So the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere passed 400ppm yesterday in an event previously considered to be the tipping point of no return.
Not much happened has it?
I still think it is a con.
Sex God
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Climate change / warming / cooling (delete as appropriate)
last reply
64 replies
2.3k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
For the most part too hot. So do I
Sex God
In what way a con?
That CO2 levels aren't rising?
That humans are not contributing to a rise in CO2?
That the rise in CO2 doesn't have detrimental effects on the planet's ecology?
"It's a con" is a bit of a broad brush statement that is as hard to disprove as it is hard to prove.
The phrase 'tipping point' doesn't mean there will be a sudden and obvious change - that simply isn't the meaning of the term. It can mean that we will not be able to stop the continuing rise of CO2 once it has got to this level. So today wouldn't look much different from last week. But 10 years from now could look a lot different from what it would have looked like if we had controlled the increase to below that level.
Me belief is that there has always been a variation in CO2 levels through volcanic action and a wide range of natural causes. I also believe that humans produce a significant amount of CO2 that pushes the environmental effects of CO2 increase further and faster. The fact that we can't change what happens naturally is no excuse for just sitting back and allowing humans to make matters worse. I DO believe that increasing levels of CO2 are dangerous and I feel I understand the scientific arguments as to what the effects will be pretty clearly.
That CO2 levels aren't rising?
That humans are not contributing to a rise in CO2?
That the rise in CO2 doesn't have detrimental effects on the planet's ecology?
"It's a con" is a bit of a broad brush statement that is as hard to disprove as it is hard to prove.
The phrase 'tipping point' doesn't mean there will be a sudden and obvious change - that simply isn't the meaning of the term. It can mean that we will not be able to stop the continuing rise of CO2 once it has got to this level. So today wouldn't look much different from last week. But 10 years from now could look a lot different from what it would have looked like if we had controlled the increase to below that level.
Me belief is that there has always been a variation in CO2 levels through volcanic action and a wide range of natural causes. I also believe that humans produce a significant amount of CO2 that pushes the environmental effects of CO2 increase further and faster. The fact that we can't change what happens naturally is no excuse for just sitting back and allowing humans to make matters worse. I DO believe that increasing levels of CO2 are dangerous and I feel I understand the scientific arguments as to what the effects will be pretty clearly.
Sexpert
So much ignorance abounds about the whole climate change thing. Some people even think it's something to do with the ozone layer and CFCs ffs!
Firstly, the earth has been warming up naturally for the last 12,000 years or so since the end of the last glacial period within the current ice age. The underlying rate of warming of about .5 degree per century remains unchanged. Despite the best efforts and substantial data rigging by the CRU, they have been unable to show any evidence of the runaway global warming predicted by their models and beliefs, based on the dodgy science that increased CO2 in the atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect.
Whilst the underlying trend of global warming seems fairly stable, there are of course drastic departures, such as the Medieval warming period (which many warmists seek to deny happened, but for which there is solid evidence). Similarly there are periods of significant cooling.
Secondly, all the evidence indicates that CO2 levels lag temperature rises, not vice versa. That is, the levels of CO2 increase as a result of warming, not the other way round. It's a symptom not a cause.
That being said, we are burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate and as a result pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Some are predicting runaway levels of CO2 leading to runaway temperature increases, but as stated above, the science is dodgy at best and no solid evidence exists that it would be the case.
Should we be concerned? I think so.
Not because I'm worried about the ice sheets melting causing flooding and wild weather patterns. I'm concerned about the rate at which we are depleting non renewable resources. Future generations will curse us for being so stupid as to burn such a valuable resource as crude oil. In the process, we are not only releasing vast quantities of CO2, but far more harmful Nitrous and Sulphurous compounds, along with long chain hydrocarbons, many of which are carcinogenic.
Whether 400ppm is a significant milestone and whether at this level and above, atmospheric CO2 will have a significant effect on climate, remain to be seen. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to stand by and wait to find out.
However, whilst there is still oil in the ground that can be pumped out and refined cost effectively, I fear we will continue along the path of burning it rather than developing alternative and renewable energy sources.
Firstly, the earth has been warming up naturally for the last 12,000 years or so since the end of the last glacial period within the current ice age. The underlying rate of warming of about .5 degree per century remains unchanged. Despite the best efforts and substantial data rigging by the CRU, they have been unable to show any evidence of the runaway global warming predicted by their models and beliefs, based on the dodgy science that increased CO2 in the atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect.
Whilst the underlying trend of global warming seems fairly stable, there are of course drastic departures, such as the Medieval warming period (which many warmists seek to deny happened, but for which there is solid evidence). Similarly there are periods of significant cooling.
Secondly, all the evidence indicates that CO2 levels lag temperature rises, not vice versa. That is, the levels of CO2 increase as a result of warming, not the other way round. It's a symptom not a cause.
That being said, we are burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate and as a result pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Some are predicting runaway levels of CO2 leading to runaway temperature increases, but as stated above, the science is dodgy at best and no solid evidence exists that it would be the case.
Should we be concerned? I think so.
Not because I'm worried about the ice sheets melting causing flooding and wild weather patterns. I'm concerned about the rate at which we are depleting non renewable resources. Future generations will curse us for being so stupid as to burn such a valuable resource as crude oil. In the process, we are not only releasing vast quantities of CO2, but far more harmful Nitrous and Sulphurous compounds, along with long chain hydrocarbons, many of which are carcinogenic.
Whether 400ppm is a significant milestone and whether at this level and above, atmospheric CO2 will have a significant effect on climate, remain to be seen. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to stand by and wait to find out.
However, whilst there is still oil in the ground that can be pumped out and refined cost effectively, I fear we will continue along the path of burning it rather than developing alternative and renewable energy sources.
The worlds best scientists have been trying to blame mankind for the worlds " warming up " for years without any hard evidence to support some of their views.
For every bit of hard evidence to suggest it is, another scientist comes along and disproves their theory. What I do think is that the energy companies and Governments have tried with great success to implement higher charges to us in the ways of greener this or greener that with regards to higher fuel charges and higher taxes.. How mankind has increased it's " carbon footprint ", which I think is just a huge PR exercise by some many authorities.
Is there a shred of " REAL " evidence after all these years of research? Well is there?
Still Cameron and his ilk have made a wonderful job of sticking huge bloody windmills everywhere, blotting out lovely views, and for what?
For every bit of hard evidence to suggest it is, another scientist comes along and disproves their theory. What I do think is that the energy companies and Governments have tried with great success to implement higher charges to us in the ways of greener this or greener that with regards to higher fuel charges and higher taxes.. How mankind has increased it's " carbon footprint ", which I think is just a huge PR exercise by some many authorities.
Is there a shred of " REAL " evidence after all these years of research? Well is there?
Still Cameron and his ilk have made a wonderful job of sticking huge bloody windmills everywhere, blotting out lovely views, and for what?
Yes star, you have touched on a very interesting viewpoint on wind farms and their 'justification'
Prince Charles once commented on a 'blot on the landscape' architecture and these huge structures are, in my opinion, just that. They serve no useful purpose other than to annoy the local populace.
I recall the vast wind farm installed in the Thames Estuary between Southend and the north Kent coast. If the wind blew (as it often does up the Estuary from the east coast), the windmills were braked since they might be damaged by the wind!
If there was no wind, they didn't produce any electricity.
What a nonsense! Vast amounts of money spent and little or nothing being returned to the economy. Their environmental impact on construction is vast and I very much doubt that each windmill recovers much of its initial impact throughout its useful life, if that's not a contradiction In terms.
As an island (forgive me stating the obvious) the UK is surrounded by water. Why on earth hasn't 'wave' technology been given the priority it deserves? Very little environmental impact from what I can see and it still works whether there is a heavy swell or just 'mill pond' conditions.
The technology also works well on the vast lakes inland - and can even work on a duck pond near you!
Perhaps it's just a case of 'being seen to be doing something' with windmills cluttering up the countryside of Britain's green and pleasant land? Wave technology is something that is silent and hidden from general view so perhaps is less 'sexy' politically.
Bugger whether it works better or not....
Prince Charles once commented on a 'blot on the landscape' architecture and these huge structures are, in my opinion, just that. They serve no useful purpose other than to annoy the local populace.
I recall the vast wind farm installed in the Thames Estuary between Southend and the north Kent coast. If the wind blew (as it often does up the Estuary from the east coast), the windmills were braked since they might be damaged by the wind!
If there was no wind, they didn't produce any electricity.
What a nonsense! Vast amounts of money spent and little or nothing being returned to the economy. Their environmental impact on construction is vast and I very much doubt that each windmill recovers much of its initial impact throughout its useful life, if that's not a contradiction In terms.
As an island (forgive me stating the obvious) the UK is surrounded by water. Why on earth hasn't 'wave' technology been given the priority it deserves? Very little environmental impact from what I can see and it still works whether there is a heavy swell or just 'mill pond' conditions.
The technology also works well on the vast lakes inland - and can even work on a duck pond near you!
Perhaps it's just a case of 'being seen to be doing something' with windmills cluttering up the countryside of Britain's green and pleasant land? Wave technology is something that is silent and hidden from general view so perhaps is less 'sexy' politically.
Bugger whether it works better or not....
Sex God
if we have global warming
why is it so cold in may
why is it so cold in may
Quote by Lizaleanrob
if we have global warming
why is it so cold in may
Rob, I actually think its more to do with the natural phenomenon of the earth's axis changing.
This year it is perhaps more noticeable than it has been before as the jet stream has 'drifted' south bringing with it unusual weather patterns. It could just as equally be said that the jet stream is exactly as it has been for millennia and its just the shifting of the poles (calm down star, not those sort of poles lol) which has apparently effected weather patterns.
What we are experiencing is exactly what those in the jet stream in the past have become more used to.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
if we have global warming
why is it so cold in may
Rob, I actually think its more to do with the natural phenomenon of the earth's axis changing.
This year it is perhaps more noticeable than it has been before as the jet stream has 'drifted' south bringing with it unusual weather patterns. It could just as equally be said that the jet stream is exactly as it has been for millennia and its just the shifting of the poles (calm down star, not those sort of poles lol) which has apparently effected weather patterns.
What we are experiencing is exactly what those in the jet stream in the past have become more used to.
time to move south then
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Was that worldwide TH or on a street near you?
Always made me larf; the Independent republic of Basildon being a nuclear free zone :silly:
As if...
Some observatory on Hawaii
Sex God
Quote by foxylady2209
In what way a con?
That CO2 levels aren't rising?
That humans are not contributing to a rise in CO2?
That the rise in CO2 doesn't have detrimental effects on the planet's ecology?
"It's a con" is a bit of a broad brush statement that is as hard to disprove as it is hard to prove.
The phrase 'tipping point' doesn't mean there will be a sudden and obvious change - that simply isn't the meaning of the term. It can mean that we will not be able to stop the continuing rise of CO2 once it has got to this level. So today wouldn't look much different from last week. But 10 years from now could look a lot different from what it would have looked like if we had controlled the increase to below that level.
Me belief is that there has always been a variation in CO2 levels through volcanic action and a wide range of natural causes. I also believe that humans produce a significant amount of CO2 that pushes the environmental effects of CO2 increase further and faster. The fact that we can't change what happens naturally is no excuse for just sitting back and allowing humans to make matters worse. I DO believe that increasing levels of CO2 are dangerous and I feel I understand the scientific arguments as to what the effects will be pretty clearly.
What I mean is that the western world is being taxed to the hilt in an effort to change the future weather which is nonsensical.
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
That is what I mean by a con - Oh and my £450 a year VED on the Jeep.
Quote by TH
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
I rather like the idea of the Boris Airport Island in the Thames Estuary. Adding another runway at Heathrow may just be a step to far in a highly and already over populated area. Good fast rail links from the metropolis and the east coast to service it and hey presto!
When, heaven forbid, a 787 Dreamliner falls out of the sky over London with over 500 people on board into a heavily populated area, Boris' plan may take on more meaning. Developing Heathrow Number 3 is a step too far, in my opinion.
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
if we have global warming
why is it so cold in may
Because, when the world (global) average temperature increases (warming) it does not mean everywhere is warmer all the time.
The main, observable effect is the increase in extremes of weather. So, colder, wetter summers (which can severely compromise farming) and more extreme winters, either warmer/drier which is terrible for creating drought in summer, or extreme cold and snow/ice with obvious bad effects on people, farming and the natural world. What you get depends on where you are in the world and what is happening that year in the way of El Nino and other weather systems that have a cyclic pattern.
Sex God
1: I'm a bit right wing I like Top Gear and think Jezzer is hilaaaaarious = Climate change baaah humbug
2: Clarkson is a fucking idiot,I am prepared to accept that someone who has spent their whole career studying the effects of human activity on the planet may actually know a little more about it than me = there may well be something in this climate change malarkey .perhaps we should try to do something about it
I'll let you guess where I stand
The whole tax arguement is by the way utter nonsense
2: Clarkson is a fucking idiot,I am prepared to accept that someone who has spent their whole career studying the effects of human activity on the planet may actually know a little more about it than me = there may well be something in this climate change malarkey .perhaps we should try to do something about it
I'll let you guess where I stand
The whole tax arguement is by the way utter nonsense
carbon tax. carbon tax offsets. goldman sachs. global warming. climate change. copenhagen. cat out of the bag. carbon footprint. glaciers melting. icecaps reducing. oceans rising.
absolute total load of bollox serving a political/taxation/population reduction agenda.
psuedo science bullshit.
totally proven in the collapse of the copenhagen accord when the russians challenged the data created by the u.n.'s centre for climate change studies at the east anglia universities goldman sachs funded research centre as having been corrupted and not the data that was collected.
i say again, if you reduce the carbon footprint of a continent like africa (reduce coal, parafin, diesel and any other manner of fossil fuel consumption), where the vast majority live at just subsistance level, you will kill them by the millions.
mans growth in numbers is directly proportionate to his increase in energy flux density per square mile/killometer and any decrease in that density will reduce the population.
now which naive phuckers amongst us is going to choose who is going to live and who is going to die ? none of us, the ruling elite will decide and you aint one of them !
note :- not conspiracy theory, not off a conspiracy website just common sense
absolute total load of bollox serving a political/taxation/population reduction agenda.
psuedo science bullshit.
totally proven in the collapse of the copenhagen accord when the russians challenged the data created by the u.n.'s centre for climate change studies at the east anglia universities goldman sachs funded research centre as having been corrupted and not the data that was collected.
i say again, if you reduce the carbon footprint of a continent like africa (reduce coal, parafin, diesel and any other manner of fossil fuel consumption), where the vast majority live at just subsistance level, you will kill them by the millions.
mans growth in numbers is directly proportionate to his increase in energy flux density per square mile/killometer and any decrease in that density will reduce the population.
now which naive phuckers amongst us is going to choose who is going to live and who is going to die ? none of us, the ruling elite will decide and you aint one of them !
note :- not conspiracy theory, not off a conspiracy website just common sense
maybe we should link this with the Obesity thread.........on there a lot say fill your body full of quick meals full of chemicals and you will end up fat and unhealthy.
Maybe if we fill our planet and its atmosphere full of waste chemicals, it will also end up unhealthy. "To hot" you say about china building new runways each day and therefore filling the atmosphere with potentially dangerous chemicals. Is that not the same as the obese person saying..oh fuck it..lets have another cake and packet of crisps.
I am no scientist but I do think we have to take more care of our planet. Treat it with respect and it will reward us will many more millions years life.....If we carry on with a couldn't care less attitude maybe it will be bite back and simply give up on us.
Maybe if we fill our planet and its atmosphere full of waste chemicals, it will also end up unhealthy. "To hot" you say about china building new runways each day and therefore filling the atmosphere with potentially dangerous chemicals. Is that not the same as the obese person saying..oh fuck it..lets have another cake and packet of crisps.
I am no scientist but I do think we have to take more care of our planet. Treat it with respect and it will reward us will many more millions years life.....If we carry on with a couldn't care less attitude maybe it will be bite back and simply give up on us.
Sex God
sorry guys my comments are tongue in cheek
I'm more that aware of what happening to our planet! and being privileged enough to dive what has been considered some of the best dive sites in the world.
i return to some of theses site and i can see what damage has occurred in as little as 5 years with a massive decline in fish as well as the all to common coral bleaching
i would agree with dean we have a responsibility to our planet to try and look after it a little better.
as for car tax at £450 per year if your not happy with it drive a smaller car after all its your choice that you wanna drive that car,
or was it just another boast as this seems to come straight to my mind when you post at times TH
I'm more that aware of what happening to our planet! and being privileged enough to dive what has been considered some of the best dive sites in the world.
i return to some of theses site and i can see what damage has occurred in as little as 5 years with a massive decline in fish as well as the all to common coral bleaching
i would agree with dean we have a responsibility to our planet to try and look after it a little better.
as for car tax at £450 per year if your not happy with it drive a smaller car after all its your choice that you wanna drive that car,
or was it just another boast as this seems to come straight to my mind when you post at times TH
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Oh, the belief that mankind is so omnipotent he can control nature itself.
Nature rebalances itself and wins everytime.
not without losses G it doesn't
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Oh, the belief that mankind is so omnipotent he can control nature itself.
Nature rebalances itself and wins everytime.
not without losses G it doesn't
Exactly rob. Mankind is a mere pawn in the greater scheme of things.
We should remind ourselves of that more often before Mother Nature gives us a well deserved slap...
Warming the Bed
Quote by GnV
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
I rather like the idea of the Boris Airport Island in the Thames Estuary. Adding another runway at Heathrow may just be a step to far in a highly and already over populated area. Good fast rail links from the metropolis and the east coast to service it and hey presto!
When, heaven forbid, a 787 Dreamliner falls out of the sky over London with over 500 people on board into a heavily populated area, Boris' plan may take on more meaning. Developing Heathrow Number 3 is a step too far, in my opinion.
Agreed... I used to work in the City of London and to see how low some of the Jumbo's come in on their way to H'row we often wondered about the folly of using West London as a potential disaster area.
Sex God
Quote by paulaclark
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
I rather like the idea of the Boris Airport Island in the Thames Estuary. Adding another runway at Heathrow may just be a step to far in a highly and already over populated area. Good fast rail links from the metropolis and the east coast to service it and hey presto!
When, heaven forbid, a 787 Dreamliner falls out of the sky over London with over 500 people on board into a heavily populated area, Boris' plan may take on more meaning. Developing Heathrow Number 3 is a step too far, in my opinion.
Agreed... I used to work in the City of London and to see how low some of the Jumbo's come in on their way to H'row we often wondered about the folly of using West London as a potential disaster area.
You would not think that if you actually knew how aeroplanes fly - all aeroplanes.
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
as for car tax at £450 per year if your not happy with it drive a smaller car after all its your choice that you wanna drive that car,
or was it just another boast as this seems to come straight to my mind when you post at times TH
Thought you were not supposed to make posts that are a personal attack on other Members? My neighbour has a £500 car that he bought second hand that has VED at the top rate. The point I am making is that taxing certain types of cars more than others will not change the future weather.
I have just as much right to post as you do. I have just as much right to have an opinion as you do.
Quote by Too Hot
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
I rather like the idea of the Boris Airport Island in the Thames Estuary. Adding another runway at Heathrow may just be a step to far in a highly and already over populated area. Good fast rail links from the metropolis and the east coast to service it and hey presto!
When, heaven forbid, a 787 Dreamliner falls out of the sky over London with over 500 people on board into a heavily populated area, Boris' plan may take on more meaning. Developing Heathrow Number 3 is a step too far, in my opinion.
Agreed... I used to work in the City of London and to see how low some of the Jumbo's come in on their way to H'row we often wondered about the folly of using West London as a potential disaster area.
You would not think that if you actually knew how aeroplanes fly - all aeroplanes.
I do TH and anything is possible.
I agree that the 747 can look quite 'clumsy' in the air on approach but there have been more than a few accidents both on approach and after departure at airports in the UK to raise concerns about a third runway at Heathrow given the proximity of residential areas.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
I rather like the idea of the Boris Airport Island in the Thames Estuary. Adding another runway at Heathrow may just be a step to far in a highly and already over populated area. Good fast rail links from the metropolis and the east coast to service it and hey presto!
When, heaven forbid, a 787 Dreamliner falls out of the sky over London with over 500 people on board into a heavily populated area, Boris' plan may take on more meaning. Developing Heathrow Number 3 is a step too far, in my opinion.
Agreed... I used to work in the City of London and to see how low some of the Jumbo's come in on their way to H'row we often wondered about the folly of using West London as a potential disaster area.
You would not think that if you actually knew how aeroplanes fly - all aeroplanes.
I do TH and anything is possible.
I agree that the 747 can look quite 'clumsy' in the air on approach but there have been more than a few accidents both on approach and after departure at airports in the UK to raise concerns about a third runway at Heathrow given the proximity of residential areas.
statistics G are 20% of all commercial accidents are during the period take off and climb
whilst 36% are final approach and landing. this is world wide statistics
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
as for car tax at £450 per year if your not happy with it drive a smaller car after all its your choice that you wanna drive that car,
or was it just another boast as this seems to come straight to my mind when you post at times TH
Thought you were not supposed to make posts that are a personal attack on other Members? My neighbour has a £500 car that he bought second hand that has VED at the top rate. The point I am making is that taxing certain types of cars more than others will not change the future weather.
I have just as much right to post as you do. I have just as much right to have an opinion as you do.
maybe you should have stated that and not referred to what your paying or the type of car your driving personally
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Meanwhile, whilst China is opening a new International airport every month and will have more internal flights that the rest of the world put together within ten years - hysterical green activists stop us building a single extra runway at Heathrow.
I rather like the idea of the Boris Airport Island in the Thames Estuary. Adding another runway at Heathrow may just be a step to far in a highly and already over populated area. Good fast rail links from the metropolis and the east coast to service it and hey presto!
When, heaven forbid, a 787 Dreamliner falls out of the sky over London with over 500 people on board into a heavily populated area, Boris' plan may take on more meaning. Developing Heathrow Number 3 is a step too far, in my opinion.
Agreed... I used to work in the City of London and to see how low some of the Jumbo's come in on their way to H'row we often wondered about the folly of using West London as a potential disaster area.
You would not think that if you actually knew how aeroplanes fly - all aeroplanes.
I do TH and anything is possible.
I agree that the 747 can look quite 'clumsy' in the air on approach but there have been more than a few accidents both on approach and after departure at airports in the UK to raise concerns about a third runway at Heathrow given the proximity of residential areas.
statistics G are 20% of all commercial accidents are during the period take off and climb
whilst 36% are final approach and landing. this is world wide statistics
It only takes one 787 Dreamliner with over 500 people on board to lose all electrical power on approach over London in marginal viz....
At least there won't be so much fuel on board to raze Windsor to the ground, eh?
Sex God
Winds in the UK are predominantly westerlies meaning that by and large take offs and landings are towards the west.
Take off accidents are normally as a result of engine problems but only the loss of all engines will result in a forced landing. There are plenty of open spaces to the west of Heathrow. Hydraulic flap failure would cause a catastrophic stall but this would be very near to the take off point and therefore close to the airport boundary.
Landing accidents are also normally as a result of engine problems but this tends to be on very short final approach as the pilots try to arrest glide sink and set up the touchdown configuration. Most accidents of this type occur within the airport boundary. The arriving aircraft over London are high enough to glide to clear ground in the almost impossibly unlikely event of a random all engine failure towards the end of the flight.
Take off accidents are normally as a result of engine problems but only the loss of all engines will result in a forced landing. There are plenty of open spaces to the west of Heathrow. Hydraulic flap failure would cause a catastrophic stall but this would be very near to the take off point and therefore close to the airport boundary.
Landing accidents are also normally as a result of engine problems but this tends to be on very short final approach as the pilots try to arrest glide sink and set up the touchdown configuration. Most accidents of this type occur within the airport boundary. The arriving aircraft over London are high enough to glide to clear ground in the almost impossibly unlikely event of a random all engine failure towards the end of the flight.
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Winds in the UK are predominantly westerlies meaning that by and large take offs and landings are towards the west.
Take off accidents are normally as a result of engine problems but only the loss of all engines will result in a forced landing. There are plenty of open spaces to the west of Heathrow. Hydraulic flap failure would cause a catastrophic stall but this would be very near to the take off point and therefore close to the airport boundary.
Landing accidents are also normally as a result of engine problems but this tends to be on very short final approach as the pilots try to arrest glide sink and set up the touchdown configuration. Most accidents of this type occur within the airport boundary. The arriving aircraft over London are high enough to glide to clear ground in the almost impossibly unlikely event of a random all engine failure towards the end of the flight.
very few airline accidents are due to any single failure most are due to multiple mistakes made after a failure
with flocks of birds being responsible for most multiple engine failures
