Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[MORAY37]

Understand that the P-38 would fill with water in less than 90 seconds. Why? Completely unsealed airframe. Ditto for most WWII vintage aircraft. Buoyancy in an aircraft is a function of the ability to seal out water.

My point was and is that comparing a P-38 to an A320 is apples and oranges. There is no comparison, especially from an engineering standpoint.

Now, there's no question that the P-38s in Greenland did not sink into the ice. They were buried under decades of snow, which was compressed into near solid ice by there sheer weight of it. If you live in a climate where snow accumulates to considerable depth, you will find that the deeper you dig down, the more dense the snow becomes. You literally need a pick axe to break up the compressed snow at the bottom of 12 feet of winter accumulation. Up at the family cabin in NW Maine, clearing the driveway prior to the spring thaw meant not clearing the last foot or two of snow depth. You would have hack out that snow with axes as it was so compressed as to be nearly solid. A heavy plow was useless.


My regards,

Widewing

You are looking at it from the engineering standpoint of long term flotation, I see.  I understand your view now.  I thought you were questioning the principle.  I was not implying that a P38 was a boat, by any means.  Just that it wasn't a brick, which makes the transition from air to underwater without an in-between period of sinking.

I hope Bodhi reads your post, though.

[CAP1]

And two long hollow tubes for the tail.

And two more for the wings.

(Image removed from quote.)

but sir, those tailbooms aren't as hollow as one would think.


note, that there is pretty much inside of these booms, at least 1/2 way back.

[Anaxogoras]

:-)
paperclips don't float(at least i don't think they do)

This is surface tension at work:

[Anaxogoras]

This discussion is losing sight of the fact that the original question was whether a P-38 would sink through ice, not water. 

[MORAY37]

This discussion is losing sight of the fact that the original question was whether a P-38 would sink through ice, not water.  

Agreed.  It is exhausting trying to discuss basic science principles to form a baseline.

[MORAY37]

but sir, those tailbooms aren't as hollow as one would think.
(Image removed from quote.)

note, that there is pretty much inside of these booms, at least 1/2 way back.

The only thing that matters is the volume of air within. As you can see, the interior is mostly hollow.  Add to that the specific gravity of the fuel within the sealed tanks, and the P38 will most certainly float in water for a time. 

[Anaxogoras]

Based on everything I know about physical science and H2O, there's a threshold for density in predicting whether an object would push through solid ice over many years, but that threshold is not the density of ice.  Since we're dealing with a solid, the question is whether the object has the density to break the ice's crystalline structure, not whether it is more or less dense than ice.  The phenomena of some dense objects descending into ice is due to the fact that we're observing the surface, where some of the H2O is subliming away.  Below the surface where no phase change occurs (and provided that the temperature is <0 C), an object, like a rock, does not have sufficient force break the astronomical number of hydrogen bonds that compose the crystalline ice.

[E25280]

Massaging data does not negate the claim.  Your claim is "AGW isn't happening".  This isn't supported by "CRU massaged data".  Massaging data doesn't prove or disprove a thing.  It simply proves that data trends were smoothed.

Scientist:  It is 80 degrees outside.  It should only be 79.  The Earth is warming.
Normal Guy:  Wow, that's bad.
Whistleblower:  Scientist changed his data so that it showed 80 degrees. 
Normal Guy:  Scientist, what temperature was it really?
Scientist:  . . .
Whistleblower:  We don't know what the temperature really was because Scientist won't release and/or destroyed the raw data.
Normal Guy:  Scientist, is this true?  Please show me the raw data.
Scientist.  I don't have to.  The Earth is warming.

What is the logical conclusion for Normal Guy?

1) The world must be warming anyway.  The lying, scheming, data-hiding scientist surely must have a good reason for lying, scheming, and hiding data.

or

2) If the world was really warming as Scientist says, he would have no reason to lie, scheme, or hide data.  Therefore his entire asertion that the world is warming must be false, or at the very least, unsupported by any evidence.


I think the conclusion is fairly obvious.

[Widewing]

This discussion is losing sight of the fact that the original question was whether a P-38 would sink through ice, not water.  

It won't..... It would sink into snow to depth where the density of the snow is sufficient that the distributed weight is inadequate to compress the snow any further. That depends entirely on the density of the underlying snow. Another factor is that the top layer of snow will often soften and partially melt due to sun light (even at very low air temperatures). It will refreeze as ice. Also, when you compress snow you generate heat. This causes the snow to lose its crystal structure and begin to behave more like pure ice. Commonly, the temperature of ice may actually increase with depth. Again, due to compression which generates heat.

Here's an example. I can air down the tires on my Jeep and drive on top of the compressed layer of snow under the most recent layer. If I fail to air down, the higher load per square inch may be enough to compress the sub-layers of snow and create a trough, in which one can bog down. Driving through one layer, even very deep, is usually easier than driving through many layers of increasing density. Which is why you don't air down when driving on roads covered with deep snow. The underlying surface will not compress at all.



My regards,

Widewing

[Anaxogoras]

SWTarget,

You're generalizing from the CRU to climate scientists in general.  Is that warranted?

Secondly, people lie, cheat, and steal for things they could have legitimately all of the time, i.e. without good reasons for doing so.  Every normal guy knows that.

If the world was really warming as Scientist says, he would have no reason to lie, scheme, or hide data.  Therefore his entire asertion that the world is warming must be false, or at the very least, unsupported by any evidence.

You need to split this into two parts.  I would have to agree that it seems like the CRU has failed the credibility test in their presentation of evidence for AGW.  But logic does not allow me to go from there to the claim that AGW is not happening.

What humans believe, and how they represent their beliefs, is no evidence for or against something like AGW.

[Anaxogoras]

It won't.....

It's nice to see people from opposite sides of a debate agree on something.

[E25280]

SWTarget,

You're generalizing from the CRU to climate scientists in general.  Is that warranted?

Secondly, people lie, cheat, and steal for things they could have legitimately all of the time, i.e. without good reasons for doing so.  Every normal guy knows that.

You need to split this into two parts.  I would have to agree that it seems like the CRU has failed the credibility test in their presentation of evidence for AGW.  But logic does not allow me to go from there to the claim that AGW is not happening.

What humans believe, and how they represent their beliefs, is no evidence for or against something like AGW.

In answer to your first question -- when all the alarminst scientists are using the same sets of data, poo-poo any contrary data or evidence, and have shown a clear pattern of attempting to suppress any alternate views -- then absolutely, it is not only warranted to paint all of their research with the same broad stroke, it is nearly mandatory.

If they had always put out the raw data, so that anyone and everyone with an interest could use it, and then debate the results/conclusions of varying analysis, then one could have a rational discussion on the matter.

But that isn't what has happened.  There have been a select few with a definite agenda who have controlled and manipulated the data to fit their purposes.  No conclusion drawn from such contrived data can be believed, because the conclusions are going to be what the holders of the data want them to be.  Whether a given scientist is himself knowingly giving false conclusions can be debated . . . the fact that his conclusion is based on falsified data is no longer in question.

And, yes -- you absolutely can throw out the claim when you can't say with any certainty that the data used to create the claim in the first place is or is not valid.  I claim to be an expert at rain in France.  I claim it is raining over Paris today.  Are you going to take me at my word?  I have provided no evidence that it is raining over Paris today, I am merely claiming it.  Do you need to take me at face value?  Of course not.  Neither do we need to take global warming folks at face value when they block or attempt to block those who want the raw data they are using to support their claims.  Put out the raw data. Open the methodology behind the computer models. If they don't or won't, there is no possible verification of the their claims.  That's bad science.  Period.

[Bodhi]

So you claim a P38 can't float in water...

But this can?

(Image removed from quote.)

Until filled with water, of course.  (When its density is then higher than water)

Comparing a P-38 to a an A320 is ludicrous.

This is becoming a waste of time.

[MORAY37]

Comparing a P-38 to a an A320 is ludicrous.

This is becoming a waste of time.

Claiming a P38 can sink through ice to a depth of 268 feet isn't ludicrous????  LOL.  Keep up the entertainment kiddo.    Widewing even shot you down.

[Bodhi]

Claiming a P38 can sink through ice to a depth of 268 feet isn't ludicrous????  LOL.  Keep up the entertainment kiddo.    Widewing even shot you down.

The P-38's did sink into the ice>  Did they do it to a depth of 260+ feet, no.  As mentioned snow accumulation turning to ice added the majority to that layer.  The P-38's did sink through the ice, as any weight will do.