I completely got that. Really. As I said in my post:
Irrelevant, because we are comparing equivalent scenarios....A vertical pane of glass may expose more area for solar radiation to enter; but that is the true equally at the poles and in DC.

In other words, if you were to compare ANY situation you can dream of-- a greenhouse, a car, a solar panel-- in DC in the winter and the north pole in the summer, they will be very nearly identical, because:
In the northern hemisphere's winter, the sun is ~61 degrees south of DC (38 degree latitude + 23 degree sun tilt). In the summer, the north pole will be at a 67 degree tilt from the sun (90 degree latitude - 23 degree tilt).

I dont know how else to explain this. Where the sun is in the winter for DC is very nearly the same (in relative terms) for where it is for the pole in the summer-- ~65 degrees off of perpendicular. No scenario you set up will change it.

And for the record, summer in siberia is (according to wikipedia) 86 degrees-- which is a relatively mild summer day for DC. Its not remotely close to one of the hottest places; those would be between the 2 tropics (cancer and capricorn). Its also worth noting that Siberia is a huge area covering from 50 degrees north to 90 degrees north, so saying its temperature variation is huge doesnt say much. Some of its areas are halfway to the equator.

Except that you're assuming that all HFCS is the variety with more fructose than glucose; this is not correct. By your logic we should switch all sucrose to the "healthy" HFCS, as it has LESS fructose than either.

Talking about pure fructose in a discussion on HFCS is, as AthanasiusKircher has said, a red herring. We're not talking about pure fructose, we're talking about a blend that is almost chemically indistinguishable (by a few % points) by the body from sucrose.

The comparison of "natural" to "processed" also makes me uncomfortable, as it strikes me as way too similar to the HFCS scare: ambiguous language, unclear definitions, vague claims, and no suggested mechanism of action. Theres plenty of natural things that are just plain bad for you, and plenty of synthetic that are quite good. Ill take a synthetic Vitamin D supplement over bitter orange any day; one prevents rickets, while the other can cause death. Guess which is which?

If it does, we need to look at steak, beer, and caramel too.

Thats fair enough, but getting rid of HFCS wouldnt change the fact that people want sweet foods and generally dont like artificial sweeteners. Replace all HFCS in the world with sucrose, its not gonna make that 40g of sugar in that Dr Pepper healthy.

That talks about fructose, which is a different thing than HFCS.

It would be like finding an NIH article on H2SO4 and assuming that its contents apply to H2O because they contain some of the same things.

Irrelevant, because we are comparing equivalent scenarios. The insolation at the pole in summer is equivalent to that of DC in the winter. A vertical pane of glass may expose more area for solar radiation to enter; but that is the true equally at the poles and in DC. And I can tell you from experience in DC that during the winter the interior of the car doesnt get warmer than ~110 degrees F on the sunniest of days.

This is easy to demonstrate; summer for the pole will be when the sun at a 23 degree north angle to the equator, whereas winter will be when it is 23 degrees south. In the northern hemisphere's winter, the sun is ~61 degrees south of DC (38 degree latitude + 23 degree sun tilt). In the summer, the north pole will be at a 67 degree tilt from the sun (90 degree latitude - 23 degree tilt). No matter what scenario you set up, you cannot change the fact that the pole will never get more solar radiation per area than the mid Atlantic in the heart of winter.

Im not clear what you mean. The pole can have cloudy days as well. All that chart indicates is that on its sunniest day the pole will recieve less radiation / sq meter than the mid Atlantic in the heart of winter on a similarly sunny day. Thats not an average either; its simply taking the amount of energy put out by the sun and calculating the theoretical surface exposure depending on the sun's angle and whether the exposure is oblique or not.

Im sure HFCS DOES cause obesity. Just, not because its different than sucrose. Butter causes obesity, too.

If you said something like "drinkable hydrogen" it would be fair to assume we were speaking of a hydrogen compound, not hydrogen itself.

Good gravy slashdotters are pedantic.

Transparent aluminum implies that its NOT pure aluminum, because pure aluminum isnt transparent.

If the goal of this exercise is to say that "you cant name something thats pure, unaltered aluminum BUT doesnt have aluminum's properties!", then you win.

No, Im someone who bothered to look it up before loosing my marbles.

Sucrose is glucose+fructose joined by a single bond, which is cleaved by sucrase into its constituent sugars.
HFCS is a mix (roughly 50-50, depending on which variety of HFCS you get) of fructose and sucrose.

One of those varieties has some 3% "other" (could be other types of sugar, not sure). But generally, if you were to say that HFCS and Sucrose are processed 97% the same in your body, you would be correct. The only real difference is the sucrase step. Is speaking verifiable chemistry fact now the sign of shilling?

Unless the car is a perfect insulator, the ambient temperature IS relevant, and even in summer the temperature at the poles will be quite low.

In fact, according to this site, Washington DC at noon on the winter solstice will get the more solar radiation per square foot than the north pole at the height of its summer (~750W/sq. m at the poles vs ~825 W/sq. m at 40 degrees north)

It doesnt really matter how long you leave it in the car if your ambient temperatures are sub zero and you get practically no solar radiation.

The temperature the inside of the car can achieve is going to depend on a few factors:
  * How insulating the car is
  * How much energy is being recieved
  * The ambient temperature

Polar latitudes are going to have a low insolation and and a low ambient temperature, which will massively lower how hot the car can get.

1) Caramel coloring is generally not required to be specially labelled (can be listed as "artificial coloring") because its literally caramelized carbohydrates.
2) HFCS and sucrose are basically indistinguishable other than trace additives once your body metabolizes them; the sucrose becomes a mix of fructose and glucose.

I have never seen any study suggesting that, except the single widely ridiculed Yale study. Not surprising given how nearly identical sucrose and HFCS are in the gut.