jerryzflies

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling? That must explain why the Arctic sea ice is now 2 standard deviations below its historic average, and 2009 looks set to equal the record low (set in 2007) since record keeping began. It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009) My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128. Go back and re-read the first line of the post you quoted - to wit, "Correlation does not equal causation". Oh, and those GISS temps you're using? Those were revised a couple years ago - DOWNWARD, and due to research by on Anthony Watts - a "denier". But, since you're such the expert - why don't YOU explain how Mars is showing the same approximate increase in temperature (approx .5C) and over the same duration (about the last 30 years) as the Earth has. I think you are confusing US with global temps. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ Your Mars red herring isn't flying. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling? That must explain why the Arctic sea ice is now 2 standard deviations below its historic average, and 2009 looks set to equal the record low (set in 2007) since record keeping began. It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009) My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128. Ah, ice levels are increasing Are you on Mars with mnealtx? ARCTIC (northern hemisphere, as mentioned above) sea ice is DECREASING, as it does every summer at this time. See nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ and for the long term DECREASING trend nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure3.png See attached pic for satellite measurement of sea level rise. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Yes, you're correct - I can't find any quotes where Clinton said he had any values. Did you finally buy a dictionary? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Lockheed engineer: F-22 Raptor Stealth tech is 'defective' Emperor's invisible clothes actually visible shocker By Lewis Page www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/30/raptor_stealth_crap_lawsuit/page2.html 30th June 2009 An engineer formerly employed by Lockheed, maker of the famous F-22 Raptor stealth jet, has mounted a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that Lockheed has supplied the controversial superfighter with "defective" stealth coatings. The claims are sure to add fuel to the fiery debate raging at present in Washington over whether to cease production of the Raptor. In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in California, Darrol O Olsen states that between 1995 and 1999 he witnessed Lockheed knowingly use on Raptors "coatings that Lockheed knew were defective". Olsen says that he was "one of the top... low observables engineers in the stealth technology industry", having worked on the original F-117 stealth fighter and at Northrop on the B-2 stealth bomber before joining the F-22 team. Olsen further alleges that low-quality stealth coatings have not only worsened the radar and infrared visibility of the F-22, but that they have been a factor in dangerous and expensive accidents - as when a piece of coating broke off and was sucked into an F-22 engine last year, causing over a million dollars of damage. Olsen goes on to say that such "third-party reports" indicate that the Raptor's stealth protection "has not been remedied through the present date". He says that Lockheed "continued to misrepresent the problems with the F-22's coatings through at least October 2004 and likely to the present date". Allegations could strengthen Obama's hand in cancelling further Raptor production At the moment a hard-fought debate is raging in Washington regarding the future of Raptor production. President Obama and his Defense Secretary Robert Gates want to cease manufacture once the US air force has a total of 187 F-22s; however, politicians from districts where the Raptor is made are resisting them. Furthermore, although Gates has managed to partially bring the US airforce to heel by replacing its two top bosses last year, institutionally the service passionately desires a much larger Raptor fleet. Gates' desire to save money for combat troops by purchasing drones and "affordably stealthy" F-35s, more useful for strike missions, is backed by the other US services for different reasons. Furthermore, the White House has signalled (www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/25/obama_threatens_veto_on_raptor/) that President Obama may deploy his veto against attempts to maintain the pricey Raptor in production. Nonetheless, it's plain that Gates has a fight on his hands. A lot of observers have always questioned the need for the Raptor, designed for a Cold War scenario of high-intensity conventional air combat above Europe against Soviet superfighters which never actually appeared. Now Olsen's lawsuit, in at least some eyes (pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/06/former-lockheed-martin-engineer-calls-fraud-on-f22-stealth.html), has further called "the justification for the whole [F-22] program" into question, let alone the matter of continued production. On the other hand, people knowledgeable about stealth technology have always indicated that shape is more important than coatings when building a stealthy aircraft. Olsen's allegations, even if true, may not mean that the F-22's stealthiness is entirely invalidated: and after all, the plane is in service and has already flown in many air-combat exercises. If its radar cross-section is in fact unacceptably high, one would expect the US armed services to know already - Lockheed couldn't have kept the fact secret to this point. None of this is to suggest that Lockheed wouldn't be in significant trouble - perhaps to the point of massive fines and jailed executives - if Olsen's allegations are true, but dodgy coatings wouldn't on the face of it make the F-22 completely worthless. The Reg has contacted Lockheed reps in the UK today, but so far the company has declined to offer any comment on the matter. In summary: Olsen's lawsuit, even if true, wouldn't on its own seem likely to invalidate the whole concept of the Raptor and lead to the plane's withdrawal from service. But it will provide ammunition for critics of the expensive superfighter, strengthening the SecDef's (and the President's) hand in their attempts to shift US defense funding to other areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ex-F-22 engineer to sue Lockheed for stealth design By Stephen Trimble www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/30/329025/ex-f-22-engineer-to-sue-lockheed-for-stealth-design.html A stealth expert on the F-117 and B-2 programmes intends to file suit against Lockheed Martin later this week for concealing alleged deficiencies with the stealth coatings for the F-22. The pending lawsuit accuses Lockheed of knowingly providing defective coatings used to reduce the aircraft's radar and visual signatures, and covering up the problem by adding 272kg (600lbs) worth of extra layers. The lawsuit comes after the Department of Justice declined an opportunity under the Fair Claims Act to take up the case under seal. Now, Darrol Olsen, who was fired by Lockheed in 1999, has turned to the US District Court in California's central division to seek justice. Olsen wants to be re-instated with back-pay plus interest since losing his job more than a decade ago, says Samuel Boyd, Olsen's attorney. Olsen also is asking the court to order Lockheed to pay the US government $50 million for each of the 183 F-22's currently ordered, says Boyd. That amount equates roughly to the cost of the allegedly compromised stealth technology on each jet. Lockheed was not immediately able to comment on the lawsuit. Olsen began his Lockheed career in 1979 at Skunk Works, where he worked on developing new composite materials for the F-117, according to court documents. Olsen bounced between the F-117 and Northrop's B-2 programme during the 1980s, finally returning to support Northrop's B-2 flight test programme in 1990. In 1995, Olsen finally joined Lockheed's materials and processes engineering group in Marietta, Georgia, to work on the low observables system for the F-22. The F-22 requires three layers of coatings to reduce its radar signature, according to Olsen's statements in his case. A primer seals the surface of the aircraft skin and helps with the adhesion of the next layer. Next, a conductive coating with silver flakes mixed with polyurethane materials is applied to keep radar waves from bouncing back to the emitter source. Finally, a topcoat layer has properties, including metallic materials, to reduce heat, which lowers the risk of radar detection. "If those coatings are not effective, the other stealth measures of the aircraft's design are negated," the lawsuit says. Olsen claims he witnessed Lockheed management misleading USAF officials about the quality of the stealth coatings. Olsen's supervisors instructed him not to speak at meetings with USAF officials. In 1998, Olsen claims he refused to participate in an award ceremony that falsely honoured his team for solving problems he knew still persisted. Lockheed also schemed to avoid government inspections of the coatings, secretly shipping batches of the stealth materials to the homes, the lawsuit states. Although Olsen was fired for "failure to follow instructions" in 1999, the lawsuit says, he believes the problems have never been fully addressed. In March 2008, an F-22 sustained major damage after a small strip of stealth coating inside the engine nacelle peeled off and was ingested by the fan blades of the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine. In November, John Young, who stepped down in May as under secretary of defence for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters he was concerned about the F-22's stealth, or low observable, maintenance requirements. "I would highlight in general the maintenance on the airplane is too high," Young said. "They're struggling with some of the LO and other issues, and there's clearly work that needs to be done there to make that airplane both capable and affordable to operate." If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I'd rather let the market decide. Good idea, PROVIDED the market accounts for the cost of replacing a finite supply of oil, and PROVIDED the market accounts for the cost of cleaning up the pollution caused by burning the oil. Otherwise we are just asking our kids and grandkids to pay these costs so we can continue to be wasteful. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. Oh well here we have it then everybody!!!! jerryzflies is the decider of what is right! Atta boy sir! WAFJ I didn't say what the right thing is, but thank you for conceding the point. You are welcome decider Why don't you think about what you are responding to BEFORE responding. You might avoid putting your foot in your mouth. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I haven't mentioned either Iraq or Saddam. Your response is NON SEQUITUR. Please pay attention. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

One year ago today the average price of gasoline was $4.12/gal. Today it is $2.61 One year ago today the $US was worth .634Euro Today the $US is worth .709Euro One year ago today the $US was worth .507 UK pounds Today the $US is worth .607 UK pounds Looks like namgrunt is just plain WRONG. No you just nit picked for the date that supports your sort of politics. Would you like to have today compared to 20years ago? 30? years? Comparing today with exactly one year ago is perfectly normal practice. I'll compare tomorrow with July 2, 2008 if you like, or yesterday with June 30, 2008 If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Ok, I'll play along- Germany didn't attack us - Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on 11 December 1941. Pity some people don't know their own history. I'm sorry...please inform me where in my statement "Germany didn't attack us" did I say that Germany didn't declare war on the United States Pity some people don't know how to read their own language Since you want to play silly semantic games: May 21, 1941 US ship Robin Moor sunk by German Navy (U69). Sept. 4, 1941, German U boat U652 fired 2 torpedoes at USS Greer. However, for most NORMAL people, the act of declaration of war by Hitler would be ample indication that war was coming. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

One year ago today the average price of gasoline was $4.12/gal. Today it is $2.61 One year ago today the $US was worth .634Euro Today the $US is worth .709Euro One year ago today the $US was worth .507 UK pounds Today the $US is worth .607 UK pounds Looks like namgrunt is just plain WRONG. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. Oh well here we have it then everybody!!!! jerryzflies is the decider of what is right! Atta boy sir! WAFJ I didn't say what the right thing is, but thank you for conceding the point. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

You could have a pro-wrestler for governor... If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

The real point here is dont have to but rather, YOU want us too. Forced by your choices you would force on the rest of us. Damn sad ... Doing the right thing is often inconvenient in the short term. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Ok, I'll play along- Germany didn't attack us - Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on 11 December 1941. Pity some people don't know their own history. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

It is indeed a pity that Bush and his apologists spent so long denying the existence of the recession that started in December 2007. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Still talking to yourself, I see. You are kind of cute when you have no answer for the the content! Do you have lively conversations with yourself, or do you and yourself always agree on everything? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I wonder what happened to all those huge herds of buffalo on the plains. I wonder what happened to the forests that covered most of Pennsylvania 300 years ago? I wonder what happened to the cod in the North Atlantic? I wonder what happened to dodos? I WONDER WHY THE MEASURED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES AT THE SAME RATE AS WE ADD CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE? Nice cherry picked twist of my meaning Just pointing out the absolute absurdity of your previous statement. We have demonstrated very nicely in many areas that we CAN change nature. Even the Chicago River has been reversed. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Still talking to yourself, I see. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I wonder what happened to all those huge herds of buffalo on the plains. I wonder what happened to the forests that covered most of Pennsylvania 300 years ago? I wonder what happened to the cod in the North Atlantic? I wonder what happened to dodos? I WONDER WHY THE MEASURED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES AT THE SAME RATE AS WE ADD CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer: Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2. Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age. Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow. You next. OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. So onto the next question: How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate? Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ... Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad. So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect. Yours is the piss poor logic Oooh - that was a convincing rebuttal - NOT. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

And par for the Democrat course to denigrate it when it's a Republican while excusing it from their own. Please list the Dems who loudly and self-righteously proclaim "family values" while hiking the Appalachian Trail in South America. If you can, you'll have a point. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Historically no species has ever dumped 30 Billion tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere until we did it. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising at the rate we are dumping CO2 into the air - that is readily measurable. The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is well known; CO2 IS a green house gas. And that IS science. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24392.html If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer: Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2. Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age. Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow. You next. OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. So onto the next question: How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate? Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ... Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad. So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Does anybody else find it odd that the former VP is expressing concerns about a plan that his administration was part of creating and that was mandated by the Iraqi government? That will present mnealtx with a quandry. To paraphrase ANOTHER poster.... "Cheney isn't VP anymore".