SOCI’d underline the fact that petrol/gasoline is a very cheap commodity
There are factors outside of the dealings of OPEC and other events that can drive gas prices up in a given nation. Part of the problem here in the USA, for example, is our shortage of refining capacity. More refining capacity would mean more product is available and more product would mean the prices would drop. Still won’t help offset the ever-increasing cost of oil per barrel, but it’ll help lower the cost of gasoline.
There is estimated that there is over a trillion tons of carbon locked up in methane hydrates and that there is enough of the latter off the coasts of Florida and Georgia to keep the US in energy for 200 years.
Really, that is certainly interesting. I’d been aware of efforts in trying to make the “oil-from-shale” process cost-effective (some studies indicate that if we could get that to work well enough the US could be self-sufficient), but I hadn’t heard of this concept before. That I will have to go and investigate. Good luck getting that to actually work on a large scale in the US though, a few years back there were plans to place windmills off the coast of Massachusets to generate electricity taking advantage of the atmospheric conditions in the area, but the plan was defeated by liberal politicians living in the area who didn’t want there to be any impact on the horizon from their shoreline homes. No, I am not kidding, welcome to America.
I am not disputing that over the history of the earth that other factors, such as solar output have had an effect on the earths climate, no sensible and aware person would. It is just that right now it is the effect of GHGs that is the overriding factor.
See, from what I gather from interpreting both your postings and some of what you linked to previously, it would seem that GHGs are not the cause but rather the sustainer. It gets warm, GHG presence keeps it warmer than it was before when it cools off due to retention of heat. My point is that there has to be something causing the warming to begin with and that the crowd who want to blame the whole issue solely on GHG emissions are missing the mark.
I have been looking at this issue for many years now, and indeed have referred back to some of my USENET posting of 2002.
Well you do seem far more read on the subject than I do, I do have to give you that. My own interest has been a little more casual and has in no small part stemmed from the American propensity to blame environmental problems on the Republican Party for some odd reason. Which is hilarious when you consider that it was Clinton who sat on Kyoto and did not sign it…but I’ll spare you any more of our political nonsense.
Over the years I have studied books on quantum physics and organic chemistry in order to get a handle on the mechanisms. Also books covering the science behind evolutionary theories which includes geology as well as physics and chemistry.
Geology I do have a minor interest in and have taken a few courses on in the past, I found a lot of it interesting, particularly the science behind volcanic activity. Chemistry? Yeah, not my strong suit. Physics I have no problems with, orbital mechanics was a major part of my master’s degree program, but I never did care all that much for basic chemistry and as such have not attempted to get into the more advanced forms.
However, now you have begun raising interesting points instead of whinging about being insulted.
Well in my defense I was attempting to do both at the same time (ok so I can’t multitask for a damn), at least it appears that we are now progressing beyond the BS and into an actual discussion.
On which score; my allusions to your sarcasm was at first aimed solely at your use of that smiley ‘Roll Eyes(sarcastic)’ which I thought unwarranted under the circ’s and have explained why. Megalith when pointing out that you lacked understanding was not insulting your intelligence which is quite a different thing. But maybe this is down to the nuances of language use each side of the big pond – ‘…two peoples separated by a common language’ and all that.
Fair enough. 🙂 (<–not the sarcasm smiley 😀 )
SOCI’d underline the fact that petrol/gasoline is a very cheap commodity
There are factors outside of the dealings of OPEC and other events that can drive gas prices up in a given nation. Part of the problem here in the USA, for example, is our shortage of refining capacity. More refining capacity would mean more product is available and more product would mean the prices would drop. Still won’t help offset the ever-increasing cost of oil per barrel, but it’ll help lower the cost of gasoline.
There is estimated that there is over a trillion tons of carbon locked up in methane hydrates and that there is enough of the latter off the coasts of Florida and Georgia to keep the US in energy for 200 years.
Really, that is certainly interesting. I’d been aware of efforts in trying to make the “oil-from-shale” process cost-effective (some studies indicate that if we could get that to work well enough the US could be self-sufficient), but I hadn’t heard of this concept before. That I will have to go and investigate. Good luck getting that to actually work on a large scale in the US though, a few years back there were plans to place windmills off the coast of Massachusets to generate electricity taking advantage of the atmospheric conditions in the area, but the plan was defeated by liberal politicians living in the area who didn’t want there to be any impact on the horizon from their shoreline homes. No, I am not kidding, welcome to America.
I am not disputing that over the history of the earth that other factors, such as solar output have had an effect on the earths climate, no sensible and aware person would. It is just that right now it is the effect of GHGs that is the overriding factor.
See, from what I gather from interpreting both your postings and some of what you linked to previously, it would seem that GHGs are not the cause but rather the sustainer. It gets warm, GHG presence keeps it warmer than it was before when it cools off due to retention of heat. My point is that there has to be something causing the warming to begin with and that the crowd who want to blame the whole issue solely on GHG emissions are missing the mark.
I have been looking at this issue for many years now, and indeed have referred back to some of my USENET posting of 2002.
Well you do seem far more read on the subject than I do, I do have to give you that. My own interest has been a little more casual and has in no small part stemmed from the American propensity to blame environmental problems on the Republican Party for some odd reason. Which is hilarious when you consider that it was Clinton who sat on Kyoto and did not sign it…but I’ll spare you any more of our political nonsense.
Over the years I have studied books on quantum physics and organic chemistry in order to get a handle on the mechanisms. Also books covering the science behind evolutionary theories which includes geology as well as physics and chemistry.
Geology I do have a minor interest in and have taken a few courses on in the past, I found a lot of it interesting, particularly the science behind volcanic activity. Chemistry? Yeah, not my strong suit. Physics I have no problems with, orbital mechanics was a major part of my master’s degree program, but I never did care all that much for basic chemistry and as such have not attempted to get into the more advanced forms.
However, now you have begun raising interesting points instead of whinging about being insulted.
Well in my defense I was attempting to do both at the same time (ok so I can’t multitask for a damn), at least it appears that we are now progressing beyond the BS and into an actual discussion.
On which score; my allusions to your sarcasm was at first aimed solely at your use of that smiley ‘Roll Eyes(sarcastic)’ which I thought unwarranted under the circ’s and have explained why. Megalith when pointing out that you lacked understanding was not insulting your intelligence which is quite a different thing. But maybe this is down to the nuances of language use each side of the big pond – ‘…two peoples separated by a common language’ and all that.
Fair enough. 🙂 (<–not the sarcasm smiley 😀 )
SOCWell if you look closely at the Tail Boom its huge compared to MKI and has a sting , Chances are that they will have a rearward facing radar in the boom
Not likely if Bort 901 is representative of the actual production model. Notice how the hinges are still present on the aft end of the tail sting, that indicates that the aft bit is still used as the housing for the drag chute.
SOCLooking at the shape of the canopy, the shape of the instrument panel cowling, and a few other features, that guy is in the backseat of a FLANKER-series aircraft.
SOCthe interceptors are outside the scope of Boyds Theorie at all.
Oh good, I had thought that perhaps that point was just too complicated for people to grasp.
SOC@UAZ: Seems to be the Novator KS-172 AAM-L missile (or a version of it).
That is the current iteration, the Novator K-172S-1. The apperance of the missile here is interesting as the Su-27BM is intended for domestic use, implying that the Novator LRAAM will be part of the weapon system. I wonder if this has any effect at all on potential R-37 integration on the modified FOXHOUNDs?
What else have they done besides adding RAM to the compressor face?
“Electroconductive canopy coating
Radar absorbent coating”
“Reduced radar observability due to application
of radar-absorbing materials and coating”
That comes from the Su-35 Sukhoi brochure. Personally I would’ve liked to have seen the vertical tails canted outward slightly to remove that large RCS hotspot as well, but the above features should at least help to reduce forward-hemisphere RCS.
If I’m the IAF, I start asking about an MKI upgrade featuring those RCS-reducing features and K-172S-1 integration :diablo:
SOCIf the F-12 would had entered service the F-15 perhaps would had entered service if only the YF-12 would not have a good kill ratio using AIM-54s against any enemy aircraft albeit in smaller numbers however if it would had success Skunk works would had pushed for larger numbers of F-12s reducing the numbers of F-15 purchased nevertheless very likely the F-16 would had entered service too
The F-12B would have replaced the F-106 upgrade program. This had absolutely nothing to do with the F-15’s FX program. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and for some reason do not have the ability to grasp the separation between the ADC’s interceptor program and the TAC’s FX program.
Now let us see what represented the YF-12, as any aircraft the F-12 had a price tag, as Mc namara demanded the aircraft was too specialized so it would had to become as the MiG-25 was for the Soviets a recc/attack/fighter aircraft, why? well having the F-12 and F-15 means they would had to share the same military budget approved by the US government and either one would had reduced numbers deployed or being cancelled or the US tax payer would had been levied even more than it was.
Congress approved the F-12B’s funding on more than one occasion, McNamara didn’t want the aircraft so he withheld the money. So the money was already accounted for, and was never an issue! The F-12B was designed for one specific role to fill a specific USAF requirement, expecting it to evolve into multiple versions just because the MiG-25 did is completely and utterly asinine.
Now SOC let us understand why the F-12 was cancelled, simply the F-12 and the F-15 are part of the same military budget of the US, for the US politicians either the YF-12 was more adaptable or multirole as the MiG-25s was or it simply needed to be eliminated because the US tax payer demanded the best and less expensive weapons that is the reason the YF-12 competed with the F-15 and it was eliminated
Competed with the F-15? What are you on about now? The F-12B NEVER competed with the F-15. Not for funding, as the F-12B’s production funding had already been pproved, and not for a service role, as the F-15 was headed to TAC and the F-12B was headed to ADC.
Are you even aware of what ADC was? Because based on your nonsense over the last few pages I don’t think you do.
The MiG-25 program continued even when no B-70 was built, when no F-108 was built and when no F-12 was built why?
Because the MiG-25P wasn’t designed to have anything to do with those aircraft, it was conceived, according to Rostislav Belyakov, to counter the Lockheed A-12.
The F-12 was a hindrance to other programs it was only funneling resources to a program that was basicly very limited that is the reason they killed the program.
McNamara cancelled the acquisition and ordered Lockheed to dismantle the production tooling. Funding for the F-12B, however, was already approved by Congress, on more than one occasion. The program had money, McNamara just didn’t want it.
Boyd`s theories wanted an agile fighter, the F-12 was not agile niether cheap, there was no reason to finance a program that was just wasting tax payer`s money.
Boyd’s theories dealt with tactical fighters. The F-12B was a strategic interceptor. Boyd’s theories were not meant to apply to aircraft like the F-12B.
It was an ultra expensive aircraft with very limited capabilities and uncapable of dealing with the MiG-25.
Who cares, the F-15 was intended to deal with the MiG-25. The A-10 wasn’t capable of dealing with the MiG-25, do you think it should have been cancelled?
Why the USAF was going to buy an interceptor that was going to be build in so small numbers at a very expensive price when very likely its missiles could fail and lack of agility restrict it from dogfighting even with a MiG-25?
Because in order to fly out and take down a bomber you don’t need much in the way of agility. Because the F-12B was never designed nor meant to see any sort of fighter-to-fighter combat. Because your mythical MiG-25 vs F-12 engagement is a creation of your own misguided view of the 1960’s USAF.
The MiG-25 succeeded when the YF-12/SR-71 failed, there was a bomber version
And there were proposed bomber versions of the A-12 and SR-71, but the USAF had come to the realization that the high-speed, high-altitude bomber was an inordinately stupid idea given the increased effectiveness of fighters and SAMs.
SOCTo undersdtand what i am saying you have to go a few years before 1964, in the mid 1950s the Mach 2 bench mark was achieved, the vast majority of fighters developed by the cold warriors achieved the speed of Mach 2 by the mid 1950s, once that was achieved in both sides of the iron curtain Mach 3 became the next speed barrier to ovecome.
You’re talking about aerospace research trends, carry on.
In the late 1950s there were two main technological goals driving aerospace technology, one was Mach 3 and the other was the extensive use of guided air to air missiles
Correct, carry on.
Several american projects set the benchmark of Mach 3 and the YF-12 and bombers like the B-70 are examples of that trend.
The B-70 was to be a Mach 3 bomber for the purpose of survivability. The fact that speed and altitude weren’t going to save it from increasingly nasty SAMs was one of the primary factors that killed the aircraft as a bomber before it even flew.
The F-12B was a Mach 3 interceptor because Kelly Johnson proposed mounting the cancelled F-108’s weapons system to a modified A-12 to fulfill the USAF ADC’s requirement for an advanced interceptor. The Mach 3 “fighters” the USAF was considering in the 50s and 60s were pure interceptors outside the scope of Boyd’s concepts.
The Soviet Union did the same, and that is the way the MiG-25 was borned, the F-111 and the Super Crusader III are other examples even the MiG-23 up to a degree followed that trend.
The MiG-25 gained Mach 3 capability not because they wanted to hit the mark, but because they wanted an interceptor capable of dealing with the A-12. Also, you are ignoring the fact that if you want a pure BVR missile armed interceptor, a very high speed platform isn’t a bad way to go as you’ll impart more kinetic energy onto the missile at launch and get considerably longer range, especially if you fire it at altitude against a lower-altitude target.
in the very late 1950s and very early 1960s speed and guided missiles were seen as the solutions to fight any fighters and super fast supersonic bombers
There’s nothing overly wrong with that statement.
The F-4 represented the same trend however it was only a Mach 2.2 fighter, the original F-4 was basicly a simple interceptor armed with missiles to achieve victories no gun fitted.
That followed the standard belief at the time that guns were outdated, sure.
The Vietnam war proved to the US that that trend was too expensive and did not allow flexibility to their aircraft since fewer could be build and close combat was neglected.
Not exactly. There were two factors that you are not considering here. First, USAF aircraft operated under considerablerestrictions, pretty much eliminating the chances of an actual BVR intercept to begin with. So right off the bat, the F-4 was operating at a bit of a disadvantage as it couldn’t take full advantage of its weapon system. Second, the other real problem was that early AAMs simply didn’t work all that great. Had they been more successful, modern fighters may still lack cannons.
That is when Boyd showed the YF-12 despite been a Mach 3 plus aircraft armed with long range missiles would not stand a chance against the agile mass produced MiG-25
Here we go again. Boyd’s doctrine was never intended to be applied to an aircraft like the F-12B, which was a pure interceptor designed for a very specific role as part of the Air Defense Command. Once again, this is the part that you are failing to understand. ADC and TAC operated under different doctrines for very different roles. That’s why you found TAC operating jets like the F-100 while ADC operated jets like the F-101B. Boyd’s doctrine may have favored an agile dogfighter, sure, but it had no bearing on the F-12B or F-111B as they were not intended for fighter-on-fighter combat.
they needed agility and speed and the F-15 got all those characteristics although it never reached the speed of the MiG-25 and YF-12
Yes, TAC’s new figher needed agility and speed because they had overhyped the MiG-25 by an astronomical margin. That had no bearing on what was going on inside of ADC, where the F-12B would have operated.
By the 1970s attempts to create Mach 3 fighters were dwinling, in fact Mach 2 was the max speed consider a fighter should have since then, even less than Mach 1.8 was good enough, the F-18 and Su-24 were basicly mach 1 plus aircraft.
By the 1970’s it was obious that the idea of a supersonic Soviet bomber coming across the Atlantic was pure fantasy, so there was no need for a high-speed interceptor. Tactical fighters and air superiority aircraft were becoming far more influenced by Boyd’s theories, and they developed accordingly. You are still completely failing to separate ADC from TAC.
By 1970s agility became paramount instead of speed, Boyd prove that both the F-12 and F-111B were ill prepared and the F-15 and F-14 were designed to replace that longing for speed of the 1960s fighters
The F-12B and F-111B were perfectly prepared for their intended roles. Well, ok, the F-111B wasn’t, but that was because it was an overweight aircraft and had some severe carrier suitability issues. When the USN looked to a replacement for the F-111B, they chose to go a different route with an aircraft more along the lines of the F-15, but they wanted to retain the Phoenix capability (some say that was in no small part due to the fact that, after the F-111B debacle, they had no desire to be forcefed another USAF aircraft).
in the the late 1950s and early 1960s speed and missiles neglected agility see that in fact they considered the F-4 did not need a gun simply becasue everything was going to be BVR combat with Missiles, the YF-12 was the same, see that in fact the AIM-47 and AIM-54 started as weapons of fast aircraft mach 3 in the F-12 and mach 2.5 in the F-111B or simply of missile carriers like the Missileer
Read what I posted above, the F-106 turned out to be a maneuverable aircraft and as such was modified to serve as an overseas air defense platform capable of fighter on fighter combat should the need arise. Speed and missile armament did neglect agility to a point, but the fact that agility was not a concern of pure interceptors like the F-111B or F-12B was perfectly fine as again, they weren’t intended to face off against fighters in a dogfight.
SOCROFL! (You having fun yet SOC? :diablo: )
Dude. There were TAC fighters that were eventually influenced heavily by Boyd’s concepts (primary examples: the F-4E, especially the slatted version, and the F-15). Then there were ADC interceptors that were a whole different breed entirely. I have no idea why that is so hard to understand. If there was one set of doctrine driving the entire fleet, then there wouldn’t have been separate ADC aircraft like the F-89, F-101B, F-102, or F-106, let alone the XF-103, XF-108, or F-12B programs.
SOCThat is not what i meant, what i meant is Boyd helped to find the correct approach to what type of aircraft the USAF needed.
For Tactical Air Command, yes.
The F-111 and SR-71 got their right niches and roles thanks to Boyd`s theories,
Where in the world did Boyd’s air combat principles apply to high-altitude strategic reconnaissance aircraft?
instead of making another F-4 interceptor type aircraft the USAF got a pure air superiority fighter in the form of the F-15.
Exactly. Instead of buying another warmed-over interceptor for Tactical Air Command, the FX program was calling for a true air superiority aircraft, the F-15. The F-12 never entered into that debate. It was a response to a requirement completely independant of the FX requirement, for a completely different branch of the USAF, to fulfill a completely different role.
In fact the USAF traded some speed for agility in the F-15, the original F-15 specifications demanded a fighter as fast as the MiG-25.
Correct!
Historically correct there were times when the Soviets were ahead of the west in weaponry and times when the USAF was ahead.
Correct again! Now all you need to do is separate TAC from ADC and you might make sense of the rest of it.
SOCThe fact one program was cancelled and other was started shows very well that the US was unwilling to finance projects with up to a degree lack of technical advantages.
Technical advantage over what?
The YF-12 was cancelled mainly because it was extremely expensive and incredibly specialized, the MiG-25 in the other hand was more affordable.
A bit of an oversimplification as you’ve omitted McNamara’s preferred aircraft, a modified F-106, but that is an acceptable synopsis from a historical standpoint.
The F-15 was designed as a result of the void left by the YF-12, the YF-12 was consider uncapable of tackling the MiG-25 and MiG-23 threat.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. The F-15 was designed specifically as an air superiority aircraft to replace the F-4 in those roles for the TAC component of the USAF. It had absolutely and positively nothing whatsoever to do with the F-12 program. The F-15 was conceived as an aircraft for Tactical Air Command, and the F-12B was conceived to fill a requirement for Air Defense Command. The latter requirement ended up being filled by more F-106s after a few other concepts were examined.
Why? well the F-15 was designed with the idea the MiG-25 was agile and the MiG-23 was more than a match to the F-4.
And the MiG-25 was believed (wrongly) to be an air superiority fighter. Still no F-12B connection.
Boyd did indeed influence but also other factors and the YF-12 proved to be not what the logic of 1965 considered a good fighter to tackle the MiG-25..
You are absolutely right. The F-12B was definitely not the aircraft which would have been designed to counter the MiG-25. That was the F-15. The F-12 was never intended for fighter-on-fighter combat, and as such was not subjected to any of Boyd’s theories.
The F-4 for example was a multiservice aircraft, the F-15 and F-16 also served with the ANG and the F-16 even with the Navy albeit as an agressor.
What has that got to do with anything?
In the US when an aircraft is capable and the right policies are followed some fighters can take other roles, but in this case the YF-12 did not simply because as an USAF fighter was deemed a very limited aircraft as a bomber and as a fighter and ended up as a very low production surveillance aircraft
As a “fighter” the F-12B was purposely intended to be limited from the outset. It was designed specifically to fulfill a requirement for a new ADC interceptor. It had no relationship whatsoever with any of the TAC fighter programs such as the F-110A/F-4 or F-15.
There were TAC aircraft, which ended up being governed by a lot of Boyd’s theories, and then there were separate ADC aircraft, purpose-built outside of the concepts Boyd was commenting on as they were never, ever, ever intended for fighter-on-fighter combat.
Later on the F-106 did receive some modifications to allow the interceptor to operate in an air defense capability overseas, such as the 20mm gun and new RHAW gear, but the aircraft was designed as a pure ADC interceptor. The Sixshooter program started in 1967 because flight testing showed that the F-106 did in fact have the inherent speed and maneuverability to perform in an anti-fighter role. But again, it was never ever designed for that function, the capabilities enabling Sixshooter to proceed were a credit to the excellent design of the aircraft itself.
F-102 usage over Vietnam was a stupid example of “lets use this over there” and failed miserably because the F-102 was not designed for fighter on fighter combat. Why? Suprise, it was an ADC aircraft.
SOCAre the FOXBATs no longer operational?
SOCNow I have looked at your side, or the little that you have presented so far and answered it which is a great deal more than you have done WRT my pointers as is evident from the content of your postings.
You haven’t replied to my rebuttal link discussing Milankovitch cycles, for one.
And the Resource insights blog features a reply by Kurt Cobb stating that we cannot know at this time what the actual effect of solar radiation is over a period of time. Clearly the sources I have seen have jumped the gun if Cobb’s assertion is correct. However, to me, Cobb says quite clearly that the door is open for the possibility of solar radiation being a major cause of climate change. He isn’t discounting it as you appear to be, just stating that we do not know what its actual effects have been due to limitations in measuring and whatnot.
This reply is really interesting at this point:
“Cockburn also quotes Hertzberg that the geologic record shows that increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide actually lag increases in temperature. Again, he is technically correct. But as RealClimate explains here, in comparison to the total interval of warming (usually around 5,000 years) the lag of about 800 years is relatively short. What this means is that the first 800 years of warming can be attributed to other factors, but that the next 4200 years of warming are heavily influenced by carbon dioxide levels. And, the role of carbon dioxide in trapping heat is not in dispute.”
What I find interesting is the 800 year period. If there was another factor driving warming during that period, then perhaps it also drove the warming after the 800 year period. Yes, CO2 traps heat, sure, but there was still something else driving the warming. In that vein it is not CO2 that caused the warming per se, but some other outside factor, while the CO2 merely retained heat, constantly increasing the baseline mean temperature. In today’s world, get rid of the CO2 and you’re still going to get warmer. CO2 levels retaining heat to some degree, perhaps if they could be regulated on a large scale, could actually be employed to keep the climate stable indefinitely, but that is provided that you figure out what is actually making the temperature increase in the first place, and eliminate that, if possible.
He also states: “No genuine climate scientist will tell you that global warming has one and only one cause.”
Which is actually perfectly in line with my position that I do acknowlege that the climate is changing, but do not necessarily buy into the CO2 arguments.
Most of the rest of your sources, unfortunately, are beyond my grasp, literally. While I appreciate the amazon links to new books, as I do have an interest in scientific writings (if you want a really nasty read, find Biohazard by Ken Alibek, or for a suprisingly humorous text find The God Particle by Leon Lederman, although neither of them have anything whatsoever to do with this line of discussion, sorry), my current “to order” list is backlogged to the point that the items at the bottom may never find their way to my shelves. Yefim Gordon’s Red Star series is a prime culprit responsible for an ever-increasing portion of my library resulting in a lack of attention to a number of other things I’ve been meaning to track down, for example, but I digress.
BTW Thank you for displaying the definition of ‘boorish’. From that list it is very easy to see why your unwarranted use of sarcasm, notwithstanding your latest explanation which does not stand up to scrutiny, was boorish.
Really. Would you kindly explain that further, as I plainly do not see where what I said was “boorish”. My reply to one line was sarcastic, yes, but as my intelligence was being questioned by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of my personal or educational background, I didn’t see the harm in it.
You still have not addressed your pointed allegation that my posting habits are consistently full of unfounded sarcasm, either. For the record, not a single line of this reply was intended to be sarcastic, in case you misinterpreted something along the way.
SOCNow I have looked at your side, or the little that you have presented so far and answered it which is a great deal more than you have done WRT my pointers as is evident from the content of your postings.
You haven’t replied to my rebuttal link discussing Milankovitch cycles, for one.
And the Resource insights blog features a reply by Kurt Cobb stating that we cannot know at this time what the actual effect of solar radiation is over a period of time. Clearly the sources I have seen have jumped the gun if Cobb’s assertion is correct. However, to me, Cobb says quite clearly that the door is open for the possibility of solar radiation being a major cause of climate change. He isn’t discounting it as you appear to be, just stating that we do not know what its actual effects have been due to limitations in measuring and whatnot.
This reply is really interesting at this point:
“Cockburn also quotes Hertzberg that the geologic record shows that increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide actually lag increases in temperature. Again, he is technically correct. But as RealClimate explains here, in comparison to the total interval of warming (usually around 5,000 years) the lag of about 800 years is relatively short. What this means is that the first 800 years of warming can be attributed to other factors, but that the next 4200 years of warming are heavily influenced by carbon dioxide levels. And, the role of carbon dioxide in trapping heat is not in dispute.”
What I find interesting is the 800 year period. If there was another factor driving warming during that period, then perhaps it also drove the warming after the 800 year period. Yes, CO2 traps heat, sure, but there was still something else driving the warming. In that vein it is not CO2 that caused the warming per se, but some other outside factor, while the CO2 merely retained heat, constantly increasing the baseline mean temperature. In today’s world, get rid of the CO2 and you’re still going to get warmer. CO2 levels retaining heat to some degree, perhaps if they could be regulated on a large scale, could actually be employed to keep the climate stable indefinitely, but that is provided that you figure out what is actually making the temperature increase in the first place, and eliminate that, if possible.
He also states: “No genuine climate scientist will tell you that global warming has one and only one cause.”
Which is actually perfectly in line with my position that I do acknowlege that the climate is changing, but do not necessarily buy into the CO2 arguments.
Most of the rest of your sources, unfortunately, are beyond my grasp, literally. While I appreciate the amazon links to new books, as I do have an interest in scientific writings (if you want a really nasty read, find Biohazard by Ken Alibek, or for a suprisingly humorous text find The God Particle by Leon Lederman, although neither of them have anything whatsoever to do with this line of discussion, sorry), my current “to order” list is backlogged to the point that the items at the bottom may never find their way to my shelves. Yefim Gordon’s Red Star series is a prime culprit responsible for an ever-increasing portion of my library resulting in a lack of attention to a number of other things I’ve been meaning to track down, for example, but I digress.
BTW Thank you for displaying the definition of ‘boorish’. From that list it is very easy to see why your unwarranted use of sarcasm, notwithstanding your latest explanation which does not stand up to scrutiny, was boorish.
Really. Would you kindly explain that further, as I plainly do not see where what I said was “boorish”. My reply to one line was sarcastic, yes, but as my intelligence was being questioned by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of my personal or educational background, I didn’t see the harm in it.
You still have not addressed your pointed allegation that my posting habits are consistently full of unfounded sarcasm, either. For the record, not a single line of this reply was intended to be sarcastic, in case you misinterpreted something along the way.
SOCAnd what the Navy really wants often remains their secret. One thing is for sure: it doesn’t want something from the USAF, everything else can be negotiated. Actually, Boyd did also participate in this classic USN vs USAF procurement battles. “His” F-16 was supposed to become Navy fighter. The F-15 as planned for some time was so heavy and cumbersome that the Navy proposed the F-14 for the USAF.
The naval F-16 would have been developed by Vought, in the same manner that the naval F-17 was to be developed by McDonnell-Douglas. With a strengthened airframe, weight increases, AIM-7 capability, and more robust landing gear, it is up for debate whether the naval F-16 would have been as agile as the USAF version.
The F-14 was also offered as an F-106 replacement as well, and there were proposals for a navalised F-15 using the Phoenix weapon system.
Sign In
