34°Rain

Morning Notes

by ARLnow.com — August 2, 2012 at 8:33 am 4,458 191 Comments

Close Call at Reagan National — Three commuter jets nearly collided at Reagan National Airport on Tuesday afternoon due to a communications failure among air traffic control personnel. The planes were about 12 seconds away from a collision when a tower controller corrected her mistake. [Washington Post]

Ebbin Endorses Krupicka — State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D) has endorsed Alexandria Councilman Rob Krupicka (D) in the Sept. 4 special election to fill Del. David Englin’s former 45th District House of Delegates Seat. “[Krupicka] has been a steadfast ally in the fight for true equality, world-class education system, a cleaner environment, smart transportation solutions, and innovative policies that keep our economy strong,” Ebbin said.

Kaine to Visit Arlington Business Today — Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and former Virginia governor Tim Kaine will be visiting Clarendon-based business GridPoint this afternoon. Kaine, who will be joined by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), will highlight his “Strengthening Our Economy Through Energy Innovation” plan.

Extreme Weather on the Rise in Va.? — Extreme downpours and snowstorms are happening 33 percent more frequently in Virginia compared to 65 years ago, according to a new report by Environment Virginia. The group says the finding supports the idea that global warming is changing weather patterns. “We need to heed scientists’ warnings that this dangerous trend is linked to global warming, and do everything we can to cut carbon pollution today,” said Environment Virginia Field Organizer Laura Kate Anderson. [Environment Virginia]

  • nunya

    that pic makes me sad.

    • CW

      It’s somewhat symbolic, isn’t it?

      • daniel

        Yes, symbolic of a time when Alaska and Hawaii weren’t states.

        • UA

          +1 Good catch.

        • CW

          That actually really just adds to the symbolism that I was implying. Nice eye though.

          • charles

            SHAME on those people for putting up a soiled American flag. Yes it matters… it’s hugely disrespectful.

          • Rodney

            Soiled? The flag looks cloth and probably over 100 years old, what do you suggest they do with it. Fold it up and put it in a closet? Granted it’s only 48 stars but I assume they probably didn’t buy it new so I doubt they had a choice in the quantity of stars.

            I think it’s a display of pride for this great country and for you to nitpick at the cleanliness of it is symbolic of everything that’s wrong in society today. Clearly the intent by them hanging it is not one of disrespect and as a former Marine I enjoy driving past it each day.

            I bet you’re the type of person that would sue McDonald’s after spilling coffee on yourself because you think it’s too hot…

  • DarkHeart

    What’s the cross street? I think I saw that flag near W&L.

  • nom de guerre

    That house is located between Randolph and Stafford on Washingon Blvd., directly across from Washingon-Lee HS.

    • nom de guerre

      *Stuart and Stafford*

  • Kim

    Why does it make you sad? I saw it Saturday and I assumed they were showing USA Olympic pride.

    • Ralph

      That flag has been there since the weekend before July 4th.

      It is quite dirty, unfortunately.

      • drax

        Oh. Say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?

      • gnarlington

        I might be mistaken, but i think its some post-college bros living in that shack. I cannot believe it is even habitable….so curious what the inside looks like

        • G Clifford Prout (now moderated for extra purity)

          Well besides that fact it only has 48 stars it is filthy and should be retired.

          Like me. Filthy and retired.

        • HighViewPunk

          You could probably check that place out if you wanted to.
          http://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4210-Washington-Blvd-22201/home/11244804

          • Lee-n-Glebe

            $625 for that? Seems a bit high – for a lot by itself (as it’s a total tear down).

          • Lee-n-Glebe

            Then again, looking at the aerial view, it is a big lot.

          • HighViewPunk

            Looks like they’re including plans for two townhouses to be built. I can see a developer making good money off of that lot.

          • nunya

            Lot Size: 5,984 Sq. Ft.

            that’s a big lot.

      • Westover Leftover

        I saw the college age guys that live in the house put it up on 4 July.

        They first had it hanging vertically with the stars on the right.

        I stopped and told them that the stars should be on the left (hand over heart), when hanging on the outside of buildings.

        One guy said “I told you so.” then they took it down and redid it.

        48 star flag, cotton, bought on Craig’s list.

        They are proud of the flag and and have treated it with respect.

        • jackson

          So they take it down at night or have a dedicated light shining on it?

          • Duder3

            I have some dumb neighbors who fly the flag from their house all year long, like it’s an embassy or something. They think they’re oh so patriotic. Yet they fly it in bad weather. Idiots.

            What’s funny is that of the multitude of neighbors who work for the government on my street, almost none of them fly the flag except for on the 4th.

          • Josh S

            Unfortunately, once manufacturers starting mass selling clothes, towels, handbags, etc with the flag on them, it lost a bit of symbolic force. When stores started using images of the flag in their incessant 4th of July, Flag Day, President’s Day, Veteran’s Day, etc, etc etc sales advertisements, it lost a bit of symbolic force. When Boy Scouts started planting a cheap plastic flag in everyone’s yard on Flag Day whether you wanted it or not, it lost a little bit of symbolic force.

            I’m not sure why a private residence would display a flag *except* on the relevant national holidays or other very unusual and special days like VE Day. If you are displaying it sort of like decoration, then what is to distinguish it from fake spider webs, inflatable snow men and the like?

          • drax

            So it’s unpatriotic to fly a flag in bad weather? They hate America?

            The idiots are the ones who insist on nitpicky symbolism over substance.

          • CW

            +1, I’m not a big fan of rules for the sake of rules.

            Not fly it in bad weather? Wouldn’t that symbolize us being a nation of wimps who run at any sign of trouble?

          • Duder3

            The flag is supposed to be respected. Flying it in bad weather is disrespectful. By CW’s logic, not letting it touch the ground (also disrespectful) implies what–fear of the ground? Does not burning it imply our nation is afraid of fire?

            I don’t think such people “hate America.” I just think they’re ignorant. And ostentatious. I think they don’t understand that real patriotism isn’t conveyed in messages but in actions.

          • Elmer

            “What’s funny is that of the multitude of neighbors who work for the government on my street, almost none of them fly the flag except for on the 4th.”

            That’s not funny. That’s pathetic!

          • Duder3

            No it’s not. Some of those people are actively involved in fighting terroism and international crime on a daily basis. They’re patriots because they work for the country every day.

            Patriotism isn’t a bumper sticker or making a big show of flying the flag.

          • Westover

            As a Marine born on the 4th of July, I like that they are flying the flag as they are. I am very familure with the Flag Code and they are not violating it. It is lit by the street lamp and is not so dirty or torn to require retirement. Long may she wave!!!!

        • WeiQiang

          THAT’s respect? From the law:

          (e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

          • DarkHeart

            What if someone is shooting cannonballs at it?

          • Ashton Heights

            As long as it’s still there by dawn’s early light you should be okay.

        • m

          People in that house apparently like to decorate. At Christmas, they had a giant inflated Santa on the roof, which seemed to be kept inflated with some sort of constantly-running air pump. Then eventually they unplugged the pump and Santa was hanging out looking sad and deflated for a while until they eventually took him down.

          • Maria

            Did you ever notice the mannequin hand they had (I assume) propped up in a window under a mattress that looked like someone was trapped under the mattress? Scared the sh*t out of me the first time I walked by, but it was there for months. Haven’t been by in a long while though, so I’m not sure if it’s still there.

        • Joe Hoya

          I assumed the tenants had accidentally punched a massive hole in the side of the house and are just trying to cover it up with the flag so the landlord doesn’t freak out.

      • nunya

        yeah. it’s dirty but i didnt notice it was 48 stars. so, those stains may have been there when purchased.

        from the looks of it, the window unit probably drips on the flag….

  • Arlingtune

    Lot of sensationalism in that aircraft incident story. Three planes, all seconds away from colliding? Not likely.

    • CW

      Was this in the air or on the ground? 12 seconds at 300 mph is a mile.

      • WeiQiang

        It’s in the article. Excerpt:

        As a result, an incoming flight that had been cleared to land was flying head-on at two planes that had just taken off. The inbound plane and the first of the outbound planes were closing the 1.4 miles between them at a combined speed of 436 mph, a rate that meant they were about 12 seconds from impact when the tower controller recognized her mistake.

        • Nathan

          If plane A is headed directly at plane B while plane C is also headed directly at the both of them all at 426 mph…..

          • WeiQiang

            All I did was paste from the WaPo article. What are you not understanding?

          • Lighten up

            He made a math joke.

          • sunflower

            what is the age of the pilot of plane c?

          • JamesE

            What… is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

          • nom de guerre

            European or African?

          • Marc

            African or European?

          • Arlingtoon

            LOL

          • Georgethecat

            African or European?

          • DCBuff

            Trolley or Articulated?

          • JohnB

            African, or European?

          • drax

            One plane coming in to land was headed toward two that had taken off. So one plane had two threats of collisions.

          • BoredHouseWife

            where did they bury the survivors?

      • Arlingtune

        In the air.

        Supposedly a plane taking off was “on a collision course” with two planes landing on the same runway.

        First, two planes about to land are a couple of miles apart just from each other. The likelihood of those two planes being in the same collision with another plane defies any logic.

        Second, planes landing are descending somewhere around 500 to 1000 feet a minute. Planes taking off are climbing at around twice that rate, if not more. So vertical separation and closure rates mean that the plane taking off is above the landing planes and climbing really soon after takeoff.

        And primarily, the planes likely have TCAS, the onboard collision avoidance system. They would have received warnings in the cockpit with guidance on how to maneuver to avoid any aircraft that was a potential collision threat.

        • Lee-n-Glebe

          It was always my understanding that planes took off and landed into the prevailing wind. That is, if planes are taking off to the North, they are landing in the same direction – from the South. So I’m a bit confused as to how it’s even possible that two planes were headed at each other.

          Of course, I’m not saying it didn’t happen, obviously it did. I wonder if the ATC instructed “North” instead of “South” (or vice versa)?

          • drax

            You so completely didn’t read the Washington Post article, Lee-n-Glebe. It’s all explained.

          • Arlingtune

            They do. Reading the article again, it was two planes departing and one landing. Either way, as bad a screw up by the tower as this is, the pilots would have been able to avoid running into each other. No need to panic.

          • drax

            Who panicked?

          • Elizabeth

            You sound pretty panicky.

          • Trent

            He gets that way if he thinks someone on the internet is looking smarter than him.

          • drax

            No I don’t.

          • Westover

            Yeah, cause in the history of commercial aviation, no planes have ever collided in mid-air……

        • drax

          “two planes about to land are a couple of miles apart just from each other. The likelihood of those two planes being in the same collision with another plane defies any logic.”

          One or the other might have been in the path of the third. It only takes one, not two.

          “planes landing are descending somewhere around 500 to 1000 feet a minute. Planes taking off are climbing at around twice that rate, if not more. So vertical separation and closure rates mean that the plane taking off is above the landing planes and climbing really soon after takeoff.”

          So it’s impossible for them to be on trajectories that meet? No, it’s not impossible.

          We don’t know if the two smaller planes had TCAS, though the USAirways must have, so it could have taken evasive action. But is TCAS 100% reliable in preventing collisions? Would you bet your life on it in this situation?

          It was a dangerous situation. Nobody said it was anything more than that. Nobody panicked.

        • SomeGuy

          While we’re talking aeronautics and flight paths, does anyone know how I might easily determine whether the planes are taking off vs. landing over Gravelly Point… without actually going to Gravelly Point? It’s way cooler to watch when they’re landing from that direction, but I never know til I get close.

          • Arlingtune

            You can check out a website called FlightAware.com which will show you the activity around any airport. They also have an app.

            You can also become familiar with the approach patterns over Arlington. Generally, when planes are descending over the western part of Arlington, you can assume they are landing in the opposite direction. Basically, they descend to a point beyond the airport and turn around to land.

          • SomeGuy

            Thanks, Arlingtune. I knew there were sites out there that showed general flight path, but didn’t realize it was to that level of detail (and didn’t check I guess). Useful info, and I appreciate the response.

          • SomeGuy

            I assume the decision about which way to land is determined mostly by wind direction/speed. Is this true? If so, can you say a little more about that or point me to something that does? I.e. does a pilot prefer to land w/the wind in his face or at his back?

          • drax

            You want to take off and land into the wind. Most runways are aligned roughly with the prevailing wind direction for that reason.

    • drax

      1. Yes, they were seconds away from possibly colliding. Doesn’t mean they would have, but they were heading toward each other.

      2. What the hell do you know about this stuff? The FAA reports this and you just dismiss it? Because you know all the details of the facts and have intimate knowledge of air traffic control and aviation?

    • Bill

      Its unlikely they would have collided, they would have had to be at the exact same altitude. Outgoing planes climb rapidly, incoming planes descend slowly. Not to make light of it, its a mistake that shouldn’t have happened, but it wasn’t like it was an imminent collision. As Arlingtune says TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) on jetliners works fairly well. ….the press (including wapo needs drama.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system

      • drax

        Where’s this alleged drama?

      • NoVapologist

        According to the former head of the FAA that was interviewed on WTOP this morning, not every plane actually uses their TCAS, particularly smaller planes like commuter and corporate jets.

        • drax

          Most, but not all, aircraft can be detected by TCAS in some way even if they don’t have it themselves. So as long as one of the two planes on a path toward collision has it, it will get a warning and instructions for avoidance.

          • NoVapologist

            “What the hell do you know about this stuff? The FAA reports this and you just dismiss it? Because you know all the details of the facts and have intimate knowledge of air traffic control and aviation?”

          • Albert

            Obviously he knows a good bit more than you. You see, when you have a brain you can take the news with a grain of salt and offer some independent insight. If not then you have to accept the premise of every ‘expert’ out there, including press reporters, who aren’t experts.

          • drax

            Quite true, Albert, but in this case, I wasn’t contradicting any expert or reporter, just adding some detail.

            TCAS detects aircraft and warns you if your on a collision course, telling you what you should do to avoid it. Aircraft without TCAS wouldn’t get that warning, but aircraft with it would be warned about almost all other aircraft, even those without TCAS installed. So in case NOVApologist thought what he heard on WTOP meant that TCAS might not have helped in this incident, I informed him that it probably would have.

          • drax

            When I dismiss something the FAA says, you can say that too. But I didn’t. I just added details. It’s true that most small aircraft don’t use TCAS, but I just added that TCAS detects aircraft that don’t have it installed.

            Get over yourself.

          • Albert
  • fairgrrl

    I’m all for Rob Krupicka. Don’t need or want Team Englin II, Team Englin was bad enuf.

  • Nathan

    anyone notice it’s a 48 star flag. it’s also huge. probably should be in a museum – someone needs to look into that flag’s history

    • barryballston

      It’ll be a cold day in hell before I recognize Missourah.

      • DCBuff

        spoken (typed) like a true Jayhawker.

        • Sim Carstairs

          Ten year I been ferryin’ Kansas Redlegs, Union cavalry, Missouri guerrillas… you name it. Mad dogs them guerrillas. You look sideways at ‘em… they kill ya’.

  • John Fontain

    Given that solar flares are the primary cause of changes in temperatures here on earth, we better get that damn sun under control in order to get these crazy rain storms under control. Anyone have suggestions on how to whip the sun into shape?

    • CO2isyourfriend

      Yes, John, you are right. The primary cause of premodern changes in temps (is is solar flares now? I thought it was total solar irradiance – and of course some folks say its volcanoes, and then there are claims its long cycles drivin be factors internal to the earths climate – I forget which is the established contrarian wisdom today, but whatever it is, I beleive it) MUST be whats causing the increase in temps over the last hundred years, and the rapid rise in temps over the last 50-60 years.

      Its kind of like how genetic mutation has been the primary cause of cancer throughout human history, ergo it must be the primary cause of cancer todauy, because nothing else has changed. Now I need to go out for a smoking break.

      • OldMan

        I use to give a hoot, but then some young frat boys almost ran me over in the crosswalk. So, now I say enjoy the heat, punk. I’ll leave the light on for ya when I’m gone.

      • John Fontain

        Can you try to write this again, but this time in a somewhat coherent way?

        • CO2isyourfriend

          I think I have maintained the same level of coherence as my fellow climate “skeptics”

          • WeiQiang

            … except that you have the scientific community – and defecting climate deniers – to provide the facts behind your argument.

            The skeptics have, well, skepticism.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            Wei

            The “skeptics” ARE the scientfic community, practicing “real” science. The 98% or more who support the alarmist position are a small minority.

          • John Fontain

            Thank you for admitting defeat.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            I don’t admit defeat at all. I am confident that with arguments as coherent as mine, me and my fellow climate “skeptics” will defeat the climatehoaxers, the alarmists, the people who would deny our freedoms with their evil research and high falutin left wing statistical methods.

          • Albert

            hehe…”left wing statistical methods.” I only use right wing stats myself that way I don’t have to buy a calculator.

    • Josh S

      This is a joke, right?

  • WeiQiang

    (e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

    • drax

      It’s not getting damaged or dirty up there.

  • novasteve

    So did the climate never change before humans started using fossil fuels? I guess people hundreds of thousands of years ago were driving cars that caused the glaciers to retract to form the great lakes and the finger lakes?

    • CO2isyourfriend

      You are so right novasteve. We had warming before, and there were no fossil fuels, ergo, warming now could not be caused by fossil fuels.

      Similarly we had cancer before we had cigarettes.

      We had poverty before we had govt regulation and evil policies of redistribution.

      We had ignorance before we had Fox News.

      • novasteve

        So, is riding bicycles and and being green going to stop climate change mr. co2isyourfriend?

        • drax

          Not by itself, but it could help.

          Why?

    • UA

      Those damn dinosaurs with their diesel engines.

    • Josh S

      Waawaawaaaaaaaa.

      I wonder if you should continue to believe what you think, steveo, or if you might entertain the notion that there are parts of this universe that other people understand better than you?

      Did your idea never occur to any scientist in the history of mankind? Why do you think that so many climatoligists spend so much time drilling into ice sheets and the like? Might it be to explore the climate and atmospheric conditions many tens, nay, hundreds of thousands of years ago? Might someone, somewhere have made an effort to either support or refute the idea that our current level of climate change is part of the natural cycle?

      I guess it’s because you haven’t personally been involved in any of this research that you dismiss it?

      The arrogance is almost incomprehensible.

      • John Fontain

        It’s funny to look back at these same scientific groups warning about global cooling in the 70′s. See that attached article from 1975 where they blame excessive rain on global cooling.

        http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

        So it’s the same story today, only that the rain is being attributed this time to global warming. I wonder how long it will be before the tide changes and they are back to warning about global cooling.

        • drax

          So you’re saying there is no global warming, steve?

          • novasteve

            No, I’m not saying that. But is what you’re proposing going to stop global warming or climate change by being green?

          • drax

            I haven’t proposed anything.

            The evidence is quite strong that:

            a) a good portion of the current warming is caused by a huge growth in CO2 concentration

            and

            b) humans are causing that growth.

        • CO2isyourfriend

          you are so right John.

          The claims of global cooling coming, even though based on aerosol emissions that were changed by changes in policy, show the alarmist position to be wrong. Also, a handful of papers in the 1970s is quite the equivalent of thousands of alarmist climatehoax papers, studies, and models over the previous 30 years.

          its with such logic, and especially such respect for time series, that we will defeat the alarmists and preserve our freedom.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            by previous 30 years, of course I mean 1982 to 2012. My god, the evil conspiracy against freedom is long lived.

          • John Fontain

            It’s funny that you beleive the same scientific groups that you rely on today were unreliable in the past. Very funny.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            I believe in skeptical scientist, slike Fred Singer. I do not beleive in those alarmits, John. I am on your side. Why would I believe in them, when they change their minds in response to new evidence and increasingly sophisticated models (of course they deny that the assertion of global cooling was strong or long or widespread, but you and I know the truth, thanks to our friends at Fox News, and at many oil industry supported research institute and websites)

          • John Fontain

            I could give a crap about those nutcases over at Fox News. But it would be nice to have an intelligent discussion about this, something you obviously don’t want to happen.

          • drax

            So because science made a mistake once, you can never ever trust it again, John?

            You clearly don’t understand how science works.

          • John Fontain

            Drax, according to CO2isyourfriend, scientists didn’t make a mistake in the 70′s – they didn’t make those conclusions at all and the Newsweek article is just made up. But you just have to trust him that this is the case.

            It’s bad enough that the same scientific groups who were warning of major calamities from cooling have now flip flopped to warming; it’s even worse that people now deny they flip flopped at all.

            If and when the trend ever moves away from concern over warming and back to cooling (or something else), I wonder if people will then deny there was ever concern about warming. It will be interesting to see.

            I don’t know if there is human-caused global warming or not (please read that twice to ensure you understand my view). What I do know is that lots of financing for research would dry up if scientists concluded either (a) that there was nothing to fear or (b) that we humans can’t control the climate. So if you believe that people are motivated by money, you’ll understand why you might not find those conclusions.

            I also know that the amount of time we’ve been measuring climate compared to the length of time earth has existed is small. I think it’s similar to measuring the temperature at 8:45.01 am and 8:45.02 am and projecting that temperature change into the long term future.

            Should we try our best to take care of the earth and not cause unneccesary pollution? Yes.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            I am trying to have an honest debate, john. I dont know why you are attacking me, or Fox news. Others who put forth the same kind of skepticism are the Wall Street Journal, George Will, the Examiner, and many other fine scientific journals.

            Its possible that in my defense of freedom and my opposition to the fringe alarmists at all those high faluting academies, which you rightly say should not be believed (based on a paper or two from 1975) sometimes comes off as humorous. I find that at some point, if you don’t laugh, you have to cry.

          • drax

            John, the fact is that there was no huge theory or overwhelming consensus that the world was cooling, just some talk about the possibility. Now, with enormously improved sensing technology by the way, we have lots of evidence of warming. You’re welcome to say we should wait for more if you want. But don’t cite this silly cooling, because it was never supported even remotely as well as warming is.

            No, research money would not dry up for those reasons. That’s silly. By that standard, all scientific research would be suspect, and most research money would have dried up long ago. Fear does not drive most research.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            “Drax, according to CO2isyourfriend, scientists didn’t make a mistake in the 70′s – they didn’t make those conclusions at all and the Newsweek article is just made up. But you just have to trust him that this is the case.”

            well not according to me but to this propaganda:

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

            “A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

            I love your tactic though. Instead of saying global warming is not taking place (which we all know it is not) say “I dont know” to preserve the appearance of neutrality, while all the while quoting the best argument of sound skeptic science, and ignoring the many rebuttals made over the years by the alarmists.

          • John Fontain

            CO2,

            The Newsweek story cites:

            National Academy of Sciences
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            Columbia University
            University of Wisconsin

            If those sources weren’t reliable then, why are they reliable now?

          • John Fontain

            CO2,

            I find it humorous that the article to which you link is titled, “Who Sparked the Global Cooling Myth,” and the answer is the scientific organizations who now believe in global warming.

          • drax

            You mean like the quote were the National Academy of Sciences says “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many case we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”?

            This is your evidence that these scientific groups went out on a limb and declared the existence of global cooling and therefore should never be trusted again about climate change?

          • dk (not DK)

            Can we have more CO2isyourfriend on a regular basis? I love these posts, LOL.

          • John Fontain

            So you believe global cooling was caused by aerosols and now that aerosols have been reduced we have global warming? Sounds like we should bring back the aerosol use levels of yesterday then, right?

          • CO2isyourfriend

            No, I believe global warming is a hoax. I do think you have good idea though – lets abolish the regs that lowered aerosols – that would serve to split the enviro movement, and so help preserve our freedom. Also it would distract from propaganda like the following
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

            which actually makes false claims about many more things than aerosols.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            “If and when the trend ever moves away from concern over warming and back to cooling (or something else), I wonder if people will then deny there was ever concern about warming. It will be interesting to see.”

            Another great approach, im so glad we have clever people like you on our side. I mean how can they deny that there was concern over cooling, when there WAS concern over cooling – a grand total of seven scientific papers apparently, and some hype about that in the meanstream press, for a couple of years. How dare the alarmists assert that thats different from thousands of papers, meta-analysis like the IPCC did, reviews by scientific acacademies, over a period of over 30 years, and an alleged scientific consensus.

          • CO2isyourfriend

            ” What I do know is that lots of financing for research would dry up if scientists concluded either (a) that there was nothing to fear or (b) that we humans can’t control the climate. So if you believe that people are motivated by money, you’ll understand why you might not find those conclusions.”

            I agree. That current alarmists, like Mann, initially got financing for studies that emphasized natural climate variability, shouldnt detract from their current financial dependence on govt grants that only go to the alarmist side. of course we’ve seen how climate scientists have entered the 1% in the last couple of decades. Even tenured faculty, whose salary is assured, and get no direct benefit from grant money, are probably influenced by concern for their grad students. OTOH the vast sums that our allies, the Kochs, Scaife, and Exxon Mobil pour into REAL science, sound science, including websites and institutes founded for this very purpose, would never sway anyone.

        • CO2isyourfriend

          I also admire you, john, for ignoring the propaganda of the alarmists like the following:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

          We shouldnt allow these sham rebuttals to keep us from repeating effective talking points.

      • CO2isyourfriend

        scientists who drill through ice sheets are engaged in an elaborate charade to create junk science, in order to take away our freedom.

        Clearly witticisms and sound bites are a better way to understand what is happening than wading through long papers filled with math.

      • novasteve

        I didn’t say I dismis it. But I keep on seeing people say that climate change is man made, and since it’ sman made, man can stop it, when that’s completely untrue. Even if we completely stopped greenhouse gasses and all rode bicycles and composted, the climate would still change, like it always has, and always will until the sun engulfs the earth. The man made global warming thing is a fraud. We POSSIBLY contribute to it, but the things I’m hearing, that wwe can solve climate change is a shameless lie perpetrated by people with an agenda.

        • CO2isyourfriend

          You are so right, steve. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases, and began to lower the level of C02 in the atmosphere towards what it was 200 years ago, the climate would still change. It might change more slowly, but why does that matter? If we can adapt to a change that takes place over thousands of years, we can certainly adapt just as well to the same change in temps occuring over 50 years.

          Kind of like how death is universal, ergo its not worth quitting smoking or controlling our weight.

          • John Fontain

            Don’t trees and plants thrive on CO2? Don’t you want to have lush plant life on earth? Why then do you want substantially lower CO2 levels?

          • drax

            http://eartheasy.com/article_food_bad_ugly.htm

            Global climate change will produce some good, some bad, and lots and lots of changes to deal with, John. It’s complicated. Who knows, in 1,000 years we might be happy with it. But it won’t be fun getting there.

          • Tabby_TwoTone

            It will be an economic boon to Canada and Russia.

          • Josh S

            Maybe. Maybe not. Besides, is that all that matters?

          • Josh S

            This is about as juvenile an argument as you could bring up. Can’t you try harder?

        • drax

          You can’t declare that it’s completely untrue, steve. It may not be proven beyond all doubt, but the evidence is pretty strong. And anyone’s agenda, on either side, is irrelevant.

      • Glebe Roader

        Don’t you know … he knows everything about everything. And, he makes his arguments by asking questions … over and over and over …

    • drax

      It’s marginal change that matters, steve.

  • YTK

    “Extreme Weather on the Rise in Va.?”
    You JUST noticed it?
    Think of this: huge sections of the ocean are kept from evaporating because the surface is covered with plastic, garbage and other detritus. Huge sections of the Amazon rain forest which used to send lifegiving mist into the atmosphere- gone– all cut down for grazing land.

    Huge sections of Arlington which used to have TREES which absorbed pollution anad gave us breathable air — gone, and in their place– brick and glass, and other heat reflecting substances like ASPHALT, which give us MORE pollution.

    Scuze me, here’s the Trolley — gotta run..

    • Josh S

      You actually have half a dozen or so ideas all mixed together here.

      Heat reflecting, in the context of global warming – a good thing. Which is why a white colored roof makes more sense these days then a dark colored roof. (Which is not to say that a forest wouldn’t be better than a city in mitigating / preventing climate change – it would.) Asphalt is actually heat-absorbing, not reflecting, which is bad because it contributes to the heat island effect, especially at night, when it releases all the stored heat from the day, preventing temps from getting as low as they do out in the country.

      At the end, you mention pollution. Climate change isn’t caused by pollution. Air pollution and climate change are different things. There is overlap, but they are two different problems.

    • John Fontain

      What percentage of the ocean is kept from evaporating due to it being covered with plastic and garbage?

      • JohnB

        Not sure but here’s a big piece of it:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

        • Tothepoint

          “The patch is not easily visible because it consists of very small pieces, almost invisible to the naked eye,[28] most of its contents are suspended beneath the surface of the ocean

          So…..that part about blocking evaporation?

          • JohnB

            Like I said, not sure. Just pointing out that there’s a huge garbage dump in the middle of the pacific and that it’s probably not a good thing for our long term survival.

          • Josh S

            This is a far cry from saying that it is blocking evaporation or implying that blocking evaporation contributes to climate change.

            Yes, the garbage patch is probably not a good thing.

            Does it have anything at all to do with climate change? Personally, I’ve never heard it claimed to have. I don’t see a real connection myself. Just playing around with it, though, it doesn’t seem to make much sense. Water vapor is actually a strong greenhouse gas. But clouds may be important in reflecting heat back into space. But how do small particles suspended in water prevent evaporation? Etc etc etc.

          • JohnB

            You’re right. I should have clarified that I don’t know what TYK is talking about but there’s this huge trash patch in the Pacific…

    • John Fontain

      So maybe 0.1% of the ocean has garbage, yet you describe it as “huge sections of the oceans”?

      Way to keep your credibility high!

      • Alfred E Newman

        What, me worry?

      • JohnE

        Blocking the oceans from evaporating sounds like something right out of a Bond villain’s playbook.

  • CO2isyourfriend

    “Huge sections of Arlington which used to have TREES which absorbed pollution anad gave us breathable air — gone, and in their place– brick and glass, and other heat reflecting substances like ASPHALT, ”

    You are so right YTK. Its much better to have that population live in the far suburbs instead, where they will take up much less space, and create less asphalt. The highways, roads, parking lots and driveways they will use will be made of grass.

    And its terrible that all the new development in arlington is on the site of forests, and not on the sites of parking lots., used car dealerships, and so forth. Out in Loudoun county all the new mcmansions are being built on what had been old used car lots. Why can’t Arlington do something like that, I’d like to know.

    • drax

      We should clear out those stupid trees and build giant highways with cars that spew pollution so that more people can cut down more trees in Loudoun and have huge roofs and yards. That’ll be much better.

    • Elmer

      And don’t forget to diaper the cows and fed them Beano to eleminate their methane emissions.

      • CO2isyourfriend

        so right elmer.

        its not possible for those alarmists impact cow methane emissions by changing what farmers feed them. Or by eating less beef overall (what could be a bigger infrigement of freedom than eating more tofu?) . And of course if we can’t (thanks to the defense of freedom) than its useless to try to reduce emissions from other sectors.

  • WeiQiang
    • DCBuff

      What is a “possible arrest?” Arrest of a possible suspect? They’ve rounded up a posse, possibly? If they arrested a suspect, God love ‘em.

  • Dr_Klahn

    Brah#1: Dude, there’s a huge American flag on Craigslist for $10. Brah#2: We should get it and hang it on the front of our house – that would be f-ing nuts! Brah#3: Yeah Bro- that would be Epic! Brah#1: That’s going to piss the neighbors off so bad… Brah#2: F-in’ A man…we’ll be college legends… Brah#3: Alright, well I’m hitting Goodys for a slice then grabbing a suitcase and heading over to the pool at Archstone – you guys in? Brah#1: I’m there Bro, today is going to be E-P-I-C!

    • drax

      Brah#2: Ooooow! I impaled myself on the fence! Dudes, wait, don’t leave me hangin’!

    • Green Machine 1

      easyyy Donkey Kahn… that guy is hand woven

  • U ROY

    Welcome to another ARLnow a$$hole parade.

    • Dr_Klahn

      If it’s not too late I’d like to enter a float. It’s shaped like a giant cupcake that is made out of thousands of individual cupcakes. The frosting on top is actually hundreds of cups of Froyo that will be handed out to kids along the route by a certain Nats player that will be dressed as a clown. It’s “green” too- the Froyo will be kept cold by hidden reclaimed freezer units from Sam’s Corner, and the whole thing is powered by solar panels and biodiesel refined from waste oil contributed by all the burger joints along the parade route. At the end I’m hoping my float can be displayed as a public exhibit at Artisphere called “Food Truck”.

  • JohnE

    According to the FAA, the planes never got closer than a mile and a half from each other, and even then they were 500 feet apart in elevation.

    • drax

      At their combined speeds, they were 12 seconds apart.

      • JohnE

        No, they were an infinite number of seconds apart because their paths never brought them closer than 1.5 miles.

        • drax

          No, they were 12 seconds apart. The fact that they didn’t get closer doesn’t change that. Kind of like if they were 1.5 miles apart, they weren’t an infinite number of miles apart.

          • JohnE

            That’s like saying the Earth and the Moon are .5 seconds apart. Which would be the case if they started moving towards each other at light speed.

          • drax

            These airplanes were moving toward each other, JohnE. They were 12 seconds from possible impact.

            The Earth and Moon are several million, or maybe billion, years apart. Slowly but surely, their gravity is pulling them together in a spiral trajectory, and eventually they will hit.

            If the moon and Earth were heading right toward each other in a straight line, and they were .5 seconds apart, they’d be moving at a combined speed of 1.7 million miles per hour (not light speed).

            So what’s your problem?

          • JohnE

            The planes were not headed towards each other. So it does not matter how close they approached, there is no number of seconds that would have resulted in them hitting. This is simple physics, maybe you never had that were you went to school.

            The FAA just had a press conference that explained what you refuse to accept. But keep on refuting facts.

          • drax

            The planes were headed toward each other’s general direction, enough so that they could have collided. We can’t know if they would have. You can’t say that they wouldn’t have, especially since planes often change directions. Saying they were 12 seconds apart is perfectly reasonable. It is not the same thing as saying they were certain to collide in 12 seconds, and everyone understands that.

            You’re being a typical internet…well, you know.

      • Julian

        12 seconds apart is a nonsensical statement by itself.

        You are trying to apply the measurement of time to distance. That can only be correlated when velocity and relative motion are taken into account. To imply that two objects in motion are a certain time apart, their 3-dimensional vectors must terminate at the same point in space. Then you can walk the two objects backwards along their paths and determine the time to impact for any given point along their motion vectors. Only then can you say “they were x seconds apart”

        But since these planes were not on colliding courses, there is no “time” between them. The media seized on that by doing some amateurish calculations without thinking about the real spatial problem and ignoring Newton’s second law.

        In short, don’t believe everything you read in the media.

        • Julian

          And I should add, don’t believe everything the media says, and certainly don’t keep repeating it as if it proves your “point”.

        • drax

          They were POSSIBLY 12 seconds apart. Okay? Jeez. They were on possible collision courses, and would have come very close to each other, passing or maybe even colliding, in 12 seconds. We don’t know if they would have collided. They probably wouldn’t have. But I’ll bet you wouldn’t bet your life on it.

          It’s a perfectly legitimate statement. It’s no big deal. Get over it, people.

          • Julian’s smarter friend

            The FAA said the planes were never on a course to collide. How many seconds apart is never?

          • drax

            Planes can change direction though. That’s why they are kept a certain distance apart that is greater than zero. They were 12 seconds from being dangerously close, even if at the time it’s unlikely they would have met. That’s what an operational error is about.

            You are the one making something out of nothing. Maybe Post readers think this means there was a collision certain to happen in 12 seconds, but you understand what it really means, and so do I.

  • bman

    so 1 “derecho” and it’s global warming?

    we’ve had very few tornado warnings and severe storms last couple of years.

    they people need to quit with their bogus “statistics”

    • drax

      No, not “1 derecho and it’s global warming.” Nobody said that. You’re the one with the bogus statistics.

    • Mary-Austin

      Yeah dude…people are so stupid with their science. It’s like they already forgot about snowpocalypse!

      • John Fontain

        So lot’s of cold snow is caused by global warming? Seriously?

        Oy vey!

        • drax

          Yes, actually, John, global warming can cause more snow in the winter in some places.

          This is why science doesn’t consist of ridiculously simplistic ideas on the internet like “So lot’s of cold snow is caused by global warming? Seriously?”

        • Josh S

          Yes.

          Would you please go learn something about the subject before commenting again?

          • John Fontain

            So basically any weather we have is a result of global warming. Got it.

          • drax

            Nope, you don’t got it.

        • Billy Bob

          Actually, yeah – global warming causes lots of ice to melt, which adds lots of water to the oceans, which then evaporates faster b/c it is warmer, which adds lots of moisture to the atmosphere, which creates – yep, you guessed it – more snow in the winter time! Along with more rain and extreme weather events when it’s not cold. Global warming, doesn’t mean the whole planet immediately gets hot and there’s never any more snow – you still have seasons and times when it is cold – it just means the averages go up, climate zones shift, and the range of extremes gets wider in places as it happens. Climate has always changed, and every living thing on earth represents organisms that were able to adapt and survive it – what’s different is the rate of change in the past has been over the course of thousands of years, and now there are signs its changing rapidly over the span of just hundreds of years.

        • drax
    • Josh S

      What do your climate records show?

      What’s that? You don’t have any? Oh. Huh.

      • OhBrother

        Yeah, ice cores from the arctic can’t tell you anything about climate going back hundreds and hundreds of years. Neither can geology – I mean that would be crazy to think you could look at some rocks in the desert and find any evidence that Arizona used to be under water.

        • drax

          He was responding to bman.

  • Westover

    We have hadf one great period of blizzard in the last ten years, I want my SNOW DAYS!!!! Where is this 33% more snow?!?!?!?!?! Bring it on!!!!

  • Suburban Not Urban

    Aside from the arguments about the climate science. The press release appears to contain factual in-accuracies. From the press release – “The new Environment Virginia report, When It Rains, It Pours: Global Warming and the Increase in Extreme Precipitation from 1948 to 2011″ and then goes on to neglect to link to the actual document. A web search turns up the paper – When It Rains, It Pours: Global Warming and the Increase in Extreme Precipitation from 1948 to 2011. At:
    http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/When%20It%20Rains%2C%20It%20Pours%20vUS.pdf
    but authored by “Environment America
    Research & Policy Center”

    If I was a sceptic I would assume this was a blatent attempt to make the conclusions and research appear more local by playing fast and loose with the source.

    • speonjosh

      A careful analysis of fonts and logos reveals that there may be a connection between Environment Virginia and Environment America. But I could be wrong.

      Also, on page 34 of the report – a chart that breaks down the increase in rain and snowstorms by state. With Virginia seeing these events, yes, 33% more frequently than in the past.

      It’s a shame that the linked press release doesn’t include a link to the actual report. But I don’t see any playing fast and loose in terms of the actual content / mesasage.

    • drax

      Environment Virginia is an affiliate of Environment America. Big deal.

      • Suburban Not Urban

        Sorry folks either you wrote it or you didn’t – anything else is mis-representation.

        • Westover

          I just want to see the 33% increase in snow!!!!

        • drax

          It didn’t say that they wrote it, did it? What did it say, exactly?

          If you’re going to play this silly game of technicalities, make sure you get it right.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list