good idea.
26-03-2017 13:06
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: How about stop farming if the price is so low? How about not using the land so intensively so we keep th soils for the future? How about farmers understanding that they are businessmen and that the do not have a God given right to money from the rest of us? How about farmers understanding the futures market and selling the crop before they plant it or not complaining when they gamble? So your suggestion for hunger is to increase it? No. My suggestion is to get all subsidies out of the agricultural industry. Then the possibility of well managed food production in the poor world is open. Today any investor looking at farming in Kenya thinks that at some point the first world will dump vast stocks of food on him at below production price. That the price today is high is no indication of tomorrow. I don't follow you on this Tim. Killing subsidies that encourage farmers to grow corn in the US has no effect on the third world. And perhaps massive farming of normal products like other grains could end up with the US dumping produce overseas when they get a glut on the market. I agree with you that the US government has NO BUSINESS in agriculture beyond advice since they can have advanced information on weather and crops that people are planting. This is not the usual head butting thing that is done here. I will try to change my intensity. The effect of US etc sibsidies on the third world is masssive. Food, like all comodities, is traded freely around the world. The price changes on the NYSE have direct effects on the movement in or out of food in the port of Luanda in Angola. If the food can be grown without subsidy cheaper in the US than the grasslands of Africa and transported over there then so be it. The locals can develope different agriculture. They wont because it can't but.... With the present situation, any farmer in Nigeria with the option to invest in a serrious fram will look at the situation and see that at some point this madness of biofuel will end. It will end abruptly and flood the world with hugely subsidised food. Produced with subsidised fertiliser, bought with subisidised goverment agencies doing the guarnteeing a fair price for the farmer, transported at a loss to the rest of the world to avoid the embarrasment of it being burnt and showing politicians to be stupid. His busines just went pop. All the small capitol in the agrarian economy will be destroyed. Given that all informed investors realise this no bank will leand to farmers in the Sahell. With such a massive disensentive to invest the agriculture of the world cannot develope and thus the economy of the poorest cannot develope, whilst it is at the whim of US/EU policy. Edited on 26-03-2017 13:08
26-03-2017 21:20
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	.....any farmer in Nigeria with the option to invest in a serrious fram will look at the situation and see that at some point this madness of biofuel will end. It will end abruptly...... How and why do you see this happening? I seem to think we are stuck with biofuel forever. I live in the corn capitol of the US and even lifelong conservative senators like Chuck Grasley of Iowa are in on this biofuel crap hook line and sinker. It has been great for the local economy, but I feel it's artificial economic boom due to gov subsidies and federal ethanol mandates. We are so dependant on it now because it is the "norm" that it would crush the economy if the rug was pulled. Government subsidies are worse than Heroin addiction. Edited on 26-03-2017 21:21
26-03-2017 22:00
Frescomexico ★★☆☆☆ (179)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Today 40% of US corn is used to make fuel. This, and the rest of the biofuel industry, has increased the price of basic food by 30% to 70%. This is causing the deaths of, I estimate, 20 million people per year. I think that's very bad. [/color] Great point, just want to also point out that this is due to poor legislation and not because of warming. This poor legislation came about because of perceived dangers of tetraethyl lead, used as a fuel moderator. Alcohol can also moderate fuel, and we used it during the shortages of WW2. Unfortunately, alcohol is hygroscopic, and absorbs moisture from the air. This effectively puts water IN the fuel and can rust fuel system and engine parts. The gaskets used must be compatible with it also, since alcohol dissolves the cork gaskets used on a lot of older cars and aircraft. The fear of lead spewing from tailpipes (it actually helps to lubricate the engine!) is what scared people, because they didn't realize that lead naturally occurs in the soil anyway. The salting of lead is so low that you could still eat the dirt beside the freeways in the sixties and not be harmed any lead that was in it. Lead is not plutonium. But then, a lot of people misunderstand plutonium too, thanks to idiots like Carl Sagan. I would like to return to tetraethyl lead. It is not hygroscopic, it helps to lubricate the engine, and the amount of lead put out the tailpipe is really not a problem. It does poison the catalytic converter though. THAT device was required by government due to anti-pollution laws, even though they do not reduce pollution. Another problem with alcohol (specifically ethanol) in gasoline is a propensity for vapor lock in fuel lines on hot days.

Page 1 of 6

Join the debate Man-Made Causes:

Threads	Replies	Last post
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming	43	23-04-2024 02:16
Pro-Palestinian protester arrested in death of Jewish man Paul Kessler. Told you so.	0	16-11-2023 21:56
BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man	0	03-03-2023 15:29
Man freed from jail for committing a crime that never even happened. LOL they tried that with me too	3	16-02-2023 19:01
Man's energy use actually does explain climate change	18	09-02-2023 03:27