Lufthansa jet narrowly avoids crashing in German windstorm

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 6:39 PM GMT on March 05, 2008

A Lufthansa Airbus A320 with 137 people on board nearly crashed at the Hamburg, Germany airport on Saturday, March 1, as the pilot struggled to land the airplane during high winds kicked up by winter storm "Emma". If you don't have a fear of flying, take at look at the remarkable video an amateur photographer captured of the landing. It's been uploaded to and YouTube. As seen in the still images captured from the video (Figure 1), the pilot attempted to land the aircraft with a strong crosswind blowing from right to left. The crosswind is so strong that the drift angle of the aircraft (the difference between where the nose is pointed and the actual track of the airplane along the runway) is about 20 degrees. As the pilot touches the wheels down, he kicks the rudder to straighten the airplane out, and at that moment, a strong gust of wind lifts up the right wing, pushing the left wingtip of the aircraft into the runway. The pilot is skillful and lucky enough to avoid having the airplane cartwheel down the runway and explode, and aborts the landing attempt. You can see the blast of the engines kick up a cloud of dust on the left side of the runway as he goes to full throttle for a "go around" (thanks to Jeff Weber of UNIDATA for making the correct analysis of this dust cloud). The plane landed safely on its second attempt. Do you think the passengers were praying during that second landing? I do! Only minor damage was done to the left wingtip, and the plane was back in service by the next day.

Figure 1. Still photo of the Lufthansa jet (left) as it approached the runway. Note sharp angle between the direction the airplane's nose is pointed, and the track it is taking along the length of the runway. Strong winds of 40 mph gusting to 63 mph were observed at the airport that afternoon. Right photo: the left wingtip of the jet scrapes the runway as a big gust of wind hits. Image credit:

The weather that led to the near disaster
The initial press reports indicated that a wind gust of 155 mph hit the aircraft as it tried to land. That sounded rather dubious to me, so I took a closer look at the weather conditions that day. The only way a wind gust of that magnitude could have been generated would be from a powerful microburst flowing out from the base of a severe thunderstorm. The world record strongest thunderstorm microburst occurred on August 1, 1983, when winds of 149.5 mph were clocked at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington D.C., just five minutes after President Reagan landed there aboard Air Force 1. So, a 155 mph wind gust is possible, but it would be a new world record.

Figure 2. Visible satellite image from 10:20 GMT Saturday March 1 2008. Winter storm "Emma", a 960 mb low pressure centered north of Hamburg over Norway, has pushed a cold front through Germany. A strong northwest to west-northwest flow of air coming off the North Sea (red arrows) brought sustained winds of 36 mph, gusting to 56 mph, to Hamburg, Germany. Image credit: University of Bern, Switzerland.

Were there severe thunderstorms near Hamburg on March 1 that could have generated such a wind gust? A powerful low pressure system (Emma) with a central pressure of 960 mb passed to the north of Hamburg, Germany that morning, dragging a strong cold front through in the late morning (Figure 2). After cold frontal passage, the wunderground history page for Hamburg at 12:50 GMT, five minutes before the time of the incident, shows sustained winds of 35 mph, gusting to 56 mph. A temporary wind reading of 40 mph, gusting to 63 mph, also occurred. The temperature was about 45°F, with occasional rain. This is classic post-cold front weather, and is not the sort of environment where severe thunderstorms with strong microbursts occur. Later press reports corrected the 155 mph wind gust, reducing it to 56 mph. Apparently, the aircraft's landing speed was 155 mph. In any case, the plane was operating very near to the maximum crosswinds an Airbus A320 is permitted to land in--38 mph, gusting to 44 mph. There are questions whether air traffic control should have used that runway for landings, and whether or not the pilot should have attempted a landing in those conditions. There is an interesting discussion at the discussion forum where some pilots weight in on the near-disaster.

Winter storm Emma did considerable damage across Germany. Six people died in weather-related automobile accidents, power was cut to 150,000 homes, and high winds ripped the roof off of a school in Hesse. In neighboring countries, 260 buildings lost their roofs in Poland, flooding collapsed a bridge in Romania, and in the Czech Republic, 92,000 people (about 10 percent of the population) lost power.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1153 - 1103

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26Blog Index

1153. Ivansrvivr
2:47 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
I did research project about agricultural chemicals draining into the everglades as a science project in high school( a long time ago ). I realize the destructive potential of chems abused in agriculture well. The Corps may own the land, but crops don't grow on their own. Something that I support that many argue about is selective breeding (aka geneticically engineered) crops that are drought, insect resistant and thrive in poor soil, opening up areas to agriculture never before available. "Reverse Osmosis" desalinization of deep ground water and seawater for large scale irrigation has potential for arid areas too. Both processes could eliminate much unnecessary use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1152. Ivansrvivr
2:35 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
There are many things driving the price of oil. Speculation on the part of investors, increasing demand in emerging nations, the roughly $.75 a gallon tax by the fed govt plus your local taxes are helping too. The influx of money to oil rich countries that are constantly arming themselves is major cause of instability both geo-politically and economically around the world. Just this week, Chavez has been "sabre rattling" towards Panama, Iran never stops threatening us, and China is undergoing massive arms buildup much like Germany in the 1930's but on much larger scale. Those are a few of the reasons oil is so high.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1151. latitude25
2:37 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1148. Ivansrvivr 2:34 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Why not grow our energy alongside it. Is there something wrong with farmers making money instead of our enemies?

I didn't mean to imply that at all.

There are two big problems with it though.

Cornell U did a study that it would take approx 95% of the land mass of this country,
to grow just the fuel we need for our transportation industry.
That in itself, is a ecological disaster.

We have very few farmers. Most is owned and run by huge corporations and businesses. So there really are very few farmers involved.

The energy companies are just swapping over from buying land to punch a hole in it,
to buying land to plow and irrigate it.

No matter what crop you choose, they will all require lots of water, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1150. latitude25
2:30 AM GMT on March 11, 2008

"A forest instead of fields would suquester more CO2 than the same field would replace in fossil fuels."

That's a given.

But aren't we mandated to produce X amount of ethanol in the next X years?
I forget the numbers.
I think Cornell is doing another study on how much new land, forests destroyed, water, fertilizer, pesticides, etc that will take.
Have you seen that study yet? I'm looking for it.

"$10/lb of beef is coming. Milk will be $10/gallon."

And all of this coming at a time, when the largest demographic in this country is going on a fixed income and can not afford it.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1149. ShenValleyFlyFish
10:17 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
I'm not that convinced GW politics is driving bio fuels. Seems like $100/brl oil might have a little bit to do with it. Government actions can and do distort markets but not nearly to the extent the politicos would like us to believe. Issue facing us is not what kind but how much particularly as a nation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1148. Ivansrvivr
2:25 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Lat25, we are already growing everything half the world eats commercially. If commercial agriculture can help break our addiction to oil that comes from our enemies who use the oil money to better arm themselves, I'm all for it. the fact is most of the folks we buy oil from would wipe us off the map given the opportunity. Our best resource in the USA is our ability to grow food. Why not grow our energy alongside it. Is there something wrong with farmers making money instead of our enemies?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1147. lindenii
2:30 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1141. MichaelSTL 2:15 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Burning ethanol emits more CO2

And just where did the CO2 that is emitted come from? Hmmm... Plants take in CO2 from the air... ethanol is made from plants...

And, using other plants, like switchgrass, can give far more energy than it takes to produce (540% vs. 25% for corn ethanol - and no worry about using food for fuel, switchgrass is also native, and can be grown on land not suitable for food crops).


Hold your horses there STL.

Plants take in CO2 and slice off the carbon for use in their growth while releasing the oxygen back into the environment. It is, usually, only during natural decomposition (rotting)or combustion (fire)that the carbon combines with the oxygen in the atmosphere to form CO2 as well as water. The black you see in smoke is actually free carbon which is not the same as CO2.

One simple way to sequester Carbon and therefore potential CO2 would be to bury all plant waste which would prevent the carbon from combining with oxygen and releaseing CO2.

Switchgrass? Are you saying that all the gurus on the planet chose corn over swithgrass? 540% vs 25% is a huge difference in output and it just doesn't seem possible that they could have missed such an opportunity. How can that be? Do you have an explanation?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1146. atmoaggie
2:15 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
After considering the energy to produce it, and less available energy per unit volume, there is no net gain. Still to be considered is the increased hydrocarbons and NOx. Letting the corn/sugar/switchgrass grow for food supply and the rest return to a natural state would be far more useful. A forest instead of fields would suquester more CO2 than the same field would replace in fossil fuels.

Simply stated: More efficient use of resources would have far more profoud effects on the evironment. More efficient vehicles and more efficient use of vehicles would be much more reasonable, effective, and cost-effective than any ethanol answer. I've said before, I am not against intelligent and reasonable ways of reducing our impact on the planet/atmosphere/oceans, just not to the point of energy facism.

$10/lb of beef is coming. Milk will be $10/gallon. Iowa has convinced enough politicians that corn is the only way to make ethanol. Are you sure this is what you want?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1145. Patrap
9:24 PM CDT on March 10, 2008
NASA Launch Blog Link

No technical issues are in work at this point, and only a 10 percent chance of weather prohibiting a liftoff at 2:28 a.m. EDT. The only concern is for low clouds moving onshore at the time of launch.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 449 Comments: 140005
1144. latitude25
2:16 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
and you think Exxon has not figured out that if you water and fertilize and pesticide switchgrass

you increase your yield.

It's not going to be grown by some old hippy with dirty toenails in their backyard.

It's going to go commercial.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1143. ShenValleyFlyFish
9:46 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
Downburst was final straw. Most likely would have got away with it if it hadn't happened. However plane was coming in with a crosswind beyond rated angle and speed/gust specs before downburst. Sooner or later that's going to catch up with somebody and then disaster. Several posts seemed to imply that is accepted common practice. Several were discussing special tricks like dropping landing gear on one side, over-riding computer settings etc. Hard to tell which were real pilots and which were blow-hards (Wish casters?) but ones that worried me most were not the ones who were the loudest but some low key exchanges about tricks to get away with landings which exceeded design specs. Good stuff to know if need arose but not as standard practice. Just came away with general feel of a system running at absolute limits. Ok if I'm running my lathe and chancing wrecking a part if thats what the boss wants. Not OK if machine is an airplane and I'm the product being risked.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1142. latitude25
2:11 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1136. atmoaggie 2:07 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
latitude, the true GW advocates do not like biofuels any more than you do. Burning ethanol emits more CO2, more hydrocarbons and more NOx than gasoline.

I know, but it still does not stop humans from smelling money.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1140. Ivansrvivr
1:57 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
STL, I have the late 1970's Nat Geo with Global cooling as the main story. I also have the 84 one that covers the 82-3 El Nino, which mentions a possible trend towards warmer temps than previously thought.

I see the current fuel crisis as an opportunity for the United States to be the true leader of the world in developing clean (not from food supply) energy. It would take a "moon shot" type effort by Private business with Government incentives. I would like nothing better than for us to be the world leader in clean energy, which would reinvogorate our economy unlike anything that has occurred in my lifetime. I look at the energy issue from a different perspective than most environmental advocates.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1139. lindenii
2:14 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1130. nash28 1:52 AM GMT on March 11, 2008


Did I kill the blog?


No, you didn't kill the made STL uncomfortable with the truth and shunning you is his method of dealing with opposition to his pet ideas.

Heck Shen would have you censor anyone he has likewise decided to shun by demanding that you not quote those he is shunning in your replies. They even falsely accused me of being another blogger from the past. They knew better, it was simply a way to minimize the truth of my words. I thought I heard the faint thud of goose-stepping in the matter. No apology either.

Ignorance is bliss and those who blindly shun and ban you from their blogs are, obviously, very blissful people. You are quite capable of clear and concise writting...keep up the good fight, in the long run it will be well worth it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1138. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
2:07 AM GMT on March 11, 2008

At 0:00 AM UTC, Intense Tropical Cyclone 12R [940 hPa] located near 22.8S 40.9E has 10 minute sustained winds of 90 knots with gusts up to 130 knots. The cyclone is reported moving south-southeast at 9 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T5.0/5.5/D1.0/24 HRS

Hurricane-Force Winds within 30 NM from the center

Storm-Force Winds within 50 NM from the center

Gale-Force winds within 70 NM from the center

Near Gale-force winds within 80 NM from the center extending up to 110 NM from the center in the southern and eastern semi-circle

Forecast Position and Intensity
12HRS: 24.4S 41.1E - 85 knots (CYCLONE TROPICAL)
24HRS: 25.3S 40.5E - 80 knots (CYCLONE TROPICAL)
48HRS: 25.4S 39.0E - 70 knots (CYCLONE TROPICAL)
72HRS: 24.4S 38.3E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)

Additional Information
The system shows rapid variation of intensity. Jokwe gave its best presentation between 1630z and 2200z (unfortunately during nighttime blackout of satellite pictures, but it is likely that it maintains DT around 5.5/6.0. Making CI at 5.5 during that time) so Jokwe is upgraded to Intense Tropical Cyclone stage with winds at 90 knots. SInce 2200z, overall configuration has deteriorated.

This system is expected to keep on tracking generally southeastwards to southward, toward a mid to upper level trough located south of the Mozambique Channel. Jokwe has passed around 2000z at 35 Nm to the north of Europa Island where a minimal pressure of 985 hPa has been measured.

By 24 hours in the forecast, the aforementioned mid to upper level low should dissipate as a ridge rebuilds over the southern channel, resulting in a slower motion and a more northwestward track.

what a life for this cyclone.. strengthen to cyclone stage strike Northern Madagascar causing it to weaken. Redevelop in the Mozambiquw Channel to an intense tropical cyclone, strike Mozambique coastline causing it to weaken again below Tropical Cyclone stage. It manages again to re-enter the Mozambique Channel to strengthen once again to an intense tropical cyclone. Forecast has it turn northwest towards Mozambique again for hopefully its final landfall as a severe tropical storm.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1137. BahaHurican
10:01 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
I'm still saying, this has all been said before. On BOTH sides. I don't think anybody else is being convinced, one way or the other.

So, can we let the debate rest until we have new evidence to weigh? I don't mean the GLOBAL debate, just the one in the blog.

Anyway, I'm beat. I started work at 6:30 this morning, and I have another early start tomorrow. I think I'm going to turn in.

Have a good night, everybody!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1136. atmoaggie
2:05 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
latitude, the true GW advocates do not like biofuels any more than you do. Burning ethanol emits more CO2, more hydrocarbons and more NOx than gasoline.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1135. BtnTx
9:05 PM CDT on March 10, 2008
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1134. atmoaggie
1:50 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1109. JFLORIDA 12:31 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Just really average in the US. Still actually above in many places.

And you have a degree in ....

A bit condescending, huh? This is nothing more than name calling without doing the name calling.

And the answer is atmopsheric science, specifically, atmospheric chemistry and numerical modeling. How about you? Never know who you might run into in a blog on WU.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1133. BahaHurican
9:53 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
Hey. I just discovered that if I hit that little red KML button on the NRL page it will put the hurricane tracks into my Google Earth . . . .

Kewl . . .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1132. BtnTx
8:56 PM CDT on March 10, 2008
Well stated latitude. Let's have all of us humans starve to deathe to save the planet from global warming. Then all will be well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1131. latitude25
1:45 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1123. BahaHurican
I don't have a problem with erring on the side of caution,

But that's not where we are heading with this right now.

Typical humans, we think we know so much more than we really do
and we are running around helter skelter
totally forgetting the fact that we are humans

The rainforests really are being detroyed at the fastest rate ever
because of clearing land for palm oil plantations for bio-fuel.

The orangutans really are heading to rapid extinction because of those same palm oil plantations.

The world really is in a world food shortage because cereals are being diverted to bio-fuel and it is estimated that millions could starve.

Water use, pesticides, fertilizers, etc really are on the increase because more land is being cleared to convert to farm land to grow bio-fuels.

The cost of every thing down line from what was cereal, is rapidly rising, because of those cereals being diverted to bio-fuel. Not only a limited supply, but some refief agencies are being priced out of the market.

and on and on

We are creating an environmental disaster out of this.
Right now.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1130. nash28
1:52 AM GMT on March 11, 2008

Did I kill the blog?
Member Since: July 11, 2005 Posts: 190 Comments: 16972
1129. afcjags03
1:36 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
rah rah rah

Its a natural cycle people, the quicker everyone understands this, the quicker everyone can stop losing sleep over it.

Should we become more clean? Yes without a doubt, but not by using scare tactics and making politicians fatter in the pocket.

The whole GW debate is lame anymore, there are facts and statistics to back up both sides claims, all anyone ever ends up doing is arguing over what reference you want to put out there.

rah rah rah
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1127. nash28
1:38 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
STL- Why am I banned from your blog???
Member Since: July 11, 2005 Posts: 190 Comments: 16972
1126. nash28
1:34 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
You want a great GW debate??? Visit my blog, and click on the link in my title paragraph. If you have any intellectual honesty after perusing some of the articles, then you will be able to actually see both sides, as opposed to "we're all to blame and we're all gonna die in 30 years".
Member Since: July 11, 2005 Posts: 190 Comments: 16972
1125. Patrap
8:33 PM CDT on March 10, 2008
NWS Spaceflight Meteorology Group STS-123 Launch Forecast Link
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 449 Comments: 140005
1123. BahaHurican
9:25 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
The weather was good and bad. Cool temps were OK. Cloudy all day was not. I'm not used to days of overcast weather anymore . . .LOL

To all the pro and anti GW debaters out there, can we end the political debate? I don't have a problem with erring on the side of caution, but it would be great to avoid rehashing the same old points. Right now I doubt anybody has come across any NEW information on GW, whether pro or anti.

Can we let it rest?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1122. KoritheMan
1:28 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
The changes sound mostly for the better. It shouldn't be that hard to adjust . . .

Huh? Can you enlighten me on this, Baha? Preferably through WU mail?

no no, it's not the same thing at all.

The planet has natural swings of several degrees. Some in short time frames, and some not.
Our bodies do not do that.

It was the cold swing in the 60's-70's that caused some people to panic and think we were heading into another ice age.

But the fact still stands that 1°F increase in temperature CAN make a difference. Take snow, for example; the freezing point is 32°F, and it can snow at that temperature. Usually though, unless the ground is very cold from prior days of freezing weather, it won't stick. If it gets just a few degrees colder though, it can stick.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1120. BahaHurican
9:20 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
1102. nash28 7:03 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
That pilot has zero business trying to land that aircraft. Peoples lives in danger, for him to try and be a hero was asinine! He was fortunate enough to touch and go his way out of a sure disaster.

I thought someone said it was a downburst that caused the problem. I'm not clear on how forecastable they are, but wouldn't that weather phenomenon create some unexpected effects for the pilots?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1119. latitude25
1:19 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Thanks Baja, enjoying this cool weather?

1116. KoritheMan
This is true. Think of the human body. Even a 1°F increase in temperature can cause fever. Why a measly 1°F matters, we don't know, but it just does. It's the same with the earth's temperature.

no no, it's not the same thing at all.

The planet has natural swings of several degrees. Some in short time frames, and some not.
Our bodies do not do that.

It was the cold swing in the 60's-70's that caused some people to panic and think we were heading into another ice age.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1118. BahaHurican
9:17 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
1086. PaulBedfordUK 3:40 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
Faint sense of anticlimax here in the UK: . . . Why do I get the impression the news media is disappointed (rather than relieved) ?

A disaster would have made more exciting news . . . LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1117. BahaHurican
9:00 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
Evening everyone.

1051. latitude25 10:24 AM EDT on March 10, 2008

Baha, be sure and read what the EPA says about handling those bulbs.

Fluorescent Light Bulb Information

The lamp contains a small amount of mercury,

Thanks for the info, lat. I appreciate it.

1081. hurricane23 3:10 PM EDT on March 10, 2008

Also for those who are not aware there will be some big changes to the way the NHC does there things when tropical cyclones are present.

The changes sound mostly for the better. It shouldn't be that hard to adjust . . .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1116. KoritheMan
1:09 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
The Problem is of course, that even a degree change on average, in our heavenly populated world, can have catastrophic consequences.

This is true. Think of the human body. Even a 1°F increase in temperature can cause fever. Why a measly 1°F matters, we don't know, but it just does. It's the same with the earth's temperature.

Besides, if nothing is done to negate the effects of global warming, average global temperatures will go WAY up within the next 20 years or so. By 2030, I wouldn't be surprised to see it get to at least 115°F during the hottest days of summer down here in Louisiana. But that's if something isn't done about it. And a 15 to 20°F temperature change makes a significant difference.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1115. FLBlake
1:07 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Geez, a little defensive are we? I don't think I used any data to deny anything, did I? I hope you feel better now.

I just read quite a few articles about this winter being the coldest for many places, in 50 years. l_warming_go/

I like this about the ice.

Let's not forget about how accurate all these temperature records are.

I wish I had some real scientific charts and graphs to show how right I am, but all I keep finding are these articles.

All these right-wing neocon news sources must be showing my ignorance.

I wish there was an example to show me how to use the "link" function though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1114. latitude25
1:02 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
It's all true.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1112. latitude25
12:45 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
1106. JFLORIDA 12:18 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Lord we have a few cool days and all of a sudden GW is a hoax. What a bunch of politico types posting here that listen to "scientific" arguments on AM radio.

"I think its about people suffering that cant adjust and not wanting to harm others."

You could also be a product of the propaganda that you choose to listen to.

How would you feel if the same news was reported, just as accurately,
this way:

Global Warming Advocates Destroy Environment
In their uninformed rush for bio-fuels, more land is being cleared for bio-fuels. Releasing more CO2, putting more demand on water, and polluting with fertilizers, perticides, and run-off.

Global Warming Advocates Responsible for Highest De-Forestation and Record Destruction of Rainforests:
As bio-fuels become more in demand, the push for more palm oil, and the increase in price, has led to record rain forest destruction.

Global Warming Advocates Responsible for Extinction of Orangutans:
The rising price of palm oil for bio-fuel has led to record clearing of rainforests. The lack of habitat has forced orangutans to invade palm plantations, where the owners have placed a bounty - reward on every orangutan killed.
Estimated that because of bio-fuels, the great apes could be extinct within the next 20 years.

Global Warming Advocates Responsible for World Food Shortage
As more money is to be made in converting human food, cereals, into bio-fuel, the UN has announced another world food shortage. It is estimated that over one million people could die as a result of this in the next few years.

All in the way you spin it.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1108. latitude25
12:25 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
"The Problem is of course, that even a degree change on average, in our heavenly populated world, can have catastrophic consequences."

I have a question about that.

The earth temp normally fluxs a degree, little more, little less. This year has been a perfect example of that.

Since we are told that we have the technology to change the climate on this planet - if we act right now.
To actually alter the climate on the planet. That's a pretty big deal.

But yet, somehow we do not have the technology to survive a 1/2 of a degree, or even a whole degree in temp change in the next few hundred years.

How is that possible?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1107. FLBlake
12:19 AM GMT on March 11, 2008
Yes, "a few cool days". Many parts of the world are suffering from the coldest season in 50 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1104. ShenValleyFlyFish
7:41 PM EDT on March 10, 2008
Hit a couple of pilot forums and looked at it all again. Whole deal was wrong. Bunch of lucky people. Tower should have never put them on that runway. Pilots should have never accepted it and aborted long before if they did. I don't care how d@mn busy your airport is or how many others you are going to back up, close the dicy runways. Some fool in a company Lear wants to try it maybe but tower is still responsible. Doesn't matter how many successful landings you've had that computer will tell you if you're over the design limits (they were). I don't care if the 7th son of the 7th son of The Red Baron is pilot and you've got all your national pride wrapped up in the landing I don't want to be on the plane.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1103. NorthxCakalaky
11:37 PM GMT on March 10, 2008
Some N.C ski resorts will close early in 2weeks.Warm temps above 50 and rain made most of the snow melt.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1153 - 1103

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog


Dr. Masters co-founded wunderground in 1995. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990. Co-blogging with him: Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Grizzlies in Lake Clark National Park
Mount Redoubt Lava Dome
Matanuska Glacier
Icebergs From Columbia Glacier