• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About gator

  • Rank
  1. So two guys who have so little credibility that they have to change their names for anyone to even read their papers publish one document and it wipes out decades of work by thousands of credible scientists. And please don't accept their claims that people accepted their work when it was issued under false names. I am willing to accept that the climate of any planet is based on many factors. The fact that two scientists out of thousands have come up with a one-source theory does not invalidate all other causes. It is just an outlying theory. I'm not saying that it's wrong... only that it has a very, very small possibility of being right. At least the mainstream scientists that talk about climate change in real terms suggest that CO2 is only one, albeit the largest, of the drivers for atmospheric temperature change (up or down). We all learned in Weather Ways, and experience every cloudy night, the effect of atmospheric particle energy reflection (clouds). Yet these two guys say that it can't happen in an open atmosphere. Yet that same interaction is proven on every cloudy or clear night. Interesting, though, even though many deniers deny that there has been any temperature change at all, or that the numbers have been doctored, these guys both acknowledge that temperature change is valid and use the data dubbed "flawed" by other deniers to fit their model. So the only line that could be offered by deniers who support this theory is "There is no temperature change and the numbers have been doctored; but if there has been a temperature change and the numbers are right, these two guys using those same numbers found a sole explanation in a very complex interaction that has not been seen by thousands of scientists over the past 40 or 50 years."
  2. SFO Incident

    I'm not convinced that all of the information supposedly supplied by authorities is correct. For example, they say that the flight overflew the first two aircraft at 100 ft, the 3rd by 200 ft and the 4th by 300 ft. With 100 ft between aircraft and a 200 ft body length, the 4th aircraft is only 400 ft from the second aircraft. So the aircraft in the go around climbed 200 ft in 500 ft (the distance between the 2nd and 4th aircraft with 100 ft between them). That's about 5,000 ft/min (23 degree angle of climb... meaning more than 20 degree body angle with flaps out) at 125 kts. The A320 is pretty dramatic in go around mode, but I don't think it did 5,000 ft/min. Bottom line... there's a lot of holes in the (sparse, at best) available information. You know the drill....
  3. I'm talking about within the US. Don't know how that could be racist unless you suppose that only Spanish-Floridians would be displaced and needed assistance to rebuild their lives.
  4. That was not my point at all. My reference to immigration roundly pointed out that the right-leaning population tends to be both anti-immigration and anti-climate change, then led that into an interstate immigration (read job-protectionist) talking point. The underlying point is that the same people that tend to ignore climate change are the same group who would tend to resent someone (or many someones) coming into their state and taking jobs away, requiring handouts and increasing taxes because of welfare that would be inevitable.
  5. Once again, deniers are taking things completely out of context. And you seem to simply regurgitate the deniers interpretation without actually reading the source. The writer of the article says nothing about abolition of property rights. It discusses a "What if" scenario if we don't do something about global warming wipes out certain areas. Essentially, the article asks "What are we going to do in a world where people's property is under 2 feet of water". She wonders if the model of property rights will have to change so that people in Miami don't have to start from scratch. The question doesn't even have to be asked solely in the context of climate change... what will the people of Los Angeles do when the "big one" hits? Are they simply SOL when their property becomes worthless? Ironically, despite the fact that this article has been presented by the deniers as a degradation of property rights as a way to solve global warming, it simply poses the question of what we are going to do when it gets to the point that huge numbers of people lose their property or can't live where they live because of unbearable heat or flooding. Of course, it won't happen all at once, but there will definitely have to be a migration if sea levels rise. What will the US do with tens of millions of people in Florida and the Gulf of Mexico states who have to move somewhere? And, with another little twist, the very group that makes up the vast majority of deniers, the far right, is also largely anti-immigration. What will the people of Oregon do when millions of people show up from New Orleans or Tampa with no place to live? I wonder when the America First movement will become "[Insert State Here] First".
  6. SFO Incident

    This is obviously the case (at least based on AvHerald info), as ATC did not direct the go around until it had overflown the taxiway by .25nm... 1500 ft. For the benefit of non-pilots here, normal touchdown is about 1000 ft. So, clearly, go around was initiated well before ATC's intervention.
  7. SFO Incident

    Ok... probably a bit of an exaggeration on my part to illustrate a point... aircraft are often much closer to each other in quite normal circumstances than we think. We don't actually know the minimum altitude of the approaching aircraft.... 100 ft is the newspaper number at this point. However, the minimum distance between a runway centerline and the hold short line is 250 ft. An A380 with a 262 foot wingspan would be within 119 ft of that hold line. The minimum distance between taxiway and runway centerline for an airport like SFO is 400 ft, so two design group 6 aircraft (B747-8 or A380) could be within 138 feet of each other if both were right on centerline... a bit of drift and they could easily be close to 100 ft from each other. This is obviously not the case here, but shows how close landing and taxiing aircraft can be to each other.
  8. Jaydee, Once again, the deniers are publishing data without explanation. And, of course, that VERY reputable Daily Mail did lots of checking before they published a glamorous story. Today's TOP headline is Having a ball! Wimbledon winner Garbine Muguruza stuns in floor-length white dress as tennis stars arrive for the Champions' Dinner. Along with The Middletons are no different to the Kardashians, says Kate and William's new anti-monarchy Labour MP for Kensington who turned down chance to meet the Queen after the Grenfell fire and Doctor Nude! First ever female Time Lord Jodie Whittaker joins her male predecessors in stripping off on camera after having sex on the stairs in 2014 drama The Met Office data line bases the differential from an average world temperature from 1961-1990. The NOAA data line bases the differential from an average world temperature from 1901-2000. So, of course, the NOAA line would be higher because the average temperature that they are basing the differential on is lower, ironically proving the point even more. The climate offices didn't do themselves any favours... if they had just published actual temperatures, the deniers wouldn't have had the graphs to play with. Basically, the ever-honest Mr. Whitehouse is exploiting a simple difference in the baseline that the two offices happened to use to display the data. The very slight differences in non-perfect offset are due to the NOAA discovering an anomaly in the ship reported data that did not agree fully with buoy and satellite data, causing them to give more weight to the two measures that agree... not unlike the Airbus method of using the two most agreeable IRS units. The use of the word "Flawed" in Whitehouse's graph conveniently refers to the uncorrected, thus flawed, data from the NOAA. Again, twisting the numbers. With the correction applied and the same time period for the baseline average, the lines are virtually identical... not bad, considering they actually use different methods to make their calculations. It looks like the greatest difference is about 0.05 degrees or so when they are not identical. All of this notwithstanding that this is a pretty small slice of years, but it is comparing the early 2000s with an average about 30 years prior and clearly shows a consistent average increase of about half a degree increase, even including the shocking decrease at the end of the graph. And if you still don't trust the corrected NOAA data, here it is, using the same baseline, compared to 5 other sources, including the uncorrected stuff. Everybody is within 10 one-hundredths of a degree for the past 45 years.
  9. SFO Incident

    Re... 100 feet... when they landed on the return, they were probably much closer to the traffic on the taxiway than 100 ft... wingtip to wingtip, and at the same altitude. It was unfortunate that a retired pilot possibly trying to make a name for himself as a consultant made such a big deal about the potential. Clearly anyone looking out the window would not continue to descend into aircraft illuminated by the landing lights. AvHerald reports that they went around from about 400 ft. So why did they continue to descend to as low as 100 ft? The A320 just about jumps through the roof when thrust is advanced to GA. But, the acceleration from the power increase would give the seat-of-the-pants impression of climbing very steeply and might actually result in the pilot pushing forward. This phenomenon happened in a go around at CDG or ORY a couple of years ago and the Rostov B-737 crash last year. There is some apparent loss of situational awareness, maybe lack of CRM, maybe fatigue and maybe a couple of other threats that happened to come together to make this happen. Ultimately, general airmanship saved the day.
  10. So, science's numbers are accurate when they suit the argument.... Two problems with that... GISP2 is the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. It is completely regional. Yes... apparently Greenland was warmer than it WAS up until the end of the data..... in 1855. And there is the other problem... the graph ends in 1855. 1855. Yet the publisher of the doesn't mention that. Not even sure where he got his blue lines from for the 1900s. Why... because the temperature estimates in the GISP2 project use ICE, not snow. It takes a few decades for snow to be pressed into ice. The last cores were taken in 1992, but the most recent temperature estimates in the study are from 1855. Yes, there are a few pro-climate-changers who are trying to get our attention and the deniers will use that whenever they can to scream "Fear Monger". But, as I have shown time and again, deniers first say that science's numbers have been manipulated, then use and twist those same numbers, often leaving out important details, to deny.
  11. SFO Incident

    Runway 28L was NOTAM'd closed according to comments on avherald. So, despite fact that SFO has excellent approach lighting systems, the lack thereof probably should have been a clue, there would have been 2 apparent lit surfaces and they, apparently, lined up for the right hand one.
  12. Yes, we do live in much more space than we need. I'm not leaving behind a throwaway home, either, so that brings us back to your other point... population growth. Just like climate change, population control will probably be a function more of education than any overarching government imposition. Ironically, had China not had imposed childbirth restrictions for many years, the incredible footprint that they create as they industrialize would have been even bigger. The biggest problem that they have nowadays and going forward is a lack of women... a function of the unintended consequence of rural families wanting to ensure that they had a boy to help with the chores if they were only allowed one. In the developing world, population growth surely has as much to do with a significant improvement in child survivability since the 50s than it has to do with people having more babies. Yet, the global population growth rate is actually down compared to the peak growth rate in the seventies... as a matter of fact almost 1/2 the growth. And population growth is forecast to continue to decrease... by another 1/2 by 2050. The population is not going down, but it's not going up as fast, fortunately. Africa, with the highest current growth rate, is also one of the least carbon-centric so, beyond the ability to feed that population, their impact on climate change is minimal, although I recall reading that they will likely suffer the most under a climate change scenario. Europe has almost leveled off and that could be problematic.... much of our economic system is based on a growing future population paying for our public spending that we kick down the road and paying for our pensions. Looks like we're handing our kids a real mess... not only will they have to pay for a government debt system designed for a completely different population growth model than what is unfolding, they'll have to do it while they're sandbagging their (and our) homes. Education seems to be the common thread both in controlling population growth and convincing the resultant population to take care of our little blue marble.
  13. Ok. I'll bite. Name 5 real scientists trained in atmospheric science (not weathermen, and not aligned with oil companies) and 5 universities anywhere in the world that support the position that climate change is not caused by man. Would you have a discussion about flying IFR approaches with a panel of cab drivers?
  14. The first world developed cars and gave them these "tools" to pollute our atmosphere with an invisible gas that is, according to the scientists with the expertise in the area, giving the planet a fever. It is the technology that we gave the third world that is causing a lot of the problem. Do you think they would have developed cars in Africa without our help? Maybe we should stop shrugging and develop and promote the technologies to them that will slow the problem. Ironically, China is developing Thorium reactors so that they will be off coal long before we are. So, before you start pointing fingers at the major polluters and suggesting that we shouldn't do anything, take note that they are at least moving in the right direction while we whine.
  15. We have to start somewhere. It doesn't all need to happen at once, but it needs to happen. For the record, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I will be spending thousands up front on my soon-to-be-built home to include solar electric, solar thermal and geothermal. And I will have it all paid back within 10-12 years in savings. So, I neither need a lecture, nor do I have to give up anything in the medium term. If you look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2, the rate of growth is becoming almost exponential. Ignoring or denying the problem because you have to give something up in our 3 or 4 TV, multiple cell-phone, multiple car, multiple garbagecan society is hardly an excuse. We have more in the first world, by a longshot, than any other generation before us. Yet we are afraid to give up one or two percent of it to leave a clean planet in our wake. Yeah.... that whole pressure treated wood thing... too bad they had to pull wood that was dipped in poison. But to answer your question, yes, it does make good sense. There are lots of other long lasting options available.