DJL

I think this will be an interesting time for skydiving. Posted a fresh link over in General Skydiving for discussion:

I've had my eye on this for a while and it looks like the industry is about to turn the corner of the magic ratio of energy density (energy to weight). There are already commercial airlines ordering electric aircraft in the short haul market and I have to believe that with the flight cost being 1/10th of an ICE aircraft that it's going to turn heads very quickly. Once an air frame that works with skydiving hits the secondary market there's no doubt that small DZ's will start snapping these up. If big DZ's are getting hit hard NOW with C182 operations sprouting up around them, just wait until they can fly for $20/hr fuel cost. Here are a couple on the current market. The key elements are cost, operating cost, weight and power. Bye Aerospance eFlyer 2 ($350k, $20/hr, XXkg, 90kW peak/70kW continuous) Company is testing a 9-seater https://electrek.co/2019/04/11/norway-60-electric-airplanes/ Cessna Caravan - powertrain developed for existing airframe ($XXXX, $XX/hr, 50 kg engine, 250 kw) https://www.flyer.co.uk/magnix-tests-new-electric-motor-on-cessna-ironbird/ Seimens SP260D engine ($XXXX, $XX/hr, 50 kg engine, 261 kw) Their goal is a 10kw/kg engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_SP260D

If Obama's first reaction were to claim that Iran had simply made a mistake by shooting down the drone...

Yes, I understand that the Orlando Sentinel doesn't want Trump. I assure you that they'll settle on another candidate before voting day.

This image he painted of being ready to launch, ships and planes on the way and then finding out about 150 possible casualties because of an afterthought of a question that he, in all his kindheartedness, thought to ask is a crock of shit but I agree with not escalating from expensive military hardware to lives.

I don't think anyone literally has a "Anyone but Trump" mantra, it's just a fun thing to say. Considering it was an "Anyone but Hillary" mantra that got us Trump in the first place, the failures of that mindset are very apparent.

True. Right now everyone is learning exactly what and why it happened instead of just lumping it into the "nuke is bad" blob in the back of their heads.

You know that never happened, right? The reactor was to be shut down by dumping a liquid cadmium solution onto it. There was never any axe or rope. Edit: But that' still not much of an improvement.

Because all those cinematic hack jobs on war by the left sure has made us as a country entirely abandon war as a solution to our issues hasn't it.

I'd prefer that he actually address the issue of them shooting down a drone rather than rushing to their defense but that's barely a blip in the big picture of how important it is not go escalate a pissing match.

He's putting this into the Too Dumb to Argue category for me.

So.....what's "warming"? And the black line from this graph that shows this year's temperatures as being the third highest on average? What did you think was going to happen with the line since those first four data points were already shown and we were waiting on the fifth one? The entire line wasn't going to move up, your claim was that it was going to show something we weren't seeing but now we have the fifth data point and it's showing the exact same trend that the temperature for this year is approximately 0.85C above the 100 year average in a continuous and well recorded track from the beginning of the last century.

Well, you didn't link your source but scroll down on this link for several different climate models and how they match against the actual data. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming EDIT: The IPCC reference you show above was first started in 1990 you can see their data in this link. They estimated about 1C warming from the 1970 but it was only about 0.85C, a 17% overestimation. What you show above is gobblygook.

What you posted simply states the previous models were more conservative, not anything about actual observations. Also, that there's 8 of them that all show the same thing. Anyway, back to the issue you're now trying to skirt. You've posted that an increase of 0.85C (in nearly a 1.6C steady rise from the beginning of the data set) above average is not relevant. How does this disprove that CO2 is a driver of global warming?

Your own post says that the temperature is 0.85C and 1.53F above the century average. Again, do you understand how to compare data. Let's say you have 100 people in a race and the top four are all hundredth's of seconds from each other's times. Is the comparison of those four people with each other relevant to how their speed is compared to the other 100?

Are you trying to say that a comparison of the differences between the top four temperatures means that CO2 is not a relevant driver of CO2. Do you understand how to compare data?

But you didn't make a point. Why would this year need to be the hottest in order for that to be true? What is it about the difference between 2015, 16 and 17 that makes your case?

Guess they have conflicting outputs. So why is that eating crow to have had the 4th hottest May on record? Are we saying that global warming ended 2016 now?

Oh, I guess I didn't get TurtleSpeed's joke that it was BrentHutch being quoted there. Got it.

Um.....you'll need to cite your source but we're still tracking as the third hottest year on record with May being hotter than anything but 2017 and 2016. Meaning up from 2018 if you're interested in such a short term trend but still up from 2015, although I'm not sure why we're so concerned with comparing the last several years to each other considering they are all records.

Definitely, we've learned a lot since our solution of over policing everything has failed.

Interesting.

Just to point out the very brief distinction, that's not what it set out to do but that's what it did. When we asked "How do we do this?" the answer was to focus on the poor areas and the poor areas looked like black Americans. The solution then became to over-police and go to war against black Americans. The lessons were all expended on them and now that the opioid crisis is a white rural issue our hears and wallets are wide open - because we know better. Right? I not going to say that it's entirely a racial thing that we're now so supportive of drug users but there's certainly a stark difference in approaches.

This is responding to his claim that the upcoming weather data (presumably for June) would show that there is no trend towards global heating averages and Arctic ice melt. He had dismissed the data showing 2019 as being the third hottest on record and I'm not really sure why he would think June would show data or ice melt any different than that but there it is, record low sea ice coverage. Now that you're up to speed how's that moving the goal posts?

Never heard back from you on this but I understand that sous vide takes a little longer to cook. Can we get that NOAA data yet? In the meantime the Greenland Ice sheet had record ice melt for this point in the season this week with temperatures 40 degrees above normal. Other areas of the entire Arctic Ocean are also seeing the same with Arctic sea ice coverage at it lowest on record for mid-June.