Posts by Dodgy Geezer 1773 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Jul 2007
...yet the data don't show that it's stopped...
Ah, well, I can only go by what the scientists at the UEA say, and what Pachauri, the head of the IPCC says. If you have data which seems to show different, I'm sure they'll be very interested to study it. AR5 is due soon, and your new data will be really useful for that - they were going to have to put graphs out showing the actual warming dropping out off their predictions...
...If you have any papers in particular you'd like me to look at, i'd be more than happy to do so....
Not at all - you already seem to be well on top of the subject. Noticing the difference between North and South will already indicate to you that this is not a simple case of heat from the air flowing straight into the water - as will the lack of warming in the shallow ocean. Pay attention to the error bars - and consider whether the claimed accuracy is likely to be achieved in practice. Note the many other explanations there might be for small variations in temperature. And come to your own conclusions.
I still have basic thermodynamic difficulties with the idea that CO2 can constantly increase, while the air temperatures heat up, flatline and then decrease, and the ocean conveniently in the meantime soaks up enough heat to maintain the upward curve as predicted. Hansen talks about 'Climate Inertia' - I think that's just shorthand for 'find something which might be getting hotter and claim that that is where the heat is going without bothering to establish a mechanism'...
I very much dislike these most recent articles that seem to be implying that global warming doesn't exist at all. Sure maybe it's not happening exactly like we first imagined it. But to imply that it is not happening at all and never will just isn't cricket.
I haven't heard that argument before. Are you seriously saying that if the data show that warming has stopped that we should continue to believe that it's going up because that would be 'sporting'?
...Besides regardless of if it is or isn't 'real' the pursuit of more efficient machines, renewable resources etc can only be a good thing...
No it's not. Please learn a bit more about the balance of efficiency and utility. And consider how the forced application of renewable energy to a system like the Grid which is not able to accept it will damage the entire infrastructure. Why do you think that the Czechs are building blocking transformers between their Grid and the German one?
... However the balance of analysis i've seen thus far, which includes deep ocean temperatures, still seems to indicate a warming trend in total...
You have already read the papers which show global warming to be halting.
Read them again, paying particular attention to the suggestion that deep ocean temperatures are maintaining a warming trend. You will find that the data does not bear this out, and what the papers are doing is taking sparse, highly error-prone data and torturing it until they think that they can make assertions about it. The 'deep-ocean' temperature is essentially unknown at present, and highly-error-prone proxies like sea-level figures are being used to estimate it. It is an act of faith to believe in continued warming at present - not a judgement based on good data...
...For some part I agree. However the CO2 debate also has a lot of positive side effects. Pushing for more efficient energy usage is not such a bad thing. More efficient engines, heating and light, for example....
Actually, it can be a bad thing. Human development and economics are not zero-sum games, but exercises in balance in a constantly changing environment. Efficiency is generally advantageous, but there can easily be such a thing as too much efficiency, if the by-products of this cause problems. For instance, we could insulate houses to a far greater degree than we do at present. We could make the walls much thicker, remove all windows and use an airlock to enter. But this would be considered extreme - in fact we prefer to insulate ourselves to a degree, insulate the house to a degree, and then use energy to maintain a decent temperature.
It is the market place which determines where this balance lies. Monkeying around with the market place by putting 'behaviour-modification' taxes on may improve insulation levels, but will distort other things which may be equally, or more, important. And, since the market-place usually produces the optimum balance, any distortion usually produces a net loss....
...That's the difference between scientists and you: They are willing to revise their beliefs based on evidence, observations, and data. You, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something -- regardless of evidence, observations, and data...
I see that you are commenting on a subject you know nothing whatsoever about. Let me correct you, and anyone else who thinks that the point you have made is valid.
These examples are NOT ones of scientists 'finding out mistakes'. They are examples of establishment scientists SUPPRESSING the truth, closing down discussions and ruining the careers of anyone who dared to disagree with them.
The truth about these topics was suppressed for varying lengths of time, as documented in the table below. Global Warming will be joining that list shortly.
Heliocentric view of the Solar System - some hundreds of years
Peptic Ulcers - around 20 years
Plate Tectonics - around 40 years
Piltdown Man - around 40 years
...Well surely its more sensible than saying give me a massively biased site that lies and obscures truth behind bullshit and statistics? How are you supposed to work out what's the truth if you already know they are biased?...
You appear to be amazingly unintelligent. If a balanced site does not exist, the best that can be done is to provide the leading sites from both sides and allow someone to make up their own mind.
I presume that your view is that all your beliefs are perfect, and everyone else is 'massively biased'? Congratulations.
@Anonymous Coward
Permit me the opportunity to correct that last sentence for you: "And that the deniers of AGW are so frantic for some supporting data that they will descend to these levels in an attempt to obtain it...."
Permit me to correct your correction. Rather than follow my normal approach of providing appropriate data and reasoning for my assertions, I will use your AC approach:
1 - You are wrong because I say so.
2 - AGW is wrong because I say so.
I think that covers it nicely....
Incidentally, as a follower of the Pastafarian persuasion, I'm surprised to find you supporting establishment 'scientists'. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes it quite clear that they are a bunch of liars. I suggest that you re-read the first few chapters to re-kindle your faith, and provide a reference here:
.."Remember that these authors were then asked for their own beliefs"
No they were asked to rate their own papers. They were not asked for their beliefs.
You are seriously trying to argue that an author's own paper does NOT contain his beliefs? What kind of planet do you come from?
...With that in mind if anyone can recommend good sites that do look at it dispassionately and are happy to criticise claims on both sides by just sorting through the facts then please let me know ta....
Hmmm. That's a bit like saying that I'm not sure whether to vote Conservative or Labour - give me a nicely balanced site to help me chose...!!
There is, actually, a site which sits scrupulously in the middle. It's called "Climate Debate":
As you may have gathered, I'm 'anti-AGW', so I look at sites like these below:
Far be it for me to advise on the 'best' pro-AGW sites, but these are often mentioned. Perhaps some pro-AGW type would like to put down their selection?
...we DO know that ocean temperatures are rising everywhere,..
No, we don't. All the northern ocean basins are cooling. Unless you can produce a Global Warming theory which works separately in the two halves of the planet, you're going to have problems with that one...
...the correct interpretation is that 69% of the papers expressed no conclusions regarding the truth of ACC. That is not at all the same as neutrality. That means only that none of the 69% can be used to determine what scientists believe. They mean "no data", not "neutral". It would be incorrect to enter ANY numeric value for them into a statistical analysis. ..
This is almost complete nonsense. Remember that these authors were then asked for their own beliefs. If you do the sums with authors who bothered to mark their own papers (the only way to ensure that you get what they think), you get this data (the original data is insufficient for 100% coverage, so does not add up to 100%) :
764 offered no position
412 authors endorsed
47 reject
24 not sure
I make that around 70% who do not think that AGW is proven, and 30% who think it is. A long way from 97% consensus. That is a huge vote for 'the science is not clear yet. Pretending that this data represents 97% of scientists voting FOR AGW by just taking the middle two figures is simply lying propaganda.
The best you could say for this study is that, of the scientists whose minds were made up about AGW, 97% believe in it. And I would like to study the methodology much closer before agreeing that that was a firm finding...
...Fair cop, for some reason I confused 20,000 for 12,000, mea culpa (in my defence I mention 12,000 above, a case of mathematical dyslexia I fear). But you've not really answered anything, the fact remains that of any papers that expressed an opinion on agw, 97% agree with a human cause...
I'm sorry to hear that you have mathematical dyslexia. But really, if that is a problem for you, you should not be discussing statistics...
Luckily, I am able to help you with some of the sums. Very little information is given (which is suspicious in itself), but here is the basic data which can be gleaned from the figures given.
Papers by 8547 authors were studied, marked, and then the authors were asked for their comments.
Of those authors, 1184 replied.
Of that 1184:
786 said they had no position
412 accepted AGW
47 rejected it
24 were not sure
So, in total, out of 8547 authors, 412 cared about AGW sufficiently to say that they supported it. I make that around 5% of all authors.
However, if you just take the 412 and the 47 as the only 'important' people, you can say that around 90% of 'the scientists who expressed a preference' were for AGW.
Myself, I would say that the main finding was that 95% of scientists didn't think that responding to this survey was very important. You might hazard a guess as to why - I have no opinion...
...In fact, the data show a clear overall warming trend. Most of the heat is going into the ocean below 700 meters. ...
Why are the northern hemisphere oceans ALL cooling, then? Global Warming's taking a summer break in New Zealand, perhaps?
I'll give you a tip. Looking for SOMETHING in the world that is warming, and claiming that that's because of CO2 in the air isn't going to cut it. In this case, you have to explain how the deep sea is being warmed by the air, while the air and the shallow seas are staying the same temperature or cooling. Just sheepishly repeating ScepticalScience or RealityDrops isn't going to persuade anyone....
...This paper is a bit like taking stories from church newsletters and asking the congregation: if this story contains Jesus, do the authors believe in Jesus? I'm sure >97% of them would agree. The icing on the cake is then putting this story back into the newsletter as an self-congratulatory affirmation of faith.
Actually, I understand that most historians believe that Jesus bar-Joseph was a historical person who was killed in Judea around 30AD. The question of whether he was the Son of God is a separate one, of course.
So the paper is actually a bit like asking the question "Did Jesus exist? " and, finding a majority of people agreeing, claiming that therefore they are all Christian. This is a very common trick amongst 'true warmist believers' - they often say "Do you accept that in a lab, air with some CO2 in it gets hotter than air with no CO2 in it?". And when you say: "Yes,but...", they then say "So you must believe in dangerous CO2 heating caused by humans, then, and the need to close down all our power stations!"
"...The rebuttal you link to fits the contradiction behaviour I outlined yesterday. Ie it tries to push these two contradictory arguments:..."
This whole argument is nonsense - based on a blatant piece of propaganda which would not deceive a primary school pupil.
The figures are taken from papers identified with the words 'climate change' or 'global warming'. They looked for agreement or disagreement with the AGW hypothesis. Taking round numbers, they show:
- 70% of papers give no indication
- 30% agree
- A small number (around 1% ) disagree.
These figures were obtained from about 12,000 papers. These had around 8,000 authors. The authors were then asked to 'validate' the opinions of the examining team, around 1,000 responded.
There is no way that this data can say ANYTHING about the opinions of "97% of scientists". For a start. we don't know how many scientists wrote each paper. Although this is an extreme illustration which is almost certainly not true, it is possible, with this methodology, for ONE scientist to have written the 3,600 papers which are claimed to support AGW, and for 5,000 scientists to have written the 120 papers which disagree.
All that can be said is that, of the published papers on Global Warming at present in the literature (and we don't have the timescale for this either), about 1/3 support the hypothesis and 2/3 express no opinion either way. Many of these papers may be disproven by later ones, of course - we simply aren't told enough to know.
And that the supporters of AGW are so frantic for some supporting data that they will descend to these levels in an attempt to obtain it....
"...certain Mediterranean species are starting to be found off our coast, coral bleaching, things like this.
Is this not an indication of waters getting warmer?..
Er, WHY are you looking at this data to find out if the oceans are getting warmer or colder? We have perfectly good direct temperature measurement of all the Earth's oceans. Look at that.
If you're interested, it will tell you that some layers of water are warming up, and others are cooling down. It does not support the theory that increased CO2 concentrations are causing damaging warming.
The use of proxy data like this reminds me of a similar occasion where the warmists tried to find the tropospheric hot-spot that their theory said must exist. There is good temperature data for the upper atmosphere, and it is clear that there is no hot-spot. So the warmists took wind data, manipulated it statistically, and claimed that there had to be a hot-spot to drive the wind variations they obtained from their stats.
When people start doing this kind of thing it is pretty obvious that they are trying to cheat...
...This may be a dumb question But I am asking it genuinely so can some one explain it to me.
There seems to be some evidence that a marine and animal life is starting to migrate to areas outside of there norm, for example corals near Japan now seem to be establishing themselves further North where its cooler, certain Mediterranean species are starting to be found off our coast, coral bleaching, things like this.
Is this not an indication of waters getting warmer? BTW it may sound it but I am not asking a rhetorical question to prove a point...
A few points:
1 - evidence of biological changes driven by temperature happening in an area are usually good evidence that the temperature in that area is changing.
2 - this whole field of 'science' has now become an activist political arena, so ALL papers on this subject need to be looked at quite cautiously. One common trick that both sides have been accused of is 'cherry-picking' - that is, selecting data to support their hypothesis while ignoring other data which is just as reliable, but which tends to disprove their preferred position.
3 - In this case you would need to look at ALL the world's ocean temperature data to see whether ALL of it was rising. If not, this may be a series of isolated incidents and not a major world change.
4 - The world's ocean currents and temperatures are changing all the time. Some follow cycles which we know about, some changes we do not understand. It is quite possible that corals near Japan may be growing further north if a warm current in that area grows stronger, and for that to be nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
"You wouldn't expect all papers to offer an opinion. Most biology papers won't offer an opinion on the theory of evolution for example."
Indeed. The only papers which would be 'offering an opinion' would be those who were actively engaged in some controversy on the theory of evolution.
Exactly as is the case here. For most people it isn't an issue one way or another. There is a group of scientists who are pushing their agenda, and a much smaller group criticising it. But the sum total is not great.
You can't claim 97% of scientists with this data...
...look at the data!!!!
The claim that the writer makes here:
...an overwhelming percentage agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global warming..
Is terribly misleading. In round figures, the data is:
Of papers using the term 'Global Warming':
69% gave no opinion
30% said it was caused by humans
1% said it wasn't.
This does NOT equate to 97% support for 'Global Warming'. What it looks most like to me is a situation where the majority of scientists are having second thoughts, a fair number still hold to the 'old orthodoxy', and a small minority are out on a limb saying that it's not true. Exactly the situation indicated in Kuhn's 'Paradigm' theory of scientific development, in fact.
As an example of the misleading nature of this piece, consider the same study being done using the words 'Intelligent Design'.
It is quite conceivable that the majority of papers (70%?) would simply mention it without addressing its truth or not - they might be sociological papers describing belief systems. A smaller number (30%) might be papers from true believers asserting that it is true. And a very small fraction might be papers written by non-believers attacking the concept. Quite how you move from that data to an assertion that 97% of people believe in Intelligent Design escapes me....
...Maybe the question being asked was so biased that the results are probably a waste of time?...
Almost certainly. You don't spend money on a survey unless you know that you are going to get the right answer...
..More than half of UK youngsters think being tracked is a small price to pay for cheaper car insurance, and 26 per cent will be actively seeking a pay-by-the-mile policy in the hope of saving a few quid....
Not exactly. At the price that youngsters insurance currently is, coupled with the fact that they have restricted money, we are talking about being able to afford insurance, or not. In other words, being able to drive, or not.
That's why lots of them are in favour of it....
...Why not just simplify that to "Metalworking Lathe + CNC Milling Machine = Fully Working Gun"? What part of a gun can you make with a 3D printer and not a CNC Milling Machine?...
Actually, the full equation would read:
"Metalworking Lathe + CNC Milling Machine+ considerable skill+fully equipped workshop+lots of money = Fully Working Gun" - as against:
"3D printer+ bedroom +bored teenager with internet access=Fully Working Gun"
"...one of the few things Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick got right in the book and film of the same name..."
Given the huge amount of technical study they did on every aspect of the equipment, I prefer to think of them getting EVERYTHING right except one thing - the economics.. And that just means that the date when it really happens wouldn't be 2001, but perhaps 2051...
...No intelligent person should have to waste his own time, or anyone else's time, defending the indefensible...
I fully agree with the general tone of the piece - Climate Change IS a scam perpetrated by activists masquerading as scientists, and the IPCC needs to be exposed for what it is.
But, given the essentially bureaucratic processes that go on in our current society, and the principle of collective responsibility,. I wonder if anyone can devise a method of living a modern life which does not require, on occasions, intelligent people to defend the indefensible?
After all, people still support QPR...
...I would like to advise you all that reading any of the early drafts of anything I write is unlikely to help understanding, unless you happen to be some sort of science-process archaeologist or suchlike....
Depends what kind of understanding we are looking for.
No one would be surprised at typos and incorrect statements in a draft. However, the IPCC now have a track record of producing drafts which gain agreement from the world's scientists, and which are then changed on final draft to reverse the original meaning. This has been noticed before.
They get away with this by claiming that it would be too cumbersome to circulate the final draft to everybody for comment, and that all earlier drafts (the only ones that are fully agreed) must be kept secret.
I suggest that, if you had a similar track record, people might be interested in pinning you down on some of the earlier drafts that you wrote.
No problems - we're in this for the long haul. Interestingly, one of the biggest issues with operating the proposed orphan copyright process is that of language. At the moment I'm having to make myself understood to the remains of a small toy company in Czech - Swedish would be yet another tongue to translate my request emails into.
I wish people still used Latin as an international language.... :)
...I loved to build plans and boats as a kid. I think I still have plans at my summer cottage that I could mail you.
I hope your "contact me" works, your hotmail will be old soon....
Well it seems to work - but I have had no mail from you so far today. If you have problems you could ask The Register to forward mail to me at my sign-on address here, and reference this message to indicate my agreement...
DG
It's running in beta test at the moment, but I really don't want the entire collection of Vultures descending on it at the moment! And it's only got half-a dozen plans in at present.
An earlier site I did specialises in the Keil Kraft EeZeBilt range of starter models - that's at:
Contact me at the email given there if you want further info. You will see that copyright permission has been granted by AMERANG, who currently hold rights to the old KK name.
The new site will be for all vintage model boat kits. There is a similar one for model aircraft which is not run by me and is in a more advanced state, with about 4000 plans - that will give you a flavour of what is being done, and that can be found below:
Outer Zone - model Vintage Aircraft plans
All these sites are a lot of work to keep going, with no reward. The 'orphan' feature allows people to do this without being criminalised. If it were to be withdrawn, we would have to stop, and these plans would become unavailable. Any plans out there that we might have saved would become completely lost.
Linux because I don't want to have to pay a microsoft tax on top of everything else...
Hmmm..
I make model boats as a hobby.
At the moment I am running a project intended to 'save' as many of the old 1930s-1960s model boat kit plans. These kits were typically created by small 'garage' companies post WW2, and went out of business as the owner died. The inheritors of the estate were typically uninterested in continuing the business - any equipment would have been sold and no archives maintained. So all data on the kits and plans would have been withdrawn from sale and lost.
Fragments of these kits exist in attics around the country - now usually dumped in a house clearance after a death. I am producing a web repository for such information where it can be cleaned up, cataloged and made freely available to other modellers. Copyright issues are obviously considered - for instance, where a larger modeling company bought up all assets they are assumed to have the IP and asked for permission to publish. But in many cases the relatives of the original creator (those I can manage to find) knew nothing about any IP that they may have inherited, and, of course, had no documentation from their grandparents of 70 years ago of any kind.
I still contact and inform them when I can, following the proposed EU Orphan procedure. They would be hard for a professional company to find - even harder for an amateur. When found, you might have the interesting issue of who, amongst all the surviving relatives, actually owns any of this IP - if it is ignored I suppose it is split equally between ALL the inheritees? Which would make saving it an impossible task if I had to find all branches of the family. Instead, if I treat it as an orphan, I can process it without being criminalised.
I receive no money from this - it is all done to try to record and preserve data which is in danger of being completely lost. The data is made freely available to everyone as part of the common heritage of humanity. This is the issue which the 'orphan' clause in the Copyright legislation is trying to address.
There may well be things wrong with the current proposals, and opportunities for big companies to ignore the rights of small copyright holders. But I think that the item should have mentioned the real issue that caused the proposal in the first place - not so much the existence of unattributed information in libraries, but the impossibility of collecting and saving unattributed historical information from the world if ALL data must be owned by somebody, and permission obtained before it is processed.
...through facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms...
Er - we're talking about AMERICANS here. That's GLOBAL, as in 'from New York to San Francisco'. As in 'The World Series'.
Why would you think that anywhere outside of the US exists? The Americans clearly don't...
...There are many images out there that, when fed into Google Image Search and the likes, will give hundreds of entries. Seeing the large quantity of results, will be an excuse to say they couldn't find that drop of water in the ocean...
Your view of the legislation is laughably incorrect!
If you are responsible for carrying out a proper due diligence search on millions of images then you have to do it. Properly. You can't just say "I thought it looked difficult, so I didn't bother". Or rather, you can say that, but the Judge will reply "You admit you didn't do it properly - Guilty".
If you do do a proper job, but still end up using someone else's work, then they don't lose the copyright. They can come after you, have it taken down, and be paid compensation from the fund that you HAD to set up when you started using orphan works.
If they try to delete the metadata and claim that it's not your work - well, they could do that anyway now. This law doesn't make it any easier, or any harder....
... that the history of DRM and Copyright protection, as well as all the hacking incidents reported for the last 3o years, would have convinced people that there is no such thing as 100% protection. What one person can defend, another can attack.
That being the case, anyone who allows remote control of anything must assume that at some point it is going to be attacked successfully, and should do their risk analysis accordingly.
Maybe the cost-benefit for these connected items has been considered, and determined to be acceptable. But I strongly suspect that it hasn't been considered at all...
...Smart meters are supposed to make changing suppliers easier. The enormous cost is, in part, justified by their ability to drive down prices by increasing competition....
Such a justification is nonsense. Smart meters ONLY reason for existence is that when 'green' power was first proposed, it was obvious that it could never be truly 'dispatchable' - that is, it could never be always provided when it was needed. The answer was found in 'demand management' - that is, forcing you to use energy when the provider company says you can rather than when you want.
All these stories that things will somehow be 'cheaper' are just that - stories. Remember how the Identity Card was going to stop criminals? Same trick. The idea is to get the service or policy out into the country, and then, when people start complaining, say that it's there now and would cost too much to take away...
...The emergence of renewable power has had essentially no effect on the amount of carbon emissions involved in energy generation...
It does seem important to point out that we shouldn't be caring about the amount of CO2 being emitted. CO2 emissions are NOT a problem - they don't cause any environmental damage, in fact they help plants.
There has now been a 17-year pause in global temperature rise (It's actually gone slightly down), while at the same time we have been continuing to pour CO2 out. All the models which said we would be in danger have been comprehensively proven wrong. But I am sure that the government will still try to tax us on CO2 emissions on the grounds that they might be harmful, but we haven't quite found out how just yet...
...An extra £50 here and there on the initial purchase sure, but that's pay for itself over the years in energy bills. Especially at current rates....
You should note that you are in a circular argument here. Energy prices are high purely because of taxes. They are not expensive because of any market shortage. The 'Peak Oil' assertion has now been shown to be a lie, and nuclear energy is practically unlimited, and could be provided for free if we so wished. The prices are being kept artificially high to justify expensive energy-saving technology.
Green activists like to make energy prices high because they view minimal energy use as good in itself. But it is not. We already use far more energy per head than our parents, and our children will use even more - and that is not a bad thing. It is part of the way human societies better themselves. Read Julian Simon.
The Greens have now been defeated in this latest fight. But they will come back again over some other technology. They are anxious to achieve zero growth and stop all human development. Being on their side is not something I would be proud of...
... And the hockey stick is true too unfortunately....
I really am interested in which paper you believe proves the hockey-stick. Do you just generally believe it to be true regardless of any disproof, or is there a specific dataset which you believe has not been disproved?
Do you, for instance believe that Mann's original hockey-stick is still valid? Or Marcott's? Or some other?
Enquiring minds would like to know...
..."and the extent to which different myths, fallacies, wives' tales and conspiracy theories have become embedded in the prevailing wisdom is startling."..
Why should aviation be any different? Almost ALL aspects of human endeavour are full of myths and stories. Read Snopes.
Sometimes I wonder how scientists ever manage to advance or engineers manage to design things. Making up stories seems to be so bound up in the human psyche. The current philosophy of 'PostModernism' actually cements this idiocy by claiming that 'what you think is happening' has as much validity as 'what is actually happening'.
Very much like Climate Science...
Looking at the papers on the subject, a couple of things stand out.
1 - Stowaways typically pick a sensible place near the upper hinge point of the u/c leg. This is nowhere near the wheel, so they are unlikely to die when the wheel is retracted. They may fall out during the take-off process (accelerations can be quite high, as can the angle of climb) but if they survive this they are set for the flight.
2 - Unless the flight is unusually low or short for some reason, the environment will rapidly get very cold and low on oxygen. Oddly, these impacts work together to make the situation barely survivable. At typical low temperatures of -55C, the body can enter a hypothermic hibernation state, a state in which very little oxygen is needed to maintain life. In about half the identified attempts the stowaway's body manages to achieve this delicate balance, such that they are still alive (though comatose) at the end of the flight. If the stowaway were to have brought insulating clothing, they would have died rapidly unless they also had access to several hours supply of oxygen...
If the stowaway fails to achieve this balance they will die, and their dead body will probably fall from the undercarriage well when the door opens. If they do survive, they may gradually regain consciousness as the plane descends into higher air pressures and warms up. If the U/C doors open before they are fully conscious, they may fall out anyway. If the plane descends slowly or waits in a holding pattern, they may regain enough consciousness to hold on properly as the doors open and the plane lands.
It seems unlikely that a stowaway who had passed through this experience would be physically able to descend from an aircraft after landing and escape unnoticed. They would probably remain in the wheel-well and call to a ground staff worker as the jet was being attended to. I would expect them to need removing on a stretcher, and undergo immediate treatment in hospital...
I'd be much more impressed if your excuses were generated BEFORE the incidents they refer to rather than after.
At the moment we have:
1970s and the temperature drop - We're all going to die in an ice age
1980s and the temperature rebounds - We're all going to die from something else - chlorofluorocarbons?...
1990s and the temperature goes up - We're all going to die from the heat
2000s and the temperature rise halts - We're STILL going to die from the heat (after fiddling the figures)
2010s and the temperature starts dropping - We're going to die from...er, um.. the climate changing!
...*We're aware of the heated debate among our readers (and some of our staff) as to whether computer science degrees are of any use in doing actual technology jobs. It seems safe to say, however, that they're of more use in general than a degree in english, psychology etc. -Ed....
I have had a VERY productive and lucrative (so far!) career in technical computing (subgenre security).
My degree is in Medieval English and Philosophy.
FWIW, my personal belief is that if you want to code in multiple languages, and particularly in machine code, there is no better initial discipline to get under your belt than a thorough grounding in Latin.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
