Another useless fearmongering inconvenience...

[Mr, gone]

Just like the "shoe bomber" forced us to smell each other's bad feet and bacteria. Now we all have to bend over to this as well.:disbelief: Enjoy, all you folks with hemoroids - or maybe those with small bladders.

Iv'e got an idea, bring a piss jar to voice your dismay.:lmao2:


WASHINGTON – Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing

The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. The airline said that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won't be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.

Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.

The TSA issued a security directive for U.S.-bound flights from overseas, according to a transportation security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly.

The official said passengers traveling internationally could see increased security screening at gates and when they check their bags, as well as additional measures on flights such as stowing carryons and personal items before the plane lands.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement Saturday that passengers flying to the U.S. from overseas may notice extra security, but she said the measures "are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere."

A Nigerian passenger on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam allegedly attempted to start a fire as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, according to authorities. The incident has sparked a major international terrorism investigation.

Air Canada said it was limiting passengers to one carryon bag in response to a request from the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The airline advised U.S.-bound passengers to restrict their carryon item to "the absolute minimum" or to not carry any bag on board at all.

"Carriage of any carryon item will result in lengthy security delays for the customer," the airline said.

U.S.-bound flights on all airlines are experiencing significant delays, said Duncan Dee, Air Canada's executive vice president and chief operating officer.

A spokeswoman with Infraero, a Brazilian government agency that oversees airport infrastructure, said that airlines had been asked by federal authorities to add another layer of security for international flights originating in the country after the attempted attack in the U.S.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss the matter, said that passengers would face an extra screening that would take place just before they boarded planes. She would give no more details, citing security concerns.

David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, said the domestic airline industry has been in close coordination with the security administration since Friday's incident and there will be increased scrutiny of passengers. He declined to comment on whether new regulations have been put in place.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airline_attack_regulations

[Pat]

Just like the "shoe bomber" forced us to smell each other's bad feet and bacteria. Now we all have to bend over to this as well.:disbelief: Enjoy, all you folks with hemoroids - or maybe those with small bladders.

Iv'e got an idea, bring a piss jar to voice your dismay.:lmao2:




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airline_attack_regulations
It only takes one to screw things up for everybody.
Kemper made hitch hiking a problem.

[nipoleon]

It's far easier to intimidate the innocent than to catch the guilty.

[Pat]

It's far easier to intimidate the innocent than to catch the guilty.
Only when the innocent allow themselves to be intimidated.

[Mr, gone]

Only when the innocent allow themselves to be intimidated.

Since 9/11, the american people have not only bent over, but they brought the lube as well.:disbelief: Those big bad "terroists" over there, must be smilling ear to ear at how the US reacts to these little "incidents".

[Pat]

Another useless fearmongering inconvenience...
Global warming comes to mind also.

[Mr, gone]

Global warming comes to mind also.

A baited statement... The human species (via it's over consumption and over popullation), has polluted the soil, drinking water - and has created billions of tons of toxic waste. If you understand this fact, then not much more thought is required - to see that earth's climate likely has been affected also (science has been measuring the ozone layer depletion for decades).

Is humanity so vain as to think this planet has unlimited resources?

[Pat]

Vain enough to think we can control climate.

[Bill Cosby]

Vain enough to think we can control climate.

Vain enough to think we can influence it??

[Mr, gone]

Vain enough to think we can control climate.


This reality will help you understand how we can influence the weather. It is not a far reach to see that humans have affected their climate. Where do you think acid rain comes from? (One guess - POLLUTION IN THE AIR):taunt:

The St. Louis Arch affects the weather.

You may have heard of lake effect snow. You also might have heard of El Niño, a weather phenomena that affects weather around the globe; but have you ever heard of the arch effect? Probably not. The arch effect is one of the strangest occurances in weather. The arch effect is also manmade, and it is very real.

The St. Louis Arch, a 636 ft. monument on the west bank of the Mississippi River, has stood for nearly forty years. It is a shining monument built to convey St. Louis’s role as the Gateway to the West. Only now has the reason for its construction as well as its true purpose been revealed. It seems that some of the same scientists responsible for the doomsday weapon research in the deserts of the Southwest U.S. during the forties, were also interested in controlling the weather. They hoped to use weather control as a means to aid in troop movement and logistics for the Allies, as well as use it as a tactical weapon against the enemy. This, they hoped, would bring about a quick end to the war in Europe.


Thus, the design for the arch was conceived. The stainless steel structure, while able to produce an ionic pulse, is impervious to any lingering affects. Each leg of the arch is able to push positive and negative ions into the air so as to create a positive or negatively charged field that can ‘push’ storms out of the way. During the day this national monument stands as the gateway to the west, but after hours this man-made marvel turns into one of the most powerful weather controlling devices ever conceived.

As storms roll across the plains of North America they cut a path of destruction. The midwest has a notorious reputation for severe and dangerous weather. Powerful thunderstorms, tornadoes, and severe ice and snowstorms pummel the area year round. But, for some odd reason, as these storm systems approach the St. Louis metro area; they seem to “split” in half. One half of the storm system will move to the north, while the other half will move the opposite direction; creating an area in the middle without any severe weather. This area in the middle, you guessed it, the St. Louis metro area. These storms then “rejoin” again over Illinois and Indiana, well past St. Louis.

Examples of this ‘arch effect’ are there for all to see. Meteorologists comment on this oddity during their weather reports. People in the area breathe sighs of relief as they are spared from yet another powerful series of storms. Does this happen every time, you may ask? The answer, put simply, is no. Obviously the device cannot be used frequently during business hours as many tourists are inside the arch, but also the ‘Powers that be’ use this device at their own discretion so as not to draw too much attention. This device can be reversed to draw storms into the area as well, which has been noticed on several occasions. Storm systems that were well out of the area were suddenly ‘pulled’ to the St. Louis metro area in such a way that nature could have never intended. Obviously, the ability to draw storm systems would provide a definite tactical military advantage.

The government has long since tried to cover up the details on this secret research project. Scientists involved in the development and construction of this technology in the Arch were moved to other countries to continue additional research projects. Contractors involved in the construction were not aware of the technologies and devices being implemented in the Arch. To this day, very few people know of the existence of the ‘Weather Control Experiments’ taking place in the Midwest. But the next time you watch the weather, pay close attention to the strange weather patterns and movement of storm systems in the St. Louis area.

There's nothing like a spot of rain to ruin a parade, especially when that parade is the 60th anniversary of communist rule. So with past records indicating that October 1 had a 30 per cent chance of rain, Chinese authorities sent planes into the air to seed clouds with silver iodide or dry ice — solid carbon dioxide — to ensure rain didn't reach Beijing.
The day went off without a hitch, but was it thanks to human intervention or just good luck? Can humans really manipulate the weather?
No, says climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman from the University of New South Wales, particularly when it comes to controlling large weather systems like storms.
If you're going to do something to stop a storm forming you need to be in exactly the right place at the right time, and the odds aren't in your favour, says Pitman.
The problem is we can't predict exactly where a storm is going to form.
"To stop a thunderstorm forming is analogous to identifying which human would bring swine flu into the country," he says.
Storms form in many different ways, depending on the type of storm.
For example, tropical cyclones form over the ocean and need a certain ocean temperature before there is enough energy to drive the formation of the storm, says Pitman. Whereas thunderstorms might be triggered by an existing front or by extreme local convection, rising currents of warm air in the atmosphere.
Storms also vary in size and don't tend to stay in one spot. A cyclone may be a thousand kilometres across, for example, while at the other end of the scale a thunderstorm cell may be only 100 metres by 100 metres across.
And even if we could pinpoint a storm's location our actions may not have much effect.
"It's very hard to see how anything that humans could do on a necessarily local scale could really make much of a difference," says Pitman.
For example, if you knew a cyclone was going to form over a particular place you could absolutely stop it forming by pouring large amounts of cold water into the ocean, he says.
"But you'd have to pour astronomically large amounts of water in just the right place and it's not technically feasible."
Strategies to stop a tropical cyclone from intensifying by changing the pressure of the cyclone system are still very much in the realm of science fiction, he says.
But Pitman argues there are often better ways of dealing with storms than trying to stop them altogether.
"Most of these storms don't do a lot of damage, in fact they do a lot of good," he says. "A big cyclone generates a whole lot of rainfall over the land so the trick is not to be vulnerable to the extremes of that cyclone."
^ to top
Seeding the clouds
So if we can't stop storms, how feasible is it to generate or suppress rain through cloud seeding?
There are a variety of reasons why it doesn't rain: sometimes there aren't enough cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere, there could be too much dust, or maybe not enough water droplets have formed to make it rain.
In those instances where it's almost going to rain cloud seeding can sometimes provide the cloud condensation nuclei or other things needed to trigger precipitation, says Pitman, but the science behind it is still unproven.
However there are a few very good ongoing studies being conducted to substantiate the science, says Pitman, including one being conducted by Hydro Tasmania.
"There is some evidence that the cloud seeding over Tasmania has increased rainfall but it's a pretty small amount as far as I understand it," he says.
Pitman thinks future research may focus more on how we're inadvertently modifying the weather, rather than on how to control it, given the emerging evidence that fine particle pollution or aerosols can suppress rainfall.
"There will I think be a lot of work done over the next few decades on associations between aerosols and rainfall above and downwind of the big urban centres and I think there will likely be some link there."
Professor Andy Pitman was interviewed by Suzannah Lyons.

Thursday, April 9, 2009 Credit AZ Rainman By Solmaz Barazesh
Research/Penn State

Opening night of the 2008 Beijing Olympic summer games was an awesome spectacle: thousands of dancers, acrobats and singers performed in carefully choreographed unison to produce a thrilling display. No detail was too big or too small to be left to chance; from the cuteness of the child performers, down to one factor that seemed uncontrollable—the weather. It was widely reported that the Chinese government's "weather modification office" was launching rockets from 20 strategically placed locations into any ominous looking clouds on the horizon, causing them to release their moisture as rain before the big night. Right on schedule, the first day of the Olympics dawned clear, with low humidity and a high of 83 degrees—a notable contrast to the usual hot and muggy conditions of South East Asia in August.

Does this prove that humans have learned how to control the weather?

“Not really,” says Charles L. Hosler, Penn State professor emeritus of meteorology and former Vice President for Research. “In certain, limited weather conditions, humans can have some impact on the weather. But not on the scale needed to change the weather conditions in China during the rainy season. It is more likely that it was just good luck.” And, he notes, “apart from that opening night, the Beijing games were a washout” in terms of weather.

The idea of humans controlling the weather is not a new one. “Back in medieval France, people would shoot cannons into the clouds to try to prevent crop-damaging hail,” says Hosler. But it wasn’t until the 1940s that human attempts to influence the weather had any real results. “A series of weather modification experiments carried out by General Electric Laboratories showed that releasing chemicals such as silver iodide into supercooled clouds caused droplets to turn to ice at higher than normal temperatures and the ice crystals to grow large enough to fall as snow or rain, a practice known as seeding,” Hosler explains.

This discovery was met with great excitement. In 1951, a Senator from the arid state of New Mexico introduced the Weather Modification Act, which proposed the establishment of a commission to control U.S. weather with the goal of creating “an equitable distribution of precipitation among the states.” But despite the hype, some scientists, including Hosler, had their doubts.

“On a cloud-by-cloud basis, and on some types of clouds, seeding worked,” says Hosler. "For example, during very cold conditions, it would be possible to clear fog over an airport for long enough for a plane to land.” But in order to have an impact on the weather on the scale necessary to redistribute rainfall around the United States, or to change the weather ahead of a big event “the clouds in thousands of cubic miles of airspace would have to be seeded at just the right time and place, and that isn’t viable. The idea that a minor alternation in a cloud process could overcome the multitude and magnitude of forces that determine where and when it rains is a gross oversimplification of the process that produces rain on a large scale,” he adds. Under most conditions, seeding has no impact at all. Nature is in charge.”

Hosler participated in experiments in weather modification in the U.S. throughout the 1950’s, 60s and 70s. “Our goal was to investigate the many mechanisms that play roles in the production of precipitation," he recalls. “There were experiments to seed clouds to produce rain or snow, to prevent hail and lightning, and even to reduce the intensity of hurricanes.”

The fact that weather is a constantly changing entity made the results difficult to interpret, leading to open hostility between opposing research groups. Hosler recounts an attempt by a commercial group to prevent hail in southern Pennsylvania. “A thunderstorm detected by radar would be seeded, and sure enough, the thunderstorm would dissipate within 20 to 30 minutes." However, Hosler notes, “Further investigation showed that thunderstorm or rain shower cells in that region would naturally dissipate in about half an hour—so the seeding was really not having any effect.”

In time, these attempts at weather modification were terminated, Hosler adds. “With the technology of the times, they could not demonstrate any effect of seeding. Variations in weather could occur based on so many different factors. We came to the conclusion that the impact that humans can have on controlling weather is negligible.”

But that doesn’t mean that weather modification is impossible. “There is no doubt in my mind that one day, we will be able to alter precipitation patterns in a predictable manner," says Hosler. "But that will be some time in the future," he predicts. " We will have to improve our understanding of cloud physics and dynamics, our ability to monitor weather on a real-time basis, and better understand the physical processes going on in clouds."

What of China's claims that they engineered the clear skies on opening night?

“Having a grand sounding weather modification office, and releasing press reports about weather control makes a country sound powerful," concludes Hosler. "It was likely a P.R. stunt to create a splash in the run up to the Olympics.”

***
Charles L. Hosler, Ph.D., is professor emeritus in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, and former Vice President for Research, and can be reached at hosler@ems.psu.edu.



http://live.psu.edu/story/39033

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/10/08/2708649.htm

http://www.failedsuccess.com/index.php?/weblog/more/arch_weather_story

[Pat]

This reality will help you understand how we can influence the weather. It is not a far reach to see that humans have affected their climate. Where do you think acid rain comes from? (One guess - POLLUTION IN THE AIR):taunt:









http://live.psu.edu/story/39033

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/10/08/2708649.htm

http://www.failedsuccess.com/index.php?/weblog/more/arch_weather_story

Climate and weather are 2 different things.
I said climate, not weather.

[foxbaron]

A baited statement... The human species (via it's over consumption and over popullation), has polluted the soil, drinking water - and has created billions of tons of toxic waste. If you understand this fact, then not much more thought is required - to see that earth's climate likely has been affected also (science has been measuring the ozone layer depletion for decades).

Is humanity so vain as to think this planet has unlimited resources?


The you should be thanking Bush for strating these wars to cut down on the over populaion.

[T-Cat]

Climate and weather are 2 different things.
I said climate, not weather.Do you actually consider reducing emissions that effect climate the same thing as controlling it? Climate will still be variable and have many factors that cannot be controlled.

It is no more controlling the climate than restricting CFC's emissions was us controlling the ozone layer.

[Pat]

Do you actually consider reducing emissions that effect climate the same thing as controlling it? Climate will still be variable and have many factors that cannot be controlled.

It is no more controlling the climate than restricting CFC's emissions was us controlling the ozone layer.
So far it hasn't been proven that (man made) emissions affect the climate.

The sun has a far larger impact on the ozone layer than anything else.

[T-Cat]

So far it hasn't been proven that (man made) emissions affect the climate.Science rarely proves things. It analyzes data and provides theories for why and how things happen. So far the vast majority of the evidence says that CO2 and other GHG emissions are and will effect climate.

The sun has a far larger impact on the ozone layer than anything else.Why does the sun have an impact on the ozone layer?

Again there is a large body of science that demostrates how chlorine from CFC's destroys the ozone layer.

[Pat]

Science rarely proves things. It analyzes data and provides theories for why and how things happen. So far the vast majority of the evidence says that CO2 and other GHG emissions are and will effect climate.

Why does the sun have an impact on the ozone layer?

Again there is a large body of science that demostrates how chlorine from CFC's destroys the ozone layer.
Read about it here,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
Or here,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050301_ozone_thinning.html

[T-Cat]

Read about it here,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
Or here,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050301_ozone_thinning.htmlYes but the sun has always been violent. It hasn't been more violent over the last 60 or so years when the ozone layer shrunk dramatically. That is where science comes into play. It demostrates that something else is what caused the ozone layer to deteriorate and the process in which it did.

And now some 15 years after banning the wide scale usage of CFC's we are seeing a stablization fo the ozone layer. Not a coincidence.

[Pat]

Yes but the sun has always been violent. It hasn't been more violent over the last 60 or so years when the ozone layer shrunk dramatically. That is where science comes into play. It demostrates that something else is what caused the ozone layer to deteriorate and the process in which it did.

And now some 15 years after banning the wide scale usage of CFC's we are seeing a stablization fo the ozone layer. Not a coincidence.
Perhaps it is a logical fallacy.
Just because A happened, then B happened does not necessarily mean that A caused B.

[T-Cat]

Perhaps it is a logical fallacy.
Just because A happened, then B happened does not necessarily mean that A caused B.Ahhh but the science does not live by correlations alone.

Science also demonstrates how:

1. CFC's are broken down by UV radiation releasing Chlorine
2. How that Chlorine reacts with oxygen to form compounds that destroy ozone.
3. How stratoshpheric Chlorine levels increased and then levelled off with the emissions of CFC's
4. How other chlorine emitters (large volcanic eruptions) have a similar effect on the deteriation of strat ozone.

So no logical fallacy, the scientific mechanisms are well established.

[Pat]

Ahhh but the science does not live by correlations alone.

Science also demonstrates how:

1. CFC's are broken down by UV radiation releasing Chlorine
2. How that Chlorine reacts with oxygen to form compounds that destroy ozone.
3. How stratoshpheric Chlorine levels increased and then levelled off with the emissions of CFC's
4. How other chlorine emitters (large volcanic eruptions) have a similar effect on the deteriation of strat ozone.

So no logical fallacy, the scientific mechanisms are well established.
I refer you to your other post, not so long ago,
Science rarely proves things. It analyzes data and provides theories for why and how things happen. So far the vast majority of the evidence says that CO2 and other GHG emissions are and will effect climate.
Good thing I have you around to prove things to me.

[T-Cat]

I refer you to your other post, not so long ago,

Good thing I have you around to prove things to me.Where did I say science proved anything about CFC's? Once again science provides what appears to be by far and away the best explanation. Yet pat, clearly not a scientist, claims to think otherwise.

[Pat]

Where did I say science proved anything about CFC's? Once again science provides what appears to be by far and away the best explanation. Yet pat, clearly not a scientist, claims to think otherwise.
And what field of science is your education in?
I said you were proving things, not science. It was a bit tongue in cheek, perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.

[T-Cat]

And what field of science is your education in?Math, Chemistry, and Physics.

I said you were proving things, not science. It was a bit tongue in cheek, perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.Your subtlety was nothing more than you ducking out of an actual discussion.

You implied that ozone depletion via CFC's was basically established by correlation, not scientific processes. That is incorrect.

What I said about science establishing is quite correct. And that there is little doubt in the scientific community that CFC emissions were responsible for the majority of stratospheric ozone loss.

[Pat]

Math, Chemistry, and Physics.

Your subtlety was nothing more than you ducking out of an actual discussion.

You implied that ozone depletion via CFC's was basically established by correlation, not scientific processes. That is incorrect.

What I said about science establishing is quite correct. And that there is little doubt in the scientific community that CFC's emissions were responsible for the majority of stratospheric ozone loss.
And the University of East Anglia sort of had some emails leaked that indicate Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't really happening, despite all the "science" behind AGW that you and I have been fed over the last 10 years.

Your education in math, chemistry and physics appears to be lacking in education on climate, astronomy and weather.
I showed how the sun has a large impact on ozone depletion, you just chose to not acknowledge the articles I posted.

[T-Cat]

And the University of East Anglia sort of had some emails leaked that indicate Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't really happening,No they didn't, that is pure fabrication in the denialsphere.

despite all the "science" behind AGW that you and I have been fed over the last 10 years.The science is based on very sound principles and is well establishied.

Your education in math, chemistry and physics appears to be lacking in education on climate, astronomy and weather.Oh and you think yours is better? Let us see.

I showed how the sun has a large impact on ozone depletion, you just chose to not acknowledge the articles I posted.The very article you presented stated: "The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere. "

Do you not actually read what you post?

Many things have impacts, solar flares are one of them, but they do not demostrate a trend which is what is required to explain the longer term change in the ozone layer. They reperesent a short term change from one year to another.

[Pat]

No they didn't, that is pure fabrication in the denialsphere.
Seems you are living in denial.


The science is based on very sound principles and is well establishied.

Oh and you think yours is better? Let us see.

The very article you presented stated: "The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere. "

Do you not actually read what you post?

Many things have impacts, solar flares are one of them, but they do not demostrate a trend which is what is required to explain the longer term change in the ozone layer. They reperesent a short term change from one year to another.
Yes, many things have impact. To think that man is somehow responsible is egotistical at best and criminal at it's worst.
But hey, nothing like a good crisis to rally the sheep to call for more protection from themselves.

[T-Cat]

Seems you are living in denial.You are welcome to post the actual emails. I will then post them in full context and we can discuss what they mean.

Yes, many things have impact. To think that man is somehow responsible is egotistical at best and criminal at it's worst.Ahh yes Pat ignores how his/her own source contradicts his/her very claim and then quickly leaves behind the scientific argument falling back instead on the fallacy of argument based on astonishment.

But hey, nothing like a good crisis to rally the sheep to call for more protection from themselves.nothing like ignoring well established science because you don't give a shit about the people who are harmed by your actions.

[Pat]

You are welcome to post the actual emails. I will then post them in full context and we can discuss what they mean.

Ahh yes Pat ignores how his/her own source contradicts his/her very claim and then quickly leaves behind the scientific argument falling back instead on the fallacy of argument based on astonishment.

nothing like ignoring well established science because you don't give a shit about the people who are harmed by your actions.
Funny, I quoted two (yes two) of your posts where you contradicted yourself. You should be outraged at yourself, not me.

The real tragedy here is that you keep claiming that I claimed something, when all I did was post some links. Unlike you that contradicts yourself (as shown by your very own quoted posts).
I guess there is a reason for your chosen screen name.

[T-Cat]

Funny, I quoted two (yes two) of your posts where you contradicted yourself. You should be outraged at yourself, not me.Where did I contradict myself? I never did.

The real tragedy here is that you keep claiming that I claimed something, when all I did was post some links. Unlike you that contradicts yourself (as shown by your very own quoted posts).
I guess there is a reason for your chosen screen name.Fact: You have implied that ozone depletion is due to natural causes more than human causes. This is in fact contradicted by one of the sources you gave.

Fact: You implied that the depletion of the ozone layer was perhaps a logical fallacy based on a correlation. You however forget to mention that science has established a variety of physical explanations for the depletion of ozone due to chlorine from CFC's. In fact the very discover of CFC-Ozone depletion came from investigating what happened to all the CFC's that were released into the atmosphere, not the other way around.

[Mr, gone]

The you should be thanking Bush for strating these wars to cut down on the over populaion.

The number of poeple that would need to be eliminated to make a difference, is far greater than those clueless huddled masses - that Bush erased in the catastrophes in Iraq and Afganinam...

These "wars" are simply to maintain an industry which opened it's doors shortly after WWII.

Below is a "taste" :lmao2: of what things may come to, as a result of excessive and unresponsible procreation.

08Gs77rRalA