...that the Earth is cooling...from satellite readings. These readings are not obfuscated by being near human developments and their requisite buildings and pavements.

Global warming is (in its current form) a huge appeal for research funds. There is not enough "proof" for a scientifically reviewable hypothesis, even (so, so many of these papers flunk peer review) to support a massive spending program into research....so they turn around for funding from the TV shows and mine NOAA data (and anything else gotten in other, funded and reviewed studies) for anything the TV folks want to put on the air. I have seen it myself...

Please, please, use mature skepticism/curiousity when viewing global warming issues on the tube or in the news...as an example, I just watched a deep-sea current special on the Discovery channel, which blamed apparent (? but not statistically proven on TV) changes in deep sea heat-exchange currents on CO2 concentrations, with no relational hypothesis or data whatsoever....just stated the cause and effect relationship like it was beyond question.

This marvelous (sic) show also made no mention of the dominant role of the effects of ocean-supported diatomaceous flora (who has made a recovery of sorts in recent years) which are the greatest known exchange mechanism of CO2 and oxygen, and their effects on the CO2 concentrations which are supposed to deleteriously effect this oceanic heat exchange....amazingly incomplete in light of the magnitude of the effect, eh?

 

hell, i'm all for global warming. I'd rather be hot than cold

 

DrDevon,

Right on, if you read my post eons and eons ago when this thing first started I said I subscribed to the "heat-sink" theory as opposed to believing in global warming. But the antagonist in the instant case decided not even to address that an alternative theory exists, or ask what it was about, or tell me why he thinks its wrong. A ridiculous outburst was followed by an another post explaining "how" global warming supposedly works (like we didn't already know).

In short, the heat-sink theory (one of many that disagree with global warming theorists) suggests that scientists have been prescribing (fallaciously) the earth's warming to increasing levels of CO2, eradication of the ozone layer, etc. etc. because of a dramatic increase in 1) the overall average temperature on earth and 2) retention of heat on the earth for a longer period (i.e. the earth taking longer to release heat). The obvious mis-step (so the heath sink theory supports) of global warming is that heat is getting in, heat is getting absorbed, and then is ATTEMPTING to be released (this is where heat-sink steps in), only to be retained by our evil emission-filled atmosphere.

What the heat-sink theory suggests (and I am GENERALIZING here, so please no dotting my I's or crossing my T's for me), is that thre is really is no causation only correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. Heat-sink suggests that the cause of 1) and 2) above is a conglomeration of millions upon millions of man-made structures on earth (i.e. everything man has built so far) altering the absorption (read: increasing) and more importantly altering the TRANSFER of heat both to and from the earth. In short, man-made strucutres not only absorb but also transfer heat in not quite understood ways that trap the heat in the earth where it refuses (if you will) to be released quickly (thus the name, "heat-sink theory"). If you think of the difference a concrete college campus or a concrete jungle like LA makes you feel when you walk through in summer, then multiply that by every single similar structure that man has made. Again, this is gross generalization and if I can find the article I'm looking for I"ll post it under general discussion.

 

I not really as complicated as this forum makes it seem. If everyone in America switched from changing their oil every 3000 miles and changes it at 6000 miles, we cut our use of oil in automobile engines in half.

That may seem trivial but, conservation needs to begin somewhere. Let it begin here. I use synthetic oil and change it between 5000 and 6000 miles.

I have heard all kinds of arguements about the subject of conservation and I choose to own a big, full size truck. My other car is a Toyota that gets 40MPG. My replacement plans for it will be to get one of the Hybrid cars that will get 100 or more miles per gallon. BUT, I will still own a big, red Ford truck for as long as I am able to drive.

We need to face reality, if we are able to conserve resources, we should. Its our duty. It may not seem like much but its like the little boy throwing the starfish that washed up on the beach back in the ocean. He may not save them all, but he did save the one he just threw back.

We need to do what we can, where we can. We need to live like Americans and enjoy life to the fullest, but let's save some for our kids and grandkids to enjoy along the way.



1999 F150 XLT ORP
5.4L
Gibson Super Truck
3.55 Limited slip
Supercab Styleside
265/70/17 tires

 

so sythetics make your engine run longer and smoother or what? I heard that synthetics lube your engine way better than reg. oil BUT!!!! I heard also that when you go to change the oil if you have a 5qt
system you can run a 2 qts of full synthetic and 3 qts of the reg, stuff. Dunno if it's true or not just heard it really does a number on cleaning out your engine and making your lifters shut up!!!! run your engine for about 1000-1500 miles then change it(with filter) and see all the crud come out. Then you can switch too full synthetic or blend synthetic. Just don't use kerosene(bye bye bearings)


MY TRUCK:

1991 FORD F-150 XLT LARIAT

 

so sythetics make your engine run longer and smoother or what? I heard that synthetics lube your engine way better than reg. oil BUT!!!! I heard also that when you go to change the oil if you have a 5qt
system you can run a 2 qts of full synthetic and 3 qts of the reg, stuff. Dunno if it's true or not just heard it really does a number on cleaning out your engine and making your lifters shut up!!!! run your engine for about 1000-1500 miles then change it(with filter) and see all the crud come out. Then you can switch too full synthetic or blend synthetic. Just don't use kerosene(bye bye bearings)

 

"If everyone in America switched from changing their oil every 3000 miles and changes it at 6000 miles, we cut our use of oil in automobile engines in half."

I would beg to differ with that statement. If we all did that there would be alot more premature motors failures. If that were to happen we would use more energy (oil) to produce more motors to replace the failed ones. Now I am sure FORD and the other auto makers would love for all of us to ignore the recommendation of changing at 3000 miles and go to 6000 miles.

I change mine at 3000 miles regardless because there is plenty of oil for all of us to use. oil will not ran out. Before oil ever has a chance of running out we will have something that replaces it thats just a fact because this is America and there are a lot of smart people here. We'll either be using something other then oil for lubercation or not need it because of electric motor or something.

Anyhow I made a big investment in my truck and I am not about to worry about oil running out or what it does to the enviroment because its not much anyway. I am not dumping my in the back yard. Some may say its better for the enviroment that we use less oil. I look at it like this, mother earth has a huge toxic waste (oil) and I am doing my part to help rid mother earth of this toxic watse by buring it and using it up as quickly as possible.

Some weeks I try to drive an extra 50 miles or so just to help burn a little more gas (it has oil) so I am really trying to do my part in helping mother earth. Sometimes I try to make it an extra 70 miles to also help aid the global warming effect because I am tired of to many cold days, it should always be summer thats when its a great time for waxing etc. plus I tend to drive more in the summer months therefore if its summer more often then winter I can further help mother earth rid herself of this toxic waste left behind by some damn "dinos" now were was the EPA back then. Oh well just don't worry so much things will be just fine for our kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids hell they all most likely be using oil as well since we can't seem to get enough equipment in place to pump all the oil out.

Have a nice evening and rest assured there is plenty of oil for all of us to use as much as we want to. Myself its every 3000 miles.

 

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I am helping to conserve on some resources. I am now eating less salt.

 

I'm not against conserving resources, and I hope that my daughters children will have a chance to see the giant redwoods, tropical reefs, arctic mountains and all the other things I have had the chance to see.

The problem, as I see it, is that this thread contains many posts from people that assume if I don't use synthetics then I am not performing my "duty" to conserve.

My ignition mods and pulleys save over 100 gallons of gas per year. Using synthetics would save 2 gallons of oil.

We only have to take the trash can to the street every two to three weeks, as the majority goes in the recycle can. I have spent time helping obtain samples testing the effects of chemicals on coral reefs, working as an unpaid volunteer with the Cousteau Society. Our second vehicle averages over 35 mpg. I drive a truck because my work requires the space to move things, not as a grocery getter.

I change my oil when I want, usually at about 3000 miles.

Using synthetic oil would be a very small contribution to conservation in my eyes. The fact that I choose to do other things doesn't IMO mean that I should expect others to do the same. I agree with your thoughts on the matter, just not the approach.