speedy

Here in Germany you are not allowed to jump through cloud. So if I am going to hit the cloud I would not jump and ask for a go around. Assuming no cloud and no winds I would wait 6-7 seconds. Our pilots on no wind days tend to have a ground speed of 90 - 100 kts. 6 - 7 seconds gives me about 300 meters horizontal separation at opening time which should be enough. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

It depends what your are trying to correlate. Al Gores 20 foot sea rise, or the real impact of CO2 on atmospheric warming. They thought they had it the correlation figured out and then they discovered the oceans actually cooled between 2003 and 2005. Make up you mind what story you're supporting. The OISM director states explicitly that GW is due to human intervention, but he thinks it a good thing. Are you disagreeing with him or agreeing with him? SO you think that a 20 ft sea level rise is what we'll have in 2100 ? Seems like Al Gores hype is working. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

It depends what your are trying to correlate. Al Gores 20 foot sea rise, or the real impact of CO2 on atmospheric warming. They thought they had it the correlation figured out and then they discovered the oceans actually cooled between 2003 and 2005. The infamous "smoking gun," from bombshell to bomb... In Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications Hansen, et al, state: Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. The associated media release is entitled "Earth’s Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming" When that paper was written the model output was a fair wiggle-fit with Willis (2004) and Levitus (2004). So, Hansen's model is dumping heat into the oceans at roughly 0.8 Wm-2 and the bulk ocean heat rise mid-1993 - mid-2003 sort of matched that -- if only the world would remain constant and conform to the models we'd have this "global warming" thing sorted. Like all happy accidents, however, this good thing came to an end, too. Lyman et al (2006), using updated data from the same source, show that the period 2003-2005 involves a sudden ocean cooling at a rate of -1.0 ± 0.3 Wm-2 over the period, which means Hansen's model is calculating wrongly in both magnitude and sign. No one expected this loss of one-fifth of the heat stored in the ocean since 1955 and no model predicted it. Its cause is unclear but we appear to be witnessing Earth dumping heat to space via the atmosphere. Now Hansen's model has three years of data (to date) where it's incorrectly dumping heat into the oceans at a rate of >0.8 Wm-2 when it should have been removing it at -1.0 Wm-2, making net error of +1.8 Wm-2 over more than 70% of the planet -- call it excess global forcing of at least 1.25 Wm-2 for that period. Lyman et al. go so far as to state: Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). Think about that for a moment -- that's just 0.1 - 0.56 Wm-2. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

and I will never see a live mammoth. All those dinosaurs, gone forever and only a few fossils left I will never understand why people think humans are not "natural". If we are not part of nature and are some weird anomally in the evolution of life, maybe we have duty to exterminate ourselves. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

For such a high-standards quality control proctor, your rationale for accepting the OP's linked bullshit seems exceptionally low brow. I don't complian about other posters linked bullshit. There is no call for you to complain about my linked bullshit. According to your linked bullshit 11 of 30 from my linked bullshit still agree with my bullshit. I make that over 30%. And 30% of 1400 is not 200. That really would be bullshit. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

Watch out, Kallend interprets that as .... "We should increase our CO2 output." Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

Suppose Benny J Peiser is a crackpot too. “The scientific consensus on climate change” The letter Science Magazine refused to publish Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

I must be plain dumb, or maybe I have forgotten how to read English. I cannot see anywhere in the quoted text a statement saying we should increase our CO2 output. . So what, exactly, do you infer from "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." I infer exactly what it said. It's not all negative you know. It just that some people think there are more negative than positive aspects to CO2. It's the media hype that annoys me. If we just stuck to what is reasonably expected from increased CO2 I would be happier. The fact that the hype has gone so overboard is ruining the credibility of any theories about global warming and CO2. If the AGW advocates hype it, then it's fair game for me hype the opposite. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

I must be plain dumb, or maybe I have forgotten how to read English. I cannot see anywhere in the quoted text a statement saying we should increase our CO2 output. But if you want to change your hybrid for a SUV, go ahead. It doesn't worry me. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

Dr. Art Robinson is an oxymoron and a crackpot. Do a little research and more than just the first few hits on Google. O.K. I guess I should dismiss those 17,200 people than signed as crackpots also. It must feel good to have Al Gore on your side instead of all those crackpots. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

So even those notorious deniers at the BBC have got it wrong. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) I'll bet that you think your last little quip proved a point. I'm afraid you'll have to show me the statistics to support that wager. You mean you don't require a peer reviewed scientific explanation Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

As long as its just a guess then I'm sure it won't. (You may well be right, I just hate it when people say "I guess" or "I bet" and then act as if they've just demonstrated something.) I'll bet that you think your last little quip proved a point. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

What are the other causes of global warming? Cow farts, for the most part. Well obviously, I can see how 1.5 billion farting cows would out-pollute 6.5 billion humans flying about in jet liners and SUVs. 6.5 billion humans do not fly about in jets and drive SUV's. Some do, but not all 6.5 billion. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

So much for a consensus that green house gas emissions are warming the planet. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

It appears to me that you do not understand the factors involved in maintaining safe exit seperation. John Kallend has an excellent powerpoint presentation concerning this subject. Here is a direct link to it. Download it and read it carefully. P.S Hope you don't mind the direct link John. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

Reason 1. What billvon said, landing area is different. Reason 2. Cross wind drop run. The first and last being high pullers can get back from a longer spot. Reason 3. Tandems go out lower so as to get back for the next load. The rest go up to full altitude and jump. Depending on the climb rate and how the drop is organised this can be ok. But the reasons why don't matter. What matters is the the exit separation is correct and the spot is correct. It does not matter how much the go around costs, if you are not given the opertunity to exit when the spot is right, you should make a go around. The key to the problem is knowing where the spot is. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

On a upwind drop run, assuming the landing area is the same for all on the drop, I would also agree. But, someone might find another good reason to put Tandems out first. It is all about knowing the issues concerning exit separation. Why does the largest RW group go first? If you don't know why, you can't plan the drop run right. When you think about it, maybe the largest freefly group first after the RW is not the best option in some cases. Maybe a smaller FF group and then the larger is better. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

I know what they are! They were the things that caught fire in "Voyage to the bottom of the sea" Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

If you nearly hit a tandem that jumped before you, the reason would be that you did not leave enough exit separation before you jumped. There is nothing wrong with tandems going first in the exit order. Sometimes it is helpful. Edited to add: This might be helpful Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

OK, you dirty little whistle-blower. Where did you catch Angie in the early morning with a giant hangover? Hey! that was one of her good days Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

Oh John, I thought BP were your heroes because they have already buckled to the tree huggers. Don't they only spend money on renewables? Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

if they built the Gravity Train, no one would live more than 42 minutes and 12 seconds away from their home town. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

There, I have put them side by side. You tell me who has the better deal. Germany or the U.S.A. I'd vote bush back in, look at what you might get if you don't. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl

Yeah I know, but look at our leader, I got the attachment uploaded now! Dave Fallschirmsport Marl