driving with headlights on

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Private Climate Policy > driving with headlights on

driving with headlights on08-11-2019 02:42
tyler9 ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	if you drive, don't start driving in the daytime with your headlights on. headlights switched on causes more fuel to be used which causes more pollution. turn off your headlights at every opportunity. and also disable the daytime running lights if you have them
08-11-2019 03:07
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tyler9 wrote: if you drive, don't start driving in the daytime with your headlights on. headlights switched on causes more fuel to be used which causes more pollution. turn off your headlights at every opportunity. and also disable the daytime running lights if you have them 1. The fuel burned to run headlights is a fraction of a percent, depending on the vehicle. Newer LEDs would be a fraction of a fraction of a percent. 2. Define pollution. I suspect you mean CO2, which is NOT pollution. It is essential for life. 3. I will leave my lights on, especially when visibility is reduced. People can see me better. Da? 4. I think those 18 wheelers look so sweet at night when they are lit up like a Christmas tree and the entire trailer box is outlined in marker lights. Looks great and safety added value. No question that's a big rig and use caution around it. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
08-11-2019 18:10
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	Irrespective of AGW/CC, minimizing fuel consumption is a worthy goal. There are some very sensible solutions to that goal. One would be to minimize the amount of time that vehicles idle, which is especially profound in traffic. Besides productivity losses, I can't imagine how much fuel is wasted in traffic. Nobody seems to care! The "consensus" is to get people out of private transportation ergo no more traffic.
08-11-2019 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Harry C wrote: Irrespective of AGW/CC, minimizing fuel consumption is a worthy goal. There are some very sensible solutions to that goal. One would be to minimize the amount of time that vehicles idle, which is especially profound in traffic. Besides productivity losses, I can't imagine how much fuel is wasted in traffic. Nobody seems to care! The "consensus" is to get people out of private transportation ergo no more traffic. Paradox. If the consensus is to get out of private vehicles, why is there so much traffic? Seems to me the consensus is to drive private vehicles. 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
09-11-2019 05:40
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tyler9 wrote: if you drive, don't start driving in the daytime with your headlights on. headlights switched on causes more fuel to be used which causes more pollution. turn off your headlights at every opportunity. and also disable the daytime running lights if you have them Lights on, are a safety/viability feature, sometimes, it's the law (might be why it's the default in many newer vehicles). In Florida, it's the law, when you use your windshield wipers, your headlights must be on. We are required to have them one hour before sunset as well. Not sure if those ever get enforced. Lights don't really effect fuel efficiency in any significant manner, not sure if it can be measured. It has been proven that changing your driving habits, can have a significant effect. Pretty simple to check, use the same car, just swap out the drivers. Cars don't create pollution anymore, our government passed a law...

09-11-2019 19:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	HarveyH55 wrote: tyler9 wrote: if you drive, don't start driving in the daytime with your headlights on. headlights switched on causes more fuel to be used which causes more pollution. turn off your headlights at every opportunity. and also disable the daytime running lights if you have them Lights on, are a safety/viability feature, sometimes, it's the law (might be why it's the default in many newer vehicles). In Florida, it's the law, when you use your windshield wipers, your headlights must be on. We are required to have them one hour before sunset as well. Not sure if those ever get enforced. Lights don't really effect fuel efficiency in any significant manner, not sure if it can be measured. It has been proven that changing your driving habits, can have a significant effect. Pretty simple to check, use the same car, just swap out the drivers. Cars don't create pollution anymore, our government passed a law... Heh. It all depends on what someone calls 'pollution'. Gasoline cars put out primary CO2 and water as their exhaust. Inefficient burns (such as carburetors running a tad outside their optimum such as when you are accelerating, or FADEC engine running with some crappy sensor) means CO will also result. Unburned fuel might also result. You're just pushing unburned gasoline vapor out the exhaust. Some fuels are somewhat sour (they contain sulfur). Much of it is processed out these days. When a sour fuel is burned, SO2 can also be emitted. The sulfur they extract out is valuable, and is sold to industry. Using the brake a lot means wasted fuel. You are just converting it into useless heat. Drivers that are heavy on the brake are wasting fuel. Allow plenty of time to stop. Coast as much as possible before using the brake. Adjust to traffic flow several cars ahead. Don't tailgate. Stay off the phone. You will no only save fuel, you will be a much safer driver! You can anticipate the multiple morons on the road immediately ahead of you better too! It pays to take care of the car. Burning oil helps no one. Burning coolant helps no one. Old oil contains carbon particulates and acids. It also loses it's lubricating properties. Keep your oil changed (do it as soon as looks like a darkening caramel color, new oil looks like honey). Your owners' manual is a good guide too. If your oil looks like creamed coffee, you have a head gasket leak and you are burning coolant. Get it fixed. You might notice a white smoke from the tailpipe. If you get bluish smoke, you have an oil leak. Get it fixed. It might be the rings or a valve seal. You are burning oil. Between all these things, you can improve your gas mileage considerably. 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 Edited on 09-11-2019 20:02
11-11-2019 19:37
tyler9 ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/drl-gas-consumption.htm -------------------------------------------------- How much extra gasoline would Americans use if daytime running lights were mandatory? by Jennifer Horton When gasoline prices climb, people will do just about anything to improve their car's fuel consumption. Articles touting the top 10 ways to improve fuel efficiency pop up daily on Web sites and in news publications. For example, methods include keeping your tires inflated, not driving with the windows rolled down, and turning off your headlights. That last one may be a tad extreme if you're driving at night, but when it comes to daytime running lights, or DRLs, one of the arguments that come up is their consumption of precious gasoline. Daytime running lights, required in many countries for decades, are headlights that run any time the car is on (the taillights and other lights remain off). Countries like Canada, Denmark and Sweden mandate these lights in an effort to prevent daytime accidents. DRL laws have garnered mixed results. Some people claim the law reduces accidents by making motorists more visible -- Transport Canada, part of Canada's Transport, Infrastructure and Communities portfolio, claims an 11.3 percent reduction in daytime collisions. Others argue that the lights distract oncoming drivers and make people who don't have daytime running lights even less visible and therefore more prone to wrecks. Some detractors also complain that requiring people to drive with their lights always on is a drain on fuel and contributes to air pollution [source: Transport Canada, NMA]. But how much gasoline do the headlights really use? Could they really be affecting the quality of the air? And if the United States -- already the world's top consumer of gasoline -- jumped on the mandatory DRL bandwagon, how much more gasoline would the country consume in a year? The answer may surprise you. ust as there are several theories concerning the impact of DRLs in car accidents, there are different estimates of how much fuel the headlights actually use. There's no question they consume gasoline -- headlights require power, and the only way your car can produce power is by drawing from the gasoline in your fuel tank. The difficulty comes in figuring out just how much of that gasoline they use and how that number would be impacted if DRLs were mandatory. Like regular light bulbs, you can find headlights in a variety of styles and wattages. You could get some low-beam headlights capable of 160 watts per vehicle, or you could opt for the more economical LED-based lamps that use only 16 watts per vehicle [source: AllQuality, California Energy Commission]. If there were a national standard requiring all cars to use a certain lamp wattage, this daytime running lights dilemma would be a lot easier to figure out. As it is, the actual fuel consumption is going to depend a lot on the brightness of the bulb -- you might see a noticeable difference in your car's thirst for gas with the really bright lamps, or you may not notice any change at all. Transport Canada estimated that DRLs could add anywhere from $3 to more than $40 each year in extra fuel costs -- which was back before fuel prices climbed to record heights in 2008 -- while other government bodies, like the United States National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, state that DRLs decrease fuel efficiency by only a "fraction of a mile per gallon" [source: IIHS]. A European study adds to the confusion with its estimated fuel penalty between 0.5 and 1.5 percent [source: California Energy Commission]. To figure out how much extra gasoline the United States would use if all 244 million cars on its roads were equipped with mandatory DRLs, we'll have to make a few assumptions [source: DOT]. First, we'll assume that DRLs would average out at about 90 watts total -- roughly between the low and the high wattage capabilities, and that the fuel penalty therefore would probably be mid-range as well: about 1 percent. With the help of a graph provided by the Federal Highway Administration, we can see that of the 7 billion miles (11.3 billion kilometers) Americans drive every day, approximately 70 percent of those are driven during daylight hours, which equals about 4.9 billion miles (7.9 billion kilometers) driven during the time when DRLs would be in use. [source: EIA, DOT]. Since the average consumer car in the United States gets about 20.3 miles (32.6 kilometers) per gallon, that means Americans currently use about 241.4 million gallons of gas for driving during daylight hours. To get that number, we divided the number of miles driven throughout the day by the average car's fuel efficiency (4.9 billion miles divided by 20.3 mpg) [source: DOT]. Now, when we factor in the 1 percent reduction in fuel efficiency, that usage increases to 243.9 million gallons -- a difference of more than 2 million gallons. At current U.S. prices ($3.81 per gallon as of August 2008), that would be a total of more than $7.62 million every day [source: EIA]. Of course, when you divide that by the number of cars on the road, it's not even a penny per car. So if you want to contest the purpose of a DRL law, you're going to need more up your sleeve than fuel consumption. Sources "Frequently asked questions (Road)." Transport Canada. Nov. 7, 2006. (Aug. 1, 2008) http://www.tc.gc.ca/road/faq.htm#daytimerunninglights "Highway Statistics 2006." U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. Feb. 27, 2008. (Aug. 7, 2008) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/index.htm "Lane Courtesy." National Motorists Association. (Aug. 1, 2008) http://www.motorists.org/drl/ "Low Beam Headlight DRLs." AllQuality Custom Auto Accessories. 2008. (Aug. 7, 2008) http://www.daytime-running-lights.com/Headlight_DRLs.html "Option 1G: Limiting the Use of Daytime Running Lights and Optional Lamps." California Energy Commission. (Aug. 7, 2008) http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-024/addendum_individual_files/ CEC-600-2005-024-AD-1G.pdf "Q&As: Daytime Running Lights." Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. January 2008. (Aug. 1, 2008) http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html "U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices." Energy Information Association. Aug. 11, 2008. (Aug. 14, 2008) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html "Where does my gasoline come from?" Energy Information Administration. April 2008. (Aug. 7, 2008) http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasoline/index.html Edited on 11-11-2019 19:38
11-11-2019 22:12
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Obviously a very rough estimate, base on estimates and assumptions. Which is consistent with the calculations used for anything climate change. The total number of vehicles, and miles driven, are just a guess. Even if you went with vehicle registration, not all of them are driven daily, some not driven at all. Quite a few cars in America already have daytime driving lights, might be the law in some states, don't know, but likely, since the car manufacturers thought it a good idea to add the feature. My 2000 Grand Prix had automatic headlights, never looked to see if I had any control over the daylight headlights. Seems like less than a penny a day, for a slightly better chance of not getting slammed into, is pretty cheap...
11-11-2019 22:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	tyler9 wrote: ...deleted Holy Link... How much extra gasoline would Americans use if daytime running lights were mandatory? by Jennifer Horton Since Jennifer Horton isn't here, and you are just copying and pasting You are using her arguments and reasoning, and not yours. Apparently you can't think for yourself. However, since you decided to swipe her arguments as yours, I will answer them as if they were from you. Unfortunately, since you did not originate any of these arguments, you are in no position to make any counterarguments. Jennifer isn't here. tyler9 wrote: When gasoline prices climb, people will do just about anything to improve their car's fuel consumption. Gasoline is extraordinarily cheap right now. Do not mistake the falling dollar for more expensive gasoline. tyler9 wrote: Articles touting the top 10 ways to improve fuel efficiency pop up daily on Web sites and in news publications. For example, methods include keeping your tires inflated, not driving with the windows rolled down, and turning off your headlights. Some of these make sense, others don't. tyler9 wrote: That last one may be a tad extreme if you're driving at night, but when it comes to daytime running lights, or DRLs, one of the arguments that come up is their consumption of precious gasoline. Not particularly precious. Gasoline is cheap right now. However, we will address the issue of gasoline consumed by headlights in a moment anyway. tyler9 wrote: Daytime running lights, required in many countries for decades, are headlights that run any time the car is on (the taillights and other lights remain off). Countries like Canada, Denmark and Sweden mandate these lights in an effort to prevent daytime accidents. The do help prevent accidents, particularly head-on collision accidents on two way roads...the worse kind. tyler9 wrote: DRL laws have garnered mixed results. Some people claim the law reduces accidents by making motorists more visible It does. tyler9 wrote: Others argue that the lights distract oncoming drivers and make people who don't have daytime running lights even less visible and therefore more prone to wrecks. They are not a distraction. They make a car more visible, particularly at distance. Cars running without them have a greater risk of a head-collision from passing traffic. tyler9 wrote: Some detractors also complain that requiring people to drive with their lights always on is a drain on fuel and contributes to air pollution [source: Transport Canada, NMA]. It doesn't do either. You will see why in a moment. tyler9 wrote: But how much gasoline do the headlights really use? Could they really be affecting the quality of the air? And if the United States -- already the world's top consumer of gasoline -- jumped on the mandatory DRL bandwagon, how much more gasoline would the country consume in a year? The answer may surprise you. Now we come to the meat of the issue. Let's look at the math, shall we? It's easily calculated. A gallon of gasoline contains about 120MJ of energy. This translates into 120MW/second of power. This power is available for generating heat, running an alternator, and for moving the car. An older style headlamp consumes about 80W. The two are indeed about 160W. These are the worse case, so I will use them. Newer cars that have automatic headlights tend toward the 16W LEDs, so I will also use those in a second example (32W total). The old headlamps are 160W. This means they are consuming 160 joules per second. Most older cars with these headlamps get about 25mpg, so I will use this number. This means, that traveling at 60mph, you will consume a gallon of gasoline in about 25 minutes. This is 2560 seconds or 1560 seconds total. In that 25 minutes, you have used 120MJ of energy to move a car 25 miles, and used 250KJ to light the headlamps. This amounts to about 0.0002% of the total energy in that gasoline was used to light the headlamps for that 25 minutes. Newer cars with LED headlamps can typically get 30mpg (due to the use of FADEC), so I will use that number for those. The LED headlamps tend to have circuits more automated for daytime headlights. This car, again traveling at 60mph, will consume a gallon of gasoline in about 30 minutes (or 1800 seconds). During that time, the LED lamps will have consumed 57.6KJ of energy out of that gallon of gasoline, or 0.00005% of that energy. On the plus side, you are more visible, particularly at distance, which can be a real bonus on high speed two way roads. People attempting to pass slow traffic will see you a lot easier. Preventing head-on crashes this way is the goal of daytime lights. Just as there are several theories concerning the impact of DRLs in car accidents, there are different estimates of how much fuel the headlights actually use.[/quote] No estimate necessary. It all comes down to pretty simple math, which I just showed you. tyler9 wrote:* The difficulty comes in figuring out just how much of that gasoline they use and how that number would be impacted if DRLs were mandatory. No difficulty required. I did it right here in this post. tyler9 wrote: Like regular light bulbs, you can find headlights in a variety of styles and wattages. You could get some low-beam headlights capable of 160 watts per vehicle, or you could opt for the more economical LED-based lamps that use only 16 watts per vehicle [source: AllQuality, California Energy Commission]. Any statistics from the SOTC are summarily dismissed. tyler9 wrote: If there were a national standard requiring all cars to use a certain lamp wattage, this daytime running lights dilemma would be a lot easier to figure out. It is easy to figure out. I just did it right here in this post. tyler9 wrote: As it is, the actual fuel consumption is going to depend a lot on the brightness of the bulb Brightness of the bulb (or LED) is irrelevant. They will consume what they consume regardless of the actual brightness. Watts is not lumens. tyler9 wrote: -- you might see a noticeable difference in your car's thirst for gas with the really bright lamps, or you may not notice any change at all. Transport Canada estimated that DRLs could add anywhere from $3 to more than $40 each year in extra fuel costs -- which was back before fuel prices climbed to record heights in 2008 Gas prices are extraordinarily cheap right now. The dollar has fallen, not gas prices going up. The Canadian dollar has fallen too. tyler9 wrote: -- while other government bodies, like the United States National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, state that DRLs decrease fuel efficiency by only a "fraction of a mile per gallon" [source: IIHS]. A European study adds to the confusion with its estimated fuel penalty between 0.5 and 1.5 percent [source: California Energy Commission]. Statistics from the SOTC are summarily dismissed. Studies aren't data. Guessing is guessing. They didn't do the math, obviously. tyler9 wrote: To figure out how much extra gasoline the United States would use if all 244 million cars on its roads were equipped with mandatory DRLs, we'll have to make a few assumptions [source: DOT]. First, we'll assume that DRLs would average out at about 90 watts total -- roughly between the low and the high wattage capabilities, and that the fuel penalty therefore would probably be mid-range as well: about 1 percent. With the help of a graph provided by the Federal Highway Administration, we can see that of the 7 billion miles (11.3 billion kilometers) Americans drive every day, approximately 70 percent of those are driven during daylight hours, which equals about 4.9 billion miles (7.9 billion kilometers) driven during the time when DRLs would be in use. [source: EIA, DOT]. Argument from randU fallacy. I dismiss FHA figures. They are guessing, and did not do the math. It is not anywhere near 1%. It is, in the worse case scenario, 0.0002%. I suspect the FHA figures are politically motivated. tyler9 wrote: Since the average consumer car in the United States gets about 20.3 miles (32.6 kilometers) per gallon, that means Americans currently use about 241.4 million gallons of gas for driving during daylight hours. To get that number, we divided the number of miles driven throughout the day by the average car's fuel efficiency (4.9 billion miles divided by 20.3 mpg) [source: DOT]. Now, when we factor in the 1 percent reduction in fuel efficiency, that usage increases to 243.9 million gallons -- a difference of more than 2 million gallons. Bad math. You can't use assumptions and call it mathematics. tyler9 wrote: At current U.S. prices ($3.81 per gallon as of August 2008), that would be a total of more than $7.62 million every day [source: EIA]. Of course, when you divide that by the number of cars on the road, it's not even a penny per car. So if you want to contest the purpose of a DRL law, you're going to need more up your sleeve than fuel consumption. You might try the actual math involved. It really is pretty simple. 1 gallon of gasoline contains 120MJ of energy. When a car burns that gallon of gasoline, it moves forward, runs the alternator (powering things like headlights, your music system, etc), and the rest goes into heat (taken away by your exhaust system and cooling system. As I just showed you, 0.0002% of that gallon goes into lighting the headlamps (and that's on an older car, with the incandescent headlamps!). It only gets better with newer cars and LED lamps. If you are driving on a two way street above 45mph, turn your daytime headlights on. You just might save your life and the life of both a guy passing slow traffic, and the slow traffic he is passing! Is that really worth a few drops of gasoline out of a gallon? Yes. 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
12-11-2019 00:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Driving with headlights on discourages a lot of passing, because it's very difficult to estimate time, speed and distance. You don't know how bright the head lights are, screws up the distance, and the estimated amount of time you have to pass safely. I don't think climate change is really that important any more. They over marketed it for the past 40 years. It's not new or trendy anymore, none of the prediction even came close. Ice caps are still there, glaciers are still there, polar bears are still knocking over trash cans. The weather, is still as unpredictable as ever, and some people get screwed over by it every year, mostly because they were a little negligent in preventative measures. California wildfires, well it's California...
12-11-2019 02:03
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	Into the Night wrote: Harry C wrote: Irrespective of AGW/CC, minimizing fuel consumption is a worthy goal. There are some very sensible solutions to that goal. One would be to minimize the amount of time that vehicles idle, which is especially profound in traffic. Besides productivity losses, I can't imagine how much fuel is wasted in traffic. Nobody seems to care! The "consensus" is to get people out of private transportation ergo no more traffic. Paradox. If the consensus is to get out of private vehicles, why is there so much traffic? Seems to me the consensus is to drive private vehicles. I had put the word in quotes to distinguish it. That was the consensus of progressive, leftists, socialist Marxist. I agree the consensus of the public at large is to drive private, and in some cases, large vehicles. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
12-11-2019 03:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Harry C wrote: Into the Night wrote: Harry C wrote: Irrespective of AGW/CC, minimizing fuel consumption is a worthy goal. There are some very sensible solutions to that goal. One would be to minimize the amount of time that vehicles idle, which is especially profound in traffic. Besides productivity losses, I can't imagine how much fuel is wasted in traffic. Nobody seems to care! The "consensus" is to get people out of private transportation ergo no more traffic. Paradox. If the consensus is to get out of private vehicles, why is there so much traffic? Seems to me the consensus is to drive private vehicles. I had put the word in quotes to distinguish it. That was the consensus of progressive, leftists, socialist Marxist. I agree the consensus of the public at large is to drive private, and in some cases, large vehicles. Okay. Seems we agree. We have reached consensus. 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
13-11-2019 04:30
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Into the Night wrote: Using the brake a lot means wasted fuel. You are just converting it into useless heat. Drivers that are heavy on the brake are wasting fuel. We all know that energy cannot be created or destroyed....well, I'm calling bullshit. Every time I accelerate from a dead stop in this gas pig truck of mine, and then have to hit the brakes for ANY reason....believe me I have DESTROYED that energy! Totally useless. ...and yes IBdaMann, it is totally repeatable. I do it several times a day! Edited on 13-11-2019 04:31
13-11-2019 05:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	GasGuzzler wrote:We all know that energy cannot be created or destroyed....well, I'm calling bullshit. Every time I accelerate from a dead stop in this gas pig truck of mine, and then have to hit the brakes for ANY reason....believe me I have DESTROYED that energy! Totally useless. ...and yes IBdaMann, it is totally repeatable. I do it several times a day! You expect me to believe that you can hit the brakes more than once? While we're on the subject, when Climate changes, does it blue-shift or does it red-shift? Does Climate change towards us or away from us? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2019 05:54
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:We all know that energy cannot be created or destroyed....well, I'm calling bullshit. Every time I accelerate from a dead stop in this gas pig truck of mine, and then have to hit the brakes for ANY reason....believe me I have DESTROYED that energy! Totally useless. ...and yes IBdaMann, it is totally repeatable. I do it several times a day! You expect me to believe that you can hit the brakes more than once? While we're on the subject, when Climate changes, does it blue-shift or does it red-shift? Does Climate change towards us or away from us? . I'll let you know after I kick my Viagra addiction. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

14-11-2019 07:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:We all know that energy cannot be created or destroyed....well, I'm calling bullshit. Every time I accelerate from a dead stop in this gas pig truck of mine, and then have to hit the brakes for ANY reason....believe me I have DESTROYED that energy! Totally useless. ...and yes IBdaMann, it is totally repeatable. I do it several times a day! You expect me to believe that you can hit the brakes more than once? While we're on the subject, when Climate changes, does it blue-shift or does it red-shift? Does Climate change towards us or away from us? . I'll let you know after I kick my Viagra addiction. If someone reads this post and your last one, Viagra gets your pig of a truck running. It's repeatable. So you're saying that when it stops for no reason Viagra gets it going? This is awfully cold on my part but it's just so funny what you're saying. I really don't know many people that would say "I'm addicted to Viagra" and "it's repeatable". Thank you for the laugh.
14-11-2019 17:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14451)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote:While we're on the subject, when Climate changes, does it blue-shift or does it red-shift? Does Climate change towards us or away from us? I'll let you know after I kick my Viagra addiction. Does that cause you to blue shift or to red shift ... because I know that shift happens. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-11-2019 18:41
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote:While we're on the subject, when Climate changes, does it blue-shift or does it red-shift? Does Climate change towards us or away from us? I'll let you know after I kick my Viagra addiction. Does that cause you to blue shift or to red shift ... because I know that shift happens. . Apparently my 14 yr old son is quite the little shit. He often comes home from school and wants to discuss the global warming concepts he has been taught in class. He is always looking for that million dollar question he can ask the teacher that will leave him with nothing to say. I've been insanely busy the past few weeks and at times I've told him to sit down at my desk jump on this forum and guided him to a thread or two that might answer his questions. So Tues night I get home from work pretty late and he is walking out of my office giggling like a 6th grade girl, and no matter how much I rough him up, he won't give up what it is. This morning I get a thread reply notification, and now it all makes sense. Little shit! Well played though. I assume he was referring to Viagra and how it messes with your color perception? So to answer your question IBdaMann, I don't know. To me it all looks like a greenish fog. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 14-11-2019 19:16
15-11-2019 16:48
Dom_Hayes_420 ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote:While we're on the subject, when Climate changes, does it blue-shift or does it red-shift? Does Climate change towards us or away from us? I'll let you know after I kick my Viagra addiction. Does that cause you to blue shift or to red shift ... because I know that shift happens. . Apparently my 14 yr old son is quite the little shit. He often comes home from school and wants to discuss the global warming concepts he has been taught in class. He is always looking for that million dollar question he can ask the teacher that will leave him with nothing to say. I've been insanely busy the past few weeks and at times I've told him to sit down at my desk jump on this forum and guided him to a thread or two that might answer his questions. So Tues night I get home from work pretty late and he is walking out of my office giggling like a 6th grade girl, and no matter how much I rough him up, he won't give up what it is. This morning I get a thread reply notification, and now it all makes sense. Little shit! Well played though. I assume he was referring to Viagra and how it messes with your color perception? So to answer your question IBdaMann, I don't know. To me it all looks like a greenish fog. yooo bro i think ur son is well good innit hes like a 87/100 on the scale of "good kiddy" u shouldnt treat him like that. its disappointing. you make me blurrrrrgh xd
15-11-2019 19:33
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	GasGuzler Jr if you are reading this I'm afraid your old man is an idiot. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
15-11-2019 22:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	spot wrote: GasGuzler Jr if you are reading this I'm afraid your old man is an idiot. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. YALIFNAP 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

Join the debate driving with headlights on:

Threads	Replies	Last post
WHY DO SELF DRIVING CARS KEEP CAUSING TRAFFIC JAMS?	15	11-05-2023 00:20
Idiot who followed computer GPS instructions dead after driving off collapsed bridge.	0	09-10-2022 01:21
Tesla recalls nearly 54,000 cars because self-driving software runs stop signs	6	06-02-2022 02:00
In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies	26	02-05-2019 20:26
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast	5	14-03-2019 03:47