« The inauthenticity of Hillary | Main | Day 21 ... »

April 29, 2007

The news story Rosie O'Donnell will skip

This is one to keep handy when encountering the "9/11 Truthers."

OAKLAND, Calif. - A stretch of highway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed Sunday after a gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames, a loss that officials said could leave freeways leading to one of the nation's busiest spans in near paralysis at rush hour. Officials said traffic will be disrupted for weeks, if not months.

Flames shot 200 feet in the air and the heat was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse, but the truck's driver walked away from the scene with second-degree burns. No other injuries were reported in the 3:45 a.m. crash, which officials said could have been deadly had it occurred at a busier time. [...]

The tanker carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline ignited after crashing into a pylon on the interchange, which connects westbound lanes of Interstate 80 to southbound I-880, on the edge of downtown Oakland about half a mile from the Bay Bridge's toll plaza. [...]

Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.

The charred section of collapsed freeway was draped at a sharp angle onto the highway beneath, exposing a web of twisted metal beneath the concrete. Officials said that altogether a 250-yard portion of the upper roadway was damaged.

Hey, fire does melt steel. Imagine that!

Posted by Darleen at April 29, 2007 06:30 PM

Comments

Your right. Rosie's wrong. On that point anyway.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 30, 2007 09:38 AM

But conservatives told me not to believe science when it conflicats with my ideology (see, e.g, global warming; evolution), so why should I believe this?

Posted by: Josh at April 30, 2007 10:27 AM

Josh said:
"...conservatives told me not to believe science when it conflicats [sic] with my ideology..."

No, they told you not to believe in political spin just because it puts on a white coat and nerd glasses.

So tell me -- since you're so certain of the "science" that claims that global warming is caused by man, have you come up with an explanation for the melting icecaps on Mars yet? Any explanation for the agricultural Viking villages we've found under the ice of Greenland? (Any explanation for why an ice-covered landmass came to be called "green land" in the first place?) How about the fact that the Great Lakes in the US midwest were carved by _glaciers_?

Theory: the annual climactic swings we call "seasons" aren't the only semi-regular weather changes this globe of ours undergoes. Some of them take centuries instead of mere months.

Regarding Rosie -- she'll probably just think Bush set up this to discredit her. Damn those right-wing conspiracies!

Posted by: Stephen Rider at May 1, 2007 10:04 AM

Damn those right-wing conspiracies!

You mis-spelt vast right-wing conspiracy. HTH. HAND.

Answers to your other questions:

Solar output is variable, not a constant (1400 w/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere) as we where taught at university in the physical meteorology class.

Vikings where at their peak at approximately the peak of the Mideval Warm Period, which I've heard called the Climate Optimum. Which begs the question of what is the optimal climate to support life on Earth?

The current spate of global warming - minus the occasional cooling hiccup - has been going on for 15K years, give or take. What is now the Great Lakes was covered by 3.5 miles of ice. Underwater archeologists have found human encampents on the continental shelf off what is currently the Florida costline. They where among the earliest victims of global warming.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 1, 2007 11:55 AM

As the FEMA report quoted below explains in detail, almost all of the JP-4 jet fuel
(essentially highly refined kerosene) from the two planes was consumed in the first 5-10 minutes
after impact, both in the initial fireballs and in fires on the floors near the impact points. This means
that the jet fuel had disappeared as a heat source long before the collapses, and cannot have been
an important influence beyond helping to ignite the office contents, which would have had to supply
the lion's share of the energy needed to raise the temperature of the core columns.

Posted by: Kristin at May 2, 2007 06:02 AM

argggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jane at May 2, 2007 07:12 AM

But conservatives told me not to believe science when it conflicats with my ideology (see, e.g, global warming; evolution), so why should I believe this?

Sounds like you are inclined to disbelieve science where it conflicts your ideology, so why should we try to convince you?

Posted by: Slartibartfast at May 2, 2007 09:38 AM

Sounds like you are inclined to disbelieve science where it conflicts your ideology, so why should we try to convince you?

Sounds like you are unable to make a point, so don't bother.

Posted by: Josh at May 2, 2007 04:15 PM