Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Bodhi]

The weight of this ensures it will sink. 
(Image removed from quote.)

It doesn't. 

Weight has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.

An object cannot sink through any medium until its' density becomes higher than the medium it rests in.  Pure simple science.

It most certainly does when you describe buoyancy.  The P-38, WILL NOT FLOAT in the water.  It sinks, immediately.  It has no positive buoyancy after teh net of the airframe is totaled.  The ship you showed, is designed to float, not fly.  The comparison you tried has absolutely NO comparable aspects.  The P-38's in Greenland most certainly sank in the ice owing to their weight as well as had years of snow pile up and add to the ice on top.  You are really being silly at this point.


Let also try this again as your spin away from the topic is ruining this thread...  Again I am asking you to address this:

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

[Anaxogoras]

Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.

Scientific dishonesty in support of AGW does not earn you the conclusion that AGW is not happening, unless you simply stipulate it as you do in italics.  If you're going to offer "proof" for a claim, don't restate the claim as part of your proof.

P1. the CRU was modifying their numbers to support climate change

P2. climate change was not actually happening

C. Man made global warming is not happening.

Without P2, your argument is invalid.  With P2, your argument is vacuous.

[MORAY37]

It most certainly does when you describe buoyancy.  The P-38, WILL NOT FLOAT in the water.  It sinks, immediately.  It has no positive buoyancy after teh net of the airframe is totaled.  The ship you showed, is designed to float, not fly.  The comparison you tried has absolutely NO comparable aspects.  The P-38's in Greenland most certainly sank in the ice owing to their weight as well as had years of snow pile up and add to the ice on top.  You are really being silly at this point.

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

But this can?



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

[MORAY37]

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

You can't prove your point by restating that point as evidence, Bodhi.

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.

*EDIT*  I just saw Anax's post and he did a much better job describing where your logic is flawed.  Credit to him.

[Fishu]

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

But this can?

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

I'd say P38 fills up with water much faster than the Airbus, since P38 isn't pressurized. It might be too heavy as well unlike the long empty tube.

[MORAY37]

I'd say P38 fills up with water much faster than the Airbus, since P38 isn't pressurized. It might be too heavy as well unlike the long empty tube.

That's funny, because all the doors are open.  

So, you'd say something like Bodhi, that makes no sense logically or intuitively.

And,

A320 weights.  (One long empty tube)
 Standard max takeoff for both versions 73,500kg (162,040lb) or optionally 75,500kg (166,445lb) or 77,000kg (169,755lb).

P38 weight (2 Long empty tubes, with a third, mostly empty tube in between)
   Weight: Empty 12,800 lbs., Max Takeoff 21,600 lbs

Both will float, until they fill with water, and become more dense than the water they rest upon.

[Widewing]

That's funny, because all the doors are open.  

So, you'd say something like Bodhi, that makes no sense logically or intuitively.

The cargo/baggage compartment is closed and sealed. The rear cabin door was mistakenly opened and that rapidly flooded the cabin.

Commercial airliners are designed with lots of flotation built in. If the fuselage is intact, they will float long enough to evacuate the cabin. A P-38, on the other hand, will sink like a brick. Ever see that film of that F6F ditching alongside its carrier. It sank within 30 seconds. B-24 crews were instructed to bail out rather than ditch. The fuselage would rupture and the big bomber would sink in seconds. Most crew members didn't survive B-24 ditches. B-17s, however, did much better with their low wing and being less prone to the fuselage being shredded on contact with the sea.


My regards,

Widewing

[MORAY37]

The cargo/baggage compartment is closed and sealed. The rear cabin door was mistakenly opened and that rapidly flooded the cabin.

Commercial airliners are designed with lots of flotation built in. If the fuselage is intact, they will float long enough to evacuate the cabin. A P-38, on the other hand, will sink like a brick. Ever see that film of that F6F ditching alongside its carrier. It sank within 30 seconds. B-24 crews were instructed to bail out rather than ditch. The fuselage would rupture and the big bomber would sink in seconds. Most crew members didn't survive B-24 ditches. B-17s, however, did much better with their low wing and being less prone to the fuselage being shredded on contact with the sea.


My regards,

Widewing

Wide, I'm incredulous that an engineer wouldn't shoot down this incredible stupidity.

Flotation and Buoyancy are basic scientific principles, all hinged upon density.

That F6 floated until it filled with water.  That is the point.  It didn't sink like a brick. A brick has more density than water.  The F6 did not, until filled with water.  It can't be anymore basic than that.  5th grade science students get this correct.



Which is why this worked at all.

http://www.nwrain.com/~newtsuit/recoveries/p-38/p38ditch.htm

I especially like the picture at the bottom of this link. It shows a picture of a ditched P38, albeit from recollection of those involved in Alaska.

[CAP1]

Yes it does.  Boats do not float on water like paperclips.

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

 boats, due to their shape, and the fact that they're pretty much hollow, displace or move water as they settle into it. i believe that's how they're rated? in tons of displacement?
 although they've sunk partly into the water, i believe they've not really broken the surface tension. i could be wrong though/

[CAP1]

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)

i believe that due to the fact that the airbus is mostly hollow, to carry passengers and cargo/luggage, that it is much more bouyant than a p-38, which contains one tiny hollow area for the pilot.

[MORAY37]

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

 boats, due to their shape, and the fact that they're pretty much hollow, displace or move water as they settle into it. i believe that's how they're rated? in tons of displacement?
 although they've sunk partly into the water, i believe they've not really broken the surface tension. i could be wrong though/

Paperclips distribute their weight to the extent that they don't break the surface tension of H₂O molecules.  And you are wrong, I'm sorry.  Surface tension is only the first layer of molecules.  A boat's hull most certainly goes through it.

If you push paperclip through this layer, it sinks. It has a higher density.

A boat, has less density than water, and is pushed back up.

[MORAY37]

i believe that due to the fact that the airbus is mostly hollow, to carry passengers and cargo/luggage, that it is much more bouyant than a p-38, which contains one tiny hollow area for the pilot.

And two long hollow tubes for the tail.

And two more for the wings.

[CAP1]

You can't prove your point by restating that point as evidence, Bodhi.

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.

*EDIT*  I just saw Anax's post and he did a much better job describing where your logic is flawed.  Credit to him.

 massaging the information doesn't negate the claim..this is very very true.

 what id DOES do, however, is cast serious doubt on the validity of anything at all put forth by those that did it. when it comes right down to it, massaging it, is lieing.
 there may be some in those groups that didn't lie, massage any info, or do anything wrong.....but they are also guilty now, by association.

[Widewing]

Wide, I'm incredulous that an engineer wouldn't shoot down this incredible stupidity.

Flotation and Buoyancy are basic scientific principles, all hinged upon density.

That F6 floated until it filled with water.  That is the point.  It didn't sink like a brick. A brick has more density than water.  The F6 did not, until filled with water.  It can't be anymore basic than that.  5th grade science students get this correct.

(Image removed from quote.)

Which is why this worked at all.

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

[Widewing]

And two long hollow tubes for the tail.

And two more for the wings.

(Image removed from quote.)

Two things. Unsealed. These "tubes" will fill rapidly. Second thing, insufficient internal volume to counter the mass. As the airframe settles, water pressure increases, thereby increasing the rate of flooding. The deeper it sinks, the quicker it floods. You know how rapidly water pressure rises with depth. Several feet will greatly increase the flooding rate. That's why these old aircraft seem to accelerate into sinking. They don't sink at a constant rate.


My regards,

Widewing