The 'Greens' are on safe ground here: nothing that happened to AF447 could possibly refute their belief; it could only serve as a failed confirmation. The psuedoscience of global warming: confirmations everywhere but never contenance one refutation. This is more like a belief system than real science, which progresses by refutations. But perhaps 'science' is now corrupted and is more concerned about research grants and careers than the truth. The 'Greens' are the people being controlled: How can they now object to nuclear power stations? More coal fired stations will produce more CO2. And how will Britain and America fund the building of these nuclear power stations? Why, by carbon tax, of course! It's beautiful. France, the only country realistic about the need for nuclear power (renewable energy is total nonsence: a wind farm will never in its lifetime generate the energy used to make the steel it's made of) will be the gainer, making billions building Britains nuclear power stations. The 'Greens' have been shafted!
I win! Hours after the dissapearence, I started betting people that within a week, some "expert" would claim it was caused by "global warming", the 21st century's universal bugaboo to explain the supposedly unexplainable.
Considering that global warming is a HOAX, the story is not very credible. Also considering La Nina is in effect in the Atlantic Ocean, it's not like it's really "warm" this year.
So, and aircraft is taken down because global warming caused a phenomenon of “the perfect storm”? The same phenomenon noted by sailors as “the doldrums” for centuries, back before automobiles, electrical plants, and everything else all of the green eaters complain about? Who knew!
I don't know a thing about aircraft design, but nothing's going to make me believe that installing a reliable floating DFDR on a modern plane is going to increase its weight by a lot or make tickets much more expensive. When should they be designed to eject? When the plane drops to a certain minimum altitude, or when a certain number of the plane's systems have failed, or when the hull depressurizes, or whenever - that's up to those mega-clever designers to figure out, and I'm sure it won't be difficult for them with all their diplomas, brain power and experience. As I already said, a modern plane should have at least two floating DFDR's - and they sure aren't supposed to cost or weigh more than a single passenger. Mankind's been launching people to OUTER SPACE for decades, and you're telling me we can't get aircraft safety right??? (Oh, and don't start telling me about space crashes either).
' I don't understand why such modern planes don't have at least two sets of black boxes - both designed to float on water (considering that two thirds of the Earth is water), with one programmed to automatically eject before/during/after a crash. It's such an obvious solution, so why hasn't it been implemented??? The ideal variant would be three sets: one to eject during a crash, one to eject after a crash, and one to stay inside the plane until the wreckage is recovered.' -----------------------------------------------
1) For a floating Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) to be of any use, it would need to be unattached to the structure in which it was being carried, so it would not be dragged to the bottom of the ocean along with the rest of the wreckage. That would leave it more prone to damage during a crash, in much the same way that unbelted car passengers tend to experience the most trauma during collisions.
2) The unit which would be meant to eject after a crash would need this mechanism built so robustly, that weight would certainly be an issue. And how do you know exactly when it should be ejected ? Some crashes do not kill anyone. Do you eject it at the tiniest bump? Moderate to severe turbulence would then cause a premature ejection of a system calibrated to that standard.
3) DFDR's are heavily constructed. More DFDR's, means fewer passengers, higher costs for each and every of the millions of passengers who will fly on that jet over the span of 15 years, and / or lower cargo capacity and / or range for that aircraft. Every pound is accounted for on modern jet airliners, due to the fact that competition is so fierce, and profit margins so tight.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but some of these issues have been dealt with by people with much more experience in airccraft safety, construction, and crash scenarios than you and I. They continue to do things the way they do, often for good reason.
I don't understand why such modern planes don't have at least two sets of black boxes - both designed to float on water (considering that two thirds of the Earth is water), with one programmed to automatically eject before/during/after a crash. It's such an obvious solution, so why hasn't it been implemented??? The ideal variant would be three sets: one to eject during a crash, one to eject after a crash, and one to stay inside the plane until the wreckage is recovered.
Currently the average global temperature is less than 0.1 degrees above the the last decade average. While CO2 has increased, the globally average has cooled for the past 11 years by 0.7 degrees from its high in 1998. The short term variations can rise and fall almost a full degree over only 12 months. The past has been a lot hotter and a lot cooler. CO2 levels in the distance past have been over 10 times today's concentration without any runaway doomsday scenarios.
Its politics and there is no field of science more corrupted then climate science. Many will be shamed in the years to come.
what craziness is this now wait until they get the plane and check all data relating to this plane going,and don't say it global warming either that's just something to make the USA go nuts over because they are planing to kill lots of people around the world and saying they have to do this because the humans are causing the warming.now this guy is saying the warming may have taken down this plane?not a chance in h**L something happened but i don't think it was global warming
' Thats funny, now because of what somebody says, we can continue destroying our place of living, or better, of others, because its the bad sun thats gonna fry us with combination of climate change we dont and cant influence. Who ever said the problem was only because of CO2 ? Because its easier to ignore? What eye doesnt see, the heart doesnt get hurt by ? There is no global warming, no climate change, and if, there is nothing we can do about it. That is incredibly defeatist and lazy. Now we can proceed destroying what is left. I hope those who say its nonsense, will have some real experience with it. Then any means of cooling down will be good, wont they? I guess when it will be late.' ---------------------------------------------
The sun is not going to fry us. The earth has a billion-year history of warming and cooling, and pretty much every Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic agrees to this fact, despite assertions by alarmists to convince the public otherwise. AGW alarmists are constantly attempting to marginalize their opposition, and have have gotten quite good at.
Most evidence demonstrates an average 800-year CO2 rise lag before temperatures begin to rise. The present situation is not outside the envelope of natural variability, unless you are still one of the few who believe Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick'. To this day, there is ZERO experimental data demonstrating that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, never mind the fact that there has been no temp rise since 1998. None. See UAH / MSU satellite data, for reference.
Attempting to stall CO2 rise has huge inherent risks - the first being that not nearly enough resources are available to complete the job. The Green Agenda would have you believe it is both doable, and affordable. It is neither. Hundreds of billions of tons of mitigated CO2 by 2050 will affect the temperature by one-tenth of one degree, and you can verify that fact by going to the IPCC, or using one of the climate modelling programs like MAGICC / SCENGEN which are available for free. In the meantime, precious time and resources are wasted, when they could have been directed toward water reallocation and / or dike construction. Spending most of your money attempting to cut CO2 emissions would have a huge risk, when put in that context.
CO2 is plant food. CO2 constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, especially when compared to the REAL greenhouse gas, water vapour ( less than 0.5% versus 78% ).
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earth First, Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club now have combined annual revenues in the $Billions. They are THE major lobbying force in Washington, and this entire issue is about POWER, and CONTROL. They have an agenda they wish to impose upon the rest of us, and it is not pretty. Vaclav Klaus knows Communism / Authoritarianism when he sees it, thus the reason for his book ' Blue Planet in Green Shackles'.
Be very afraid of what is to come, as Big Enviro ( Obama, Gore, Hansen, Pelosi, Browner, Waxman and Markey ) chisels itself deeply into your personal life through taxation and control.
The Russian climatologist has shamelessly used a terrible tragedy to spread global warming alarmist propaganda around the world. He should be severely sanctioned by his peers.
' Thats funny, now because of what somebody says, we can continue destroying our place of living, or better, of others, because its the bad sun thats gonna fry us with combination of climate change we dont and cant influence. Who ever said the problem was only because of CO2 ? Because its easier to ignore? What eye doesnt see, the heart doesnt get hurt by ? There is no global warming, no climate change, and if, there is nothing we can do about it. That is incredibly defeatist and lazy. Now we can proceed destroying what is left. I hope those who say its nonsense, will have some real experience with it. Then any means of cooling down will be good, wont they? I guess when it will be late.' ---------------------------------------------
The sun is not going to fry us. The earth has a billion-year history of warming and cooling, and pretty much every Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic agrees to this fact, despite the attempts at marginalizing the opposition which the AGW alarmists have gotten so good at.
Most evidence demonstrates an average 800-year CO2 rise lag after temperatures begin to rise. The present situation is not outside the envelope of natural variability, unless you are still one of the few who believe Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick'. To this day, there is ZERO experimental data demonstrating that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, never mind the fact that there has been no temp rise since 1998. None. See UAH / MSU satellite data, for reference.
Attempting to stall CO2 rise has huge inherent risks - the first being that not nearly enough resources are available to complete the job. The Green Agenda would have you believe it is both doable, and affordable. It is neither. Hundreds of billions of tons of mitigated CO2 by 2050 will affect the temperature by one-tenth of one degree, and you can verify that fact by going to the IPCC, or using one of the climate modelling programs like MAGICC / SCENGEN which are available for free. In the meantime, precious time and resources are wasted, when they could have been directed toward water reallocation and / or dike construction. Spending most of your money attempting to cut CO2 emissions would have a huge risk, when put in that context.
CO2 is plant food. CO2 constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, especially when compared to the REAL greenhouse gas, water vapour ( less than 0.5% versus 78% ).
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earth First, Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club now have combined annual revenues in the $Billions. They are THE major lobbying force in Washington, and this entire issue is about POWER, and CONTROL. They have an agenda they wish to impose upon the rest of us, and it is not pretty. Vaclav Klaus knows Communism / Authoritarianism when he sees it, thus the reason for his book ' Blue Planet in Green Shackles'.
Be very afraid of what is to come, as Big Enviro ( Obama, Gore, Hansen, Pelosi, Browner, Waxman and Markey ) chisels itself deeply into your personal life through taxation and control.
The claimed link to global warming, for either this event or for supposed greater risk to the commercial airline industry, is attention-seeking nonsense, imo. If anything, the airline industry is similar to the mobility of bird and flying insect populations; they're at the least risk from the consequences of Greenhouse Gas pollution. This Airline disaster is going to come down to mechanical failure or the catch-all 'pilot error', combined with freak weather conditions where the wrong answer came up on the 'probability grid'.
What a pile of hot air. Unbelievable crap. Whoever wrote this nonsense and the person that allowed it to see the light of day should have their writing licenses revoked. I cannot believe that anyone would suggest this and would actually say it out loud. Words fail me. This is the worse "journalism" I've ever seen. Utter and complete nonsense.
I've flown over that area hundreds of times, and seen nothing unusual. The idea that the ITCZ frightens pilots is absurd, and only frightens readers. There are several articles on flying and flight anxiety at www.fearofflying.com/wordpress/
Even small aircraft have radar, usually with five, ten and fifteen mile penetration settings so you are always aware of turbulence. For obvious reasons, one does not fly straight into severe turbulence (which is characterized by the cumulus shape of the cloud formation, circumference and height. These things are highly visible on radar.) The cost of a delay in the arrival time is cheap compared with any risk to the ship. Something else happened, just fast enough to get an automatic distress signal out and nothing more. This accident may very well remain a mystery.
Thats funny, now because of what somebody says, we can continue destroying our place of living, or better, of others, because its the bad sun thats gonna fry us with combination of climate change we dont and cant influence. Who ever said the problem was only because of CO2 ? Because its easier to ignore? What eye doesnt see, the heart doesnt get hurt by ? There is no global warming, no climate change, and if, there is nothing we can do about it. That is incredibly defeatist and lazy. Now we can proceed destroying what is left. I hope those who say its nonsense, will have some real experience with it. Then any means of cooling down will be good, wont they? I guess when it will be late.
I guess thats true about that water-filled air, seems to me like when youre jumping in water, with high speed and big surface is a lot different to just stepping in water pressure-wise. So basically going through such a storm means making yourself a trouble, either from being torn apart or losing height and energy overall making departure from it harder.
Te ITCZ is a dangerous zone and I can attest to the fact that clouds there build to greater heights than the 50,000ft claimed. Over fourty years ago flying over the Indian Ocean, we encountered severe clear air turbulence near the ITCZ and tried to climb out of it. We climbed through and beyond 55,000 ft and there were clouds building above us even beyond the aircraft service ceiling of 65,000ft. We survived, unfortunately flight 447 did not. These high energy updraughts have been around since before global warming became a perceived problem so as far as I am concerned are a normal event in the area of the ITCZ.
Up until now, the Russians have been very level - headed in their attitudes about 'global warming;, the worldwide political phenomenon which has conveniently morphed into 'climate change'.
Because they have the honour of living daily with some of the earth's most extreme climate conditions, the Russians ability to forecast long range trends is critically important.Through their research, they understand much better the correlation between climate and solar activity ( 77%), as opposed to CO2 (22% ) during the last hundred years. Not many Russian scientists are bowing to the IPCC dogma.
Hence, this report is surprising, and probably not the beginning of a trend.
June 23, 2009, 17:41
The 'Greens' are on safe ground here: nothing that happened to AF447 could possibly refute their belief; it could only serve as a failed confirmation. The psuedoscience of global warming: confirmations everywhere but never contenance one refutation. This is more like a belief system than real science, which progresses by refutations. But perhaps 'science' is now corrupted and is more concerned about research grants and careers than the truth. The 'Greens' are the people being controlled: How can they now object to nuclear power stations? More coal fired stations will produce more CO2. And how will Britain and America fund the building of these nuclear power stations? Why, by carbon tax, of course! It's beautiful. France, the only country realistic about the need for nuclear power (renewable energy is total nonsence: a wind farm will never in its lifetime generate the energy used to make the steel it's made of) will be the gainer, making billions building Britains nuclear power stations. The 'Greens' have been shafted!
June 09, 2009, 19:36
I win! Hours after the dissapearence, I started betting people that within a week, some "expert" would claim it was caused by "global warming", the 21st century's universal bugaboo to explain the supposedly unexplainable.
June 09, 2009, 15:48
Considering that global warming is a HOAX, the story is not very credible. Also considering La Nina is in effect in the Atlantic Ocean, it's not like it's really "warm" this year.
Go write some REAL NEWS.
June 09, 2009, 02:06
So, and aircraft is taken down because global warming caused a phenomenon of “the perfect storm”? The same phenomenon noted by sailors as “the doldrums” for centuries, back before automobiles, electrical plants, and everything else all of the green eaters complain about? Who knew!
June 07, 2009, 15:58
I don't know a thing about aircraft design, but nothing's going to make me believe that installing a reliable floating DFDR on a modern plane is going to increase its weight by a lot or make tickets much more expensive. When should they be designed to eject? When the plane drops to a certain minimum altitude, or when a certain number of the plane's systems have failed, or when the hull depressurizes, or whenever - that's up to those mega-clever designers to figure out, and I'm sure it won't be difficult for them with all their diplomas, brain power and experience. As I already said, a modern plane should have at least two floating DFDR's - and they sure aren't supposed to cost or weigh more than a single passenger. Mankind's been launching people to OUTER SPACE for decades, and you're telling me we can't get aircraft safety right??? (Oh, and don't start telling me about space crashes either).
June 06, 2009, 23:38
gbaturin wrote:
' I don't understand why such modern planes don't have at least two sets of black boxes - both designed to float on water (considering that two thirds of the Earth is water), with one programmed to automatically eject before/during/after a crash. It's such an obvious solution, so why hasn't it been implemented??? The ideal variant would be three sets: one to eject during a crash, one to eject after a crash, and one to stay inside the plane until the wreckage is recovered.'
-----------------------------------------------
1) For a floating Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) to be of any use, it would need to be unattached to the structure in which it was being carried, so it would not be dragged to the bottom of the ocean along with the rest of the wreckage. That would leave it more prone to damage during a crash, in much the same way that unbelted car passengers tend to experience the most trauma during collisions.
2) The unit which would be meant to eject after a crash would need this mechanism built so robustly, that weight would certainly be an issue. And how do you know exactly when it should be ejected ? Some crashes do not kill anyone. Do you eject it at the tiniest bump? Moderate to severe turbulence would then cause a premature ejection of a system calibrated to that standard.
3) DFDR's are heavily constructed. More DFDR's, means fewer passengers, higher costs for each and every of the millions of passengers who will fly on that jet over the span of 15 years, and / or lower cargo capacity and / or range for that aircraft. Every pound is accounted for on modern jet airliners, due to the fact that competition is so fierce, and profit margins so tight.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but some of these issues have been dealt with by people with much more experience in airccraft safety, construction, and crash scenarios than you and I. They continue to do things the way they do, often for good reason.
June 06, 2009, 16:51
I don't understand why such modern planes don't have at least two sets of black boxes - both designed to float on water (considering that two thirds of the Earth is water), with one programmed to automatically eject before/during/after a crash. It's such an obvious solution, so why hasn't it been implemented??? The ideal variant would be three sets: one to eject during a crash, one to eject after a crash, and one to stay inside the plane until the wreckage is recovered.
June 06, 2009, 05:27
Complete and utter nonsense.
Currently the average global temperature is less than 0.1 degrees above the the last decade average.
While CO2 has increased, the globally average has cooled for the past 11 years by 0.7 degrees from its high in 1998.
The short term variations can rise and fall almost a full degree over only 12 months.
The past has been a lot hotter and a lot cooler.
CO2 levels in the distance past have been over 10 times today's concentration without any runaway doomsday scenarios.
Its politics and there is no field of science more corrupted then climate science. Many will be shamed in the years to come.
June 06, 2009, 05:25
what craziness is this now wait until they get the plane and check all data relating to this plane going,and don't say it global warming either that's just something to make the USA go nuts over because they are planing to kill lots of people around the world and saying they have to do this because the humans are causing the warming.now this guy is saying the warming may have taken down this plane?not a chance in h**L something happened but i don't think it was global warming
June 05, 2009, 23:51
Tomas wrote:
' Thats funny, now because of what somebody says, we can continue destroying our place of living, or better, of others, because its the bad sun thats gonna fry us with combination of climate change we dont and cant influence. Who ever said the problem was only because of CO2 ? Because its easier to ignore? What eye doesnt see, the heart doesnt get hurt by ? There is no global warming, no climate change, and if, there is nothing we can do about it. That is incredibly defeatist and lazy. Now we can proceed destroying what is left. I hope those who say its nonsense, will have some real experience with it. Then any means of cooling down will be good, wont they? I guess when it will be late.'
---------------------------------------------
The sun is not going to fry us. The earth has a billion-year history of warming and cooling, and pretty much every Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic agrees to this fact, despite assertions by alarmists to convince the public otherwise. AGW alarmists are constantly attempting to marginalize their opposition, and have have gotten quite good at.
Most evidence demonstrates an average 800-year CO2 rise lag before temperatures begin to rise. The present situation is not outside the envelope of natural variability, unless you are still one of the few who believe Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick'. To this day, there is ZERO experimental data demonstrating that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, never mind the fact that there has been no temp rise since 1998. None. See UAH / MSU satellite data, for reference.
Attempting to stall CO2 rise has huge inherent risks - the first being that not nearly enough resources are available to complete the job. The Green Agenda would have you believe it is both doable, and affordable. It is neither. Hundreds of billions of tons of mitigated CO2 by 2050 will affect the temperature by one-tenth of one degree, and you can verify that fact by going to the IPCC, or using one of the climate modelling programs like MAGICC / SCENGEN which are available for free. In the meantime, precious time and resources are wasted, when they could have been directed toward water reallocation and / or dike construction. Spending most of your money attempting to cut CO2 emissions would have a huge risk, when put in that context.
CO2 is plant food. CO2 constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, especially when compared to the REAL greenhouse gas, water vapour ( less than 0.5% versus 78% ).
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earth First, Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club now have combined annual revenues in the $Billions. They are THE major lobbying force in Washington, and this entire issue is about POWER, and CONTROL. They have an agenda they wish to impose upon the rest of us, and it is not pretty. Vaclav Klaus knows Communism / Authoritarianism when he sees it, thus the reason for his book ' Blue Planet in Green Shackles'.
Be very afraid of what is to come, as Big Enviro ( Obama, Gore, Hansen, Pelosi, Browner, Waxman and Markey ) chisels itself deeply into your personal life through taxation and control.
Follow the Money.
June 05, 2009, 18:04
The Russian climatologist has shamelessly used a terrible tragedy to spread global warming alarmist propaganda around the world. He should be severely sanctioned by his peers.
June 05, 2009, 15:57
Tomas wrote:
' Thats funny, now because of what somebody says, we can continue destroying our place of living, or better, of others, because its the bad sun thats gonna fry us with combination of climate change we dont and cant influence. Who ever said the problem was only because of CO2 ? Because its easier to ignore? What eye doesnt see, the heart doesnt get hurt by ? There is no global warming, no climate change, and if, there is nothing we can do about it. That is incredibly defeatist and lazy. Now we can proceed destroying what is left. I hope those who say its nonsense, will have some real experience with it. Then any means of cooling down will be good, wont they? I guess when it will be late.'
---------------------------------------------
The sun is not going to fry us. The earth has a billion-year history of warming and cooling, and pretty much every Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptic agrees to this fact, despite the attempts at marginalizing the opposition which the AGW alarmists have gotten so good at.
Most evidence demonstrates an average 800-year CO2 rise lag after temperatures begin to rise. The present situation is not outside the envelope of natural variability, unless you are still one of the few who believe Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick'. To this day, there is ZERO experimental data demonstrating that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, never mind the fact that there has been no temp rise since 1998. None. See UAH / MSU satellite data, for reference.
Attempting to stall CO2 rise has huge inherent risks - the first being that not nearly enough resources are available to complete the job. The Green Agenda would have you believe it is both doable, and affordable. It is neither. Hundreds of billions of tons of mitigated CO2 by 2050 will affect the temperature by one-tenth of one degree, and you can verify that fact by going to the IPCC, or using one of the climate modelling programs like MAGICC / SCENGEN which are available for free. In the meantime, precious time and resources are wasted, when they could have been directed toward water reallocation and / or dike construction. Spending most of your money attempting to cut CO2 emissions would have a huge risk, when put in that context.
CO2 is plant food. CO2 constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, especially when compared to the REAL greenhouse gas, water vapour ( less than 0.5% versus 78% ).
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earth First, Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club now have combined annual revenues in the $Billions. They are THE major lobbying force in Washington, and this entire issue is about POWER, and CONTROL. They have an agenda they wish to impose upon the rest of us, and it is not pretty. Vaclav Klaus knows Communism / Authoritarianism when he sees it, thus the reason for his book ' Blue Planet in Green Shackles'.
Be very afraid of what is to come, as Big Enviro ( Obama, Gore, Hansen, Pelosi, Browner, Waxman and Markey ) chisels itself deeply into your personal life through taxation and control.
Follow the Money.
June 05, 2009, 15:50
The claimed link to global warming, for either this event or for supposed greater risk to the commercial airline industry, is attention-seeking nonsense, imo. If anything, the airline industry is similar to the mobility of bird and flying insect populations; they're at the least risk from the consequences of Greenhouse Gas pollution. This Airline disaster is going to come down to mechanical failure or the catch-all 'pilot error', combined with freak weather conditions where the wrong answer came up on the 'probability grid'.
June 05, 2009, 15:44
What a pile of hot air. Unbelievable crap. Whoever wrote this nonsense and the person that allowed it to see the light of day should have their writing licenses revoked. I cannot believe that anyone would suggest this and would actually say it out loud. Words fail me. This is the worse "journalism" I've ever seen. Utter and complete nonsense.
June 05, 2009, 14:29
I've flown over that area hundreds of times, and seen nothing unusual. The idea that the ITCZ frightens pilots is absurd, and only frightens readers. There are several articles on flying and flight anxiety at www.fearofflying.com/wordpress/
June 05, 2009, 13:33
Even small aircraft have radar, usually with five, ten and fifteen mile penetration settings so you are always aware of turbulence. For obvious reasons, one does not fly straight into severe turbulence (which is characterized by the cumulus shape of the cloud formation, circumference and height. These things are highly visible on radar.)
The cost of a delay in the arrival time is cheap compared with any risk to the ship.
Something else happened, just fast enough to get an automatic distress signal out and nothing more.
This accident may very well remain a mystery.
June 05, 2009, 10:34
Thats funny, now because of what somebody says, we can continue destroying our place of living, or better, of others, because its the bad sun thats gonna fry us with combination of climate change we dont and cant influence. Who ever said the problem was only because of CO2 ? Because its easier to ignore? What eye doesnt see, the heart doesnt get hurt by ? There is no global warming, no climate change, and if, there is nothing we can do about it. That is incredibly defeatist and lazy. Now we can proceed destroying what is left. I hope those who say its nonsense, will have some real experience with it. Then any means of cooling down will be good, wont they? I guess when it will be late.
I guess thats true about that water-filled air, seems to me like when youre jumping in water, with high speed and big surface is a lot different to just stepping in water pressure-wise. So basically going through such a storm means making yourself a trouble, either from being torn apart or losing height and energy overall making departure from it harder.
June 05, 2009, 09:17
Te ITCZ is a dangerous zone and I can attest to the fact that clouds there build to greater heights than the 50,000ft claimed. Over fourty years ago flying over the Indian Ocean, we encountered severe clear air turbulence near the ITCZ and tried to climb out of it. We climbed through and beyond 55,000 ft and there were clouds building above us even beyond the aircraft service ceiling of 65,000ft. We survived, unfortunately flight 447 did not. These high energy updraughts have been around since before global warming became a perceived problem so as far as I am concerned are a normal event in the area of the ITCZ.
June 05, 2009, 01:48
Up until now, the Russians have been very level - headed in their attitudes about 'global warming;, the worldwide political phenomenon which has conveniently morphed into 'climate change'.
Because they have the honour of living daily with some of the earth's most extreme climate conditions, the Russians ability to forecast long range trends is critically important.Through their research, they understand much better the correlation between climate and solar activity ( 77%), as opposed to CO2 (22% ) during the last hundred years. Not many Russian scientists are bowing to the IPCC dogma.
Hence, this report is surprising, and probably not the beginning of a trend.
June 05, 2009, 00:46
Nonsense. Each and everyone metheorology book says the opposite, if some global warming is really happenig...
Post comment