gator

Members
  • Content count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About gator

  • Rank
    1
  1. A weight loss of 200mt begins with a single kilo. Re Solar forcing of ocean level, Even your favourite site calls it a farce, Jaydee: "Now, when I see a claim like that, after I get done laughing, " ... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/21/sunspots-and-sea-level/ Basically, solar cycle vs ocean level is just another example of deniers throwing dry spaghetti against the wall, hoping that it sticks, saying that it does anyway, and creating enough distraction so those in blind agreement won't notice that it hasn't even been boiled yet but will spread it around saying that there's actually spaghetti on the wall. The author of your referenced document won't even put proper links in for his corroborating "evidence", instead telling the reader to google stuff.
  2. Ok. I was trying to keep mostly with stuff that is tangible and day-to-day for most people. Certainly, for individuals, air has replaced ships and trains for personal travel compared to 60 years ago. Those who refused to acknowledge the change were left in the dust. The point is that things change and business and people adjust. Those that have the foresight to see change coming and adjust will benefit the most. It's like that ad on TV about a record company exec complaining that sales are down, a lady suggesting that they leverage the internet and the boss of the, apparently now defunct, record company asking how that was going to help sell CDs.
  3. This is the fallback position of those who don't want to participate in change ... "the problem is too large, so let's do nothing". There is no need to shut down entire sectors all at once. There is a need to transition sectors to a new reality. They transitioned from whale oil to geo-oil. They transitioned from candles to electricity. They transitioned from horses to cars. We transitioned from a rail/ship transportation system to an air/SHIP transportation system. We transitioned from radio/newspapers to TV/Netflix/Internet media. We transitioned from air transport for the elite to air transport for the masses. It can be done. Light bulbs are an easy start and provide an excellent example of how the transition can actually be done with a benefit that the general populace can measure on their hydro bill.
  4. Interesting concept. The bottom line is that maintaining the infrastructure and grid costs as much as producing the electricity, especially in a province like BC. So, if everyone was to cut their consumption, the price per kwh would have to increase to cover the fixed costs. In provinces where incremental use of electricity comes with higher cost through the burning of coal or natural gas, then there would be some minor overall savings by reducing consumption, but the infrastructure would still need to be considered. It's great for people to go off the grid with solar or wind power, but if they remain connected for those times when they don't produce enough, then they should shoulder their share of the infrastructure. I predict there will be a shift toward a higher base fee for connection to the grid as more and more people produce some of their own electricity (and maybe even a base fee even if you aren't connected at all... I get a water and sewer fee on a property that I have that doesn't even have a house on it).
  5. Using this logic, since rich people tend to own more land, they should be able to create more pollution without consequences, or owning land should get you a cap and trade credit. It is everyone's responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint. Suggesting that the simple coincidence of having a bunch of trees gives you the right to create pollution is ludicrous. How tight do you want to cut it... if you live in the prairies, you get to create more CO2 than if you live in Toronto? Nice of you to take credit for your divine right of birthplace, taking credit for land that you do not own. If the Chinese come over and buy a bunch of land in Canada, should they be allowed to create more GHGs? And what happens to your theory as the Canadian permafrost melts and releases huge amounts of CO2 and methane? If you're going to take credit for nature absorbing CO2, you have to take credit for nature releasing it. A couple of people here have suggested that countries like China should step up. Their CO2 production per person in China is about 1/3 of that of Canada. How much more should the individuals there have to sacrifice in terms of lifestyle and economy while we continue to "enjoy" our eminent position, producing more than twice as much GHGs as any country in Europe and 4th in the world per capita, only behind Saudi Arabia, Australia and the US. Almost got a bronze medal. We cannot stop climate change and global warming. All we can hope to do is slow it down and, apparently, the only way to get people to change habits in a democratic country is to charge them money. It's easier in dictatorships. I'm sure that many here in Ontario just bought a number of LED bulbs because of the instant rebates. That just proves that we're willing to trade money for conservation. It works in both directions. The more that gas, electricity and heating costs, the more people will pay attention to their consumption. Some would ask that if we can't reverse it, what's the point? Well, the point is that water and permafrost is either frozen or not, and the difference happens within 0.1 of a degree. Preventing 0.1 degree of warming will prevent billions of tonnes of ice from turning into water. 2.3 meters per degree. Canada produces about 2% of the world's GHG's. I'll let you figure out who's basement on the Fraser Delta we can help prevent from flooding by reducing our production by just 10% and preventing the 1/2 cm rise that our contribution would have on the first degree. That 1/2 cm can make the difference between breaching the top of the foundation or not and filling the entire basement. Ask the people in Winnipeg how many times they wished the river wouldn't raise another 1/2 cm.
  6. There are consequences, intended or otherwise, in every decision. The story describes a situation that, apparently, happens quite rarely... it would require wet snow, high winds almost directly at the surface in question and a below-freezing surface. Apparently there is now a spray that many jurisdictions are using to prevent this from happening. Nevertheless, the school bus driver in the article should have stopped if they could not discern the status of the traffic light, just as if the light was not functioning at all or if the red light was burnt out, which used to happen significantly more often with incandescent bulbs. Clearly, the light wasn't GREEN either. Assumedly, as a school bus driver, they would travel on that route fairly regularly and would have known that there was a traffic light at that intersection even if the entire thing was covered in snow. You can't plan for the unintended consequences of stupid.
  7. Funny that you would automatically assume that all speed demons are "liberals". I would suggest that a "conservative" driving the speed limit in his written-off Caddie, Beemer or Benz from his 5000 sq ft home to his way to his is 48 ft Chris Craft probably generates more GHGs than a liberal driving 10 kts over the speed limit in his Ford Focus. ... and a few conservatives do speed, too.
  8. At least every other country has a "target". We all know that governments never meet targets, whether they be financial, medical, social or environmental. But at least Paris gave positive targets in this regard and governments do tend to at least move toward them. The US's target under the idiot regime is negative. Trump will probably spin that one into "at least we met our target... nobody else did". The US had signed onto the Paris Accord. It had a commitment that it backed out of. We've seen it tens of times where a change in the ruling party cancels commitments from the previous government. A good example is the Pearson Airport expansion in the early 90s. But, in general, international signatures are kept from government to government, whether or not the new government actually follows them. Trump blunderbusted his way onto the international stage within weeks of his election and demanded a renegotiation. Of course they told him to go pound sand. I still can't figure out why Germany decided to close all of its nuclear plants. Nuclear is still the safest, most environmentally friendly way to produce electricity. Obviously a political kneejerk reaction to Fukushima, but I wonder if there were some other reason... perhaps a previously unpublicized flaw in their design and this gave them an excuse to shut them down... or just a stupid decision.
  9. Posting an article without comment is a way to show tacit agreement, of which yours is clear by your posting of only one side and highlighting of specific excerpts. Your habit of posting anti-anthropogenic global warming articles whenever one comes out requires some rebuttal simply because if they were not rebutted, people would think that all were in agreement. The fact is that most people believe that climate change is real and want the government to do something. The only controllable part of climate change is the impact of humanity, and the only magic wand the government have to change human behaviour is money. I have stated before that I don't think that taxes are the ultimate answer to global warming, but if that is what it will take to start the change of human behaviour away from habits that cause climate change then so be it. I'm willing to reduce my footprint and let those who feel that their lifestyle is more important than the environment pay the tax, so I don't really object to it. It's kind of like speeding tickets. I stay within a reasonable speed and have, for the most part, avoided speeding tickets over the past few decades. I'm more than happy to have those who feel their time is more valuable than everyone else's pay a bit of my share of the tax burden. As far as "unsettled science"... even the true scientists use that phrase. The settled part is that man's influence causes a large part of climate change and it will continue to do so into the future. The unsettled part is exactly how much and exactly what the future holds. Even the best of scientists can only extrapolate (with at least a dab of expertise) because no one has a crystal ball.
  10. Koonin uses a classic Trump tactic (the Fake News move) by calling the other guy a liar to make his lie seem like "the truth". From Koonin: The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission. Yes, there have been short (2 or 3 years) "peak rate" sea level rises earlier in the 20th century which exceed the overall rated since 1993, but no 20 year period that comes close to the rate since 1993 and the 20th century rate exceeds any rate in the past 2800 years. During the entire 1800's, sea level remained almost constant. The only omission that the authors have made is the lack of anticipation of what miniscule slices of data the denier camp might use to try to undercut the real science. Koonin uses phrases like "ominously notes" to make it seem that the report is intentionally dramatic and biased. If Jaydee bothered to actually read even the executive summary (let alone the relevant detail rather than just cutting and pasting denier headlines), he would see that the report is quite muted. Of course, deniers yell "FAKE NEWS", just like Trump, to try to put the real science in disrepute.
  11. Canadians can't even listen to simple instructions on boarding... when zone 2 is called 3 and 4 line up and the zone 2 people have to "butt in" while the zone people crowd the entry to the line. Making rules more complex will only make it worse. I used to think that loading the back windows, then the middle windows, back aisles, front windows, middle aisles, front aisles would work the best because aisle people wouldn't have to stand up to allow the windows to board. The problem is in trying to allow groups/families to board together.... more from a technology perspective. The reason why the Southwest system works is because people load the window seats first by default. The bottom line is that inefficient boarding is caused more by people carrying all of their crap on board with them than any procedure.
  12. I agree with you, mo, and I often do that. I always call runway in sight when i can to help with high/low separation and often do tell the controller if we need a bit more runway for landing when we're heavy in a no wind condition. Not usually an issue with 6 miles of separation behind me, but most airports can get 2 departures out in six miles. YYZ can't get one out in 4.7. That's a lot of expensive concrete sitting there empty and gas being burned and connections being missed for some local rule. A couple of times when I've had the FO tell him "ready immediate" I've been disappointed. And YYZ is set up as a "monitor" when holding short, not a "contact". The signs even say it. Then the ground controller says it. So calling is something that we're not spring loaded to do. Pilots operating in YYZ have been lulled into a condition where they don't expect anything to happen fast. It's a completely different mindset than in ORD, LGA, LAX, or LHR. We rise to the occasion in other places and we can do it in YYZ, but we're mentally not set up for it because there's no need 99% of the time. Anytime we have less than 3 miles behind the previous lander we're briefing go around procedures again because we know that we might get one just because there is some archaic, apparently local, rule that will trigger it. In LGA or ORD, it's just normal. There was a time a few years ago where things started getting better, where we would be at 200 ft with the previous departure rotating, but they've gone downhill again. The irony is that it doesn't make it any safer. Pilots who are paying attention because they know things are happening quick are a lot safer than those who are lulled into complacency. I'm not saying it's the individual controllers' faults. It's the system. I can only assume that someone has been reprimanded because there has been a technical (but still safe) loss of paper separation when they've tried to be efficient, so everybody spreads stuff out just make sure that it doesn't happen to them. The rules should be there for planning and shouldn't be considered absolute for reprimand or even external reporting if a 3 mile rule is busted by a couple hundred yards. It might be our Canadian attitude of rule compliance that creates this environment. I'm not saying to disregard them, just that they should be a bit elastic in operation vs planning. I can certainly see needing 3 mile separation for 2 aircraft pointed at each other, but 2 aircraft pointed at 45 degrees to intercept a localizer? If one doesn't hit the LOC button at YYZ and flies through, the pilots and the controller have 50 seconds to correct it before it's a "noise" event and then only in the 1 in 50 situation where they are perfectly abeam each other. There's a dedicated controller to make sure nobody crosses the hold short line when clearing from 24L, but no dedicated controller assigned to improve the arrival efficiency and safety by watching aircraft intercept the localizer. I've dealt with management at NC and they circle the wagons at any suggestion that their procedures are anything less than perfect, and they're not. The only other major airports in the world that design their STARs like YYZ are Guangzhou and Beijing, yet NC management says they're world class. And, because they think their procedures are perfect, any non-compliance, even minor or inconsequential, is probably met with reprimand. If you're a quarterback and the coach pulls you out of the game every time you throw an incomplete pass, you just start running the ball...
  13. I see what you're saying but there was lots of time if good communication procedures were used. In every other busy airport around the world, the clearance goes like this when the landing traffic is at about 100 ft .... "Behind the landing A320, line up behind". Or, 'behind departing B777, line up behind'. Sometimes they say "Be ready immediate". They even say the last part occasionally in YYZ. And sometimes they ask if we are ready immediate. And even, sometimes, the first part. Sometimes it's 'contact departure airborne'. sometimes it's 'stay with me', sometimes nothing. Notice the words "occasionally" and "sometimes". I know that "conditional" clearances were not allowed in Canada some time ago; not sure if that is still the case, but if they aren't, hiding behind an archaic MANOPS is not a good excuse. There's stuff in there that prescribes localizer and glideslope intercept criteria that was designed for non-radar procedure turns, even when in a radar environment. There was exactly 2 minutes between the two flights that we were not allowed to fit between and 2:20 between flights where they did fit us in. I know 20 seconds is a lot of time sometimes, but not when the base is 2 minutes. (Of course, none of this deals with the question as to why the arrival controller didn't protect the required spacing through vectors or speed control (for "4 go arounds this afternoon")... or maybe the arrival controller follows MANOPS or maybe radar practice/guidelines/procedures and the tower has their own practice/guidelines/procedures). And why would they force a go around at 2 miles... why not wait until the arrival is a mile back to see how things work themselves out? .... we practice go arounds from 200 ft and can probably do them better from there than from 600 ft. If they didn't wait until the lander was past the button (plus some, sometimes), then we could be in position when the previous flight clears the runway and we would be well off the ground in less than 30 seconds from takeoff clearance ... about 1 mile. If they clear us conditionally, then the whole operation could be less than a minute... with a minute to spare. On that particular day, using webtrak, it can be seen that we were airborne when the lander behind us was at 925 ft... about 1.2 miles back. Even a 30 second delay would have had us airborne before the lander was at 200 ft. We never know if they're going to hold us or clear us to position. On that day we were rolling our eyes when they didn't clear us. Then, the next arrival wasn't too much farther back on TCAS... we didn't know what was going to happen.... should we be ready? or ready for another disappointment. No heads up from the tower as to what they were planning. But communication is not a big part of Nav Canada or YYZ. They don't give us distance to fly even when they plan to send us 25 miles downwind at 3000 ft, despite it being ICAO standard to do so. We don't get descent speed restrictions until AFTER we start descent, which means we wasted a bunch of fuel in cruise (at $100 per minute) when we could have started down earlier, and now have to use speedbrakes ... no advice about arrival delays until we're on the close-in controller, even when ground holds are in effect.... all part of the same lack of communications. We're told about our expected London hold by Shannon... a completely different country, let alone a different sector. Maybe they should start following global standards instead of local rules of thumb. In my dealings with Nav Canada managment, they're quick to quote MANOPS, but apparently have a different standard for day to day ops. If YYZ thinks they're a world class operation, then they should start looking around the world to see what the standard is because it's not happening here. I'd love it if Canada's ATC was the best or even close, but something is stopping them from moving out of the 80's. Introducing RNP approaches is not moving into the future if the rest of the system is still buried in the past.
  14. Hurricane Harvey

    Fuel in external containers must be declared and tax is payable. Just so nobody's surprised.