UPDATE: Graph added below per request from Joe Bastardi.
But first, let’s listen to expert on all things public, scientific, and climatic, Rosie O’Donnell
From Fox News:
Living in an era when pop culture celebrities can assert “expert” opinions on any subject, why wait for science to catch up with pesky facts?
If Rosie O’Donnell says global warming caused Joplin’s destruction, then it must be true, right? As Hollywood knows best, there’s no need for lab research, instant proclamations are good enough. It worked for claiming fire hadn’t melted steel before 9/11, so why not weather can’t cause deadly tornadoes outbreaks before this? Must be global warming then. Yeah that’s the ticket.
Alright, now having weathered that, here’s Joe Bastardi on Fox News talking the science.
UPDATE: Joe Bastardi writes in and asks this graphic to be included (which apparently never made it into the interview). Click for a very large version.
R. Gates says:
June 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
This process [weathering] is far too slow when compares to how fast human activity has raised these levels.
Gates, despite your “begging the question” fallacy above and crude boiler plate attempt to induce fear, your retreat to pure fear-mongering itself only shows that you don’t have anything real to base your fear upon – quite simply because nothing has occurred in the modern era which exceeds the bounds of our natural climate, although black carbon and land use might be producing some localized anomalies.
The “method” which ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science uses involving demonizing CO2 and disasterizing GW is simply not part of the scientific method.
Moreover, “the alleged cure is worse than the alleged disease”: bringing about an obvious disaster by de-developing in order to allegedly prevent a completely unhinged alleged future CAGW disaster, again ideas derived solely via the induction of panic, is just plain stupid.
Perhaps you have never heard of China and India?
Albert Kallal
Here are the WTC Blueprints
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
Clearly there is a massive core structure, here are some picture’s of these massive core column’s.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Albert, you are either intentionally spreading disinformation or you have not got a clue what you are talking about, you are doing a great disservice to the people of the USA and population of the world.
>Here are the WTC Blueprints
Sure there is a core structure, but the load bearing and how that building functions is NOT a typical steel grid of beams bolted together. A laughable kettle you are to stand here and state I am spreading disinformation.
Albert, I doubt very much that you know what you are talking about, Have you built a skyscraper ? Have you demolished a skyscraper ? Have you been involved in the repair of a skyscraper after a fire ?
I have, and you need to stop talking crap and try to educate yourself.
“One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that “live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.” 9 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
You really don’t have a clue how strong these buildings were, the only fault that they had was the fact that the design allowed for them to be easily demolished.
JPeden says:
June 4, 2011 at 11:37 pm
R. Gates says:
June 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
“This process [weathering] is far too slow when compares to how fast human activity has raised these levels.”
Gates, despite your “begging the question” fallacy above and crude boiler plate attempt to induce fear…
________
Fear? I’m not afraid, why would I want to make others that way? I simply state facts. If these facts cause some to be afraid…that’s from them…not me.
JPeden goes on to say:
Moreover, “the alleged cure is worse than the alleged disease”: bringing about an obvious disaster by de-developing in order to allegedly prevent a completely unhinged alleged future CAGW disaster, again ideas derived solely via the induction of panic, is just plain stupid.
Perhaps you have never heard of China and India/
______
I’ve never mentioned “de-developing” anywhere in my posting. Not sure where you get this from. As far a China and India go…together they make up nearly a third of the world’s population. They’d darn well develop as they’ve got a lot of hungry mouths to feed.
R. Gates says:
June 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the end of the Little Ice Age has been primarily due to human activities. It has reach levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. These are the known facts.
=======================================================
Gates, can you point me to that fact?
Co2 levels were in the thousand ppm in the Eocene, just 50 million years ago.
{snicker}
While looking something else up, I ran across the adiabatic flame temperature for kerosene. 2093°C.
Granted… it’s still not “optimum”
ROFLOL.
>>To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need
>>to be above 1100C [about 2200F]. However, this new summary report
>>suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the
>>steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
>>This story just does not add up.
I have said this two times already. The British Steel Cardington fire test on a 6-story steel framed office block, filled with normal office equipment, got up to 1,213 oc (centigrade). And that was a normal fire with normal office fuel for a fire.
.
thereisnofear, how to you know that the smoke from the fires was black? According to the “live” news broadcasts from that day, the smoke could be gray or white or some other color too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUXJXAPUUg
And as a structural engineer you should be aware of that a high rise steel building can never collapse from top down by gravity into rubble due to local damages up top and create a Ground Zero. Anders Björkman has a $ 1 500 000 price for anyone that can prove this: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm
What is wrong with debate and listening to both sides of the defining issue of our time? If the official line is so correct and defensible, what does it have to fear from skeptics?
@ur momisugly elbuggo June 6, 2011 at 1:01 am
Thanks for calling attention to my famous Heiwa Challenge. Evidently no structure A (eg WTC 1 and 2 at NY) of any kind can be crushed down into dust by a top C of itself A (as happened ‘live on TV’ on 911 2001).
So it seems USA blow up its own towers on 911 and then Obama killed a person Osama not responsible for it last month.
You wonder what will happen next!
And that was a normal fire with normal office fuel for a fire.
What you state could certainly explain the melted materials viewed in the huge pile of rubble that burned for days.
As pointed out, the temperature these fires were probably not that high anyway. (I mean, with all that black smoke, the temps may only have hit 600°). However, that all the heat we need for this type of failure. In fact even softening that metal to half of its strength the building would easily remain standing as long as nothing breaks.
The collapse was due to the floor connections between the outer box and the central support tower are what failed. The heat softened the connections (a rather small lip) and the real kicker was the several hundred degrees of “difference” of parts under heat of the fire that expanded more than parts that are cold. This uneven expansion damaged and broke the connections to the lip that holds those floors. Once that connection failed, down came the floor, and without such a connection between the outer box and inner box (central pillar), the walls simply could not stay together either and would fall apart. Melting was not needed for this failure anyway.
Ralph,
You keep on raising the specter of the Cardigan Tests, as though they somehow explain how pools of molten metal can be generated from the WTC fires. You claim that temperatures reached 1213 C (which is still well below the melting point of steel). But you fail to note that these are gas temperatures, not steel temperatures. In all of the Cardigan Tests, steel temperatures remained below 1000 C, which is less than 2/3 the temperature needed to even initiate melting, let alone to create “rivers of molten steel” that persist months after the event.
And significantly, though this is beside the point, the structure in the Cardigan Tests DID NOT COLLAPSE, even though the steel was unprotected.
NIST, the official assessors of the WTC collapse, claim that atmospheric gas temperatures only reached about 1000 C in the fires. Their response to the overwhelming evidence of molten metal was first of all to ignore it, and when they could do that no longer, to deny it.
As for the fanciful notions put forward by some others about conditions in a foundry (Shanghai Dan), temperatures out the back of an F-14 (SSam), or mysterious chemical reactions in the rubble (pk), I must say, with all due respect, that these are irrelevant.
The conditions in a foundry or out the back of an F-14 are in no way analogous to an office fire in a high-rise structure. First of all, even NIST admits that most of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial inferno that accompanied the original collision, and that the remainder of the jet fuel was lapped up within a few minutes. Therefore, the jet fuel could not contribute significantly to any melting steel. But even so, the temperature created by an F-14 is irrelevant since that represents a carefully controlled combustion with optimal air-fuel mixtures.
Secondly, in a foundry air is forced into the burning coke fuel to induce higher temperatures. This is not at all similar to office fires in oxygen-deprived conditions.
I don’t understand the statement about iron drops experiencing higher temperatures when they splash into the coke pile. Isn’t this intuitively obvious? The fire is hotter than the metal in the crucible, so the iron should get hotter – radiative heat transfer and all that.
Finally, pk suggests that the mysterious chemical reactions in the rubble may have created the necessary heat conditions. But this is nothing but fanciful speculation. What kind of chemicals may have been present in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 (where molten metal was also found) in sufficient quantities to create the conditions necessary to generate pools of molten metal? These were office buildings, not chemical manufacturing facilities. If you have something meaningful to propose, please notify NIST, because that would help alleviate their embarrassment over being unable to explain the molten metal.
@Albert Kallal June 6 9.57 am:
“The collapse was due to the floor connections between the outer box and the central support tower are what failed”, you say!
Only problem is that gravity + falling top cannot provide sufficient energy to damage the floor connections below. Just do like me … an energy balance (see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm ) and you’ll understand.
Do not be silly, the floor collapsed without ANYTHING falling on top. If a floor can collapse without anything falling on it then of course floors below (and even above) are also ready and free to collapse with little effort.
Once that floor goes there is little holding the outside walls from moving. This means additional floors (both above and below) are now at risk. It is NOT only the weight falling on the floor below, but the loss of the connection and integrity of the outside structure. Once the floor is gone you have several floors now at risk. The outside walls are now movable and thus cannot support floors above or below. It is the walls falling that the floors are attached to that is the issue. With the walls being movable then the floors are now going to move with that outside part. In fact the walls not being attached to anything means that you do not even have to break the connection between the floor and the wall. The floor simply has no support. The wall is free to move and thus this means the floors attached to that wall are also free to move.
The key concept here is the connection between the outside shell and the central support and that wall moving. Just losing one floor will not cause this because the outside parts are still attached above and below. However that above + below connection was broken when the plane cut into the building. This is not a simple weight of a floor falling below as to how this works.
The idea that the building was full of explosive charges on each floor is silly. Worse if there is not explosives on each floor then explain how the pilots knew what floor to hit where the collapses started? And I supposed these pilots had perfect skill to hit correct floor? So now the pilots were able to hit the exact floor two times in a row exactly where the collapses started?
thereisnofear says:
June 6, 2011 at 10:42 am
You keep saying “molten metal”, “molten steel”, etc. Which is it? If it’s molten metal of some unknown type then you really have nothing to say. Could be molten electrical conduits, the aircraft skin and structure, thousands of computers, metal desks, office chairs, etc. And how much “molten metal” are we talking about?