Fox: Commercial Pilots 'attacked' with laser

Fox News | Greta Van Susteren

[ableChair]

Greta Van Susteren reported that a Delta pilot enroute to Salt Lake City was lazed in the cockpit this last Wednesday. Only country I know that has that hardware (for lazing bomber pilots) was the Soviet Union. Pilot reportedly required medical treatment and this was not a minor injury (weak laser) wound. More will come out to tomorrow as this story hits the print press.

[Cboldt]

Why is it so hard for some people to accept readily verifiable facts? Go to a library and read the Atlas. It's all there. Just be sure you read it correctly ...

You are being obstinate. I am not disputing what Cambridge says, I am disputing your application of it.

Cambridge is talking about a whole earth energy balance, not just about the physics of light transmission in air. 22% of all the availavble solar energy is absorbed by clouds over the entire planet, but for a place that doesn't have clouds, that energy has to go elsewhere.

You are using the wrong reference material to back up your theory.

[ableChair]

We're talking about how well the atmosphere can 'block' light, no matter how it does it, which is what is relevant for the laser discussion. Therefore, ONLY radiative light matters here. Like I said, you keep horribly confusing convection and radiation. Yes, a lot of energy reaches the surface but most of it happens via convection. This is not intuitively surprising at all, for the reasons and examples I already gave. Space suits, solar panels in orbit, telescopes, on and on. What's funny to me is how hard you're trying to argue something that has been CLEARLY disproven. If we can't believe Cambridge then let's all just be nihilists and call it a day!

[Cboldt]

You're kidding right? You guys will argue anything to be right! Did you read the part about "available" radiation? Obviously the remaining percent was not ignored. Perhaps that's the reflected light, I don't know, but I doubt Cambridge made THAT big of an error.

If 51% is reflected, then it isn't part of what is absorbed, as you have been asserting.

[DB]

We know exactly how much brighter stars are in space. We have satellites among other things that return that information to us.

You are 100% wrong.

You need to go to bed. Perhaps that light bulb will go off tomorrow for you. It isn't working tonight.

[ableChair]

I am not disputing what Cambridge says, I am disputing your application of it

I disagree. I think the quote is abundantly clear. As for cloud cover, those are AVERAGES between terminators. You're grabbing at straws. Sorry if I sound obstinate but it really IS funny.

[ableChair]

If 51% is reflected, then it isn't part of what is absorbed, as you have been asserting

NOOOO!!, that would BOLSTER my argument because it shows that the atmosphere 'BLOCKS' light even more! Besides, I don't know if the 51% is that at all. After I get some sleep I'll read some more and see if it tells.

[Cboldt]

You're grabbing at straws. Sorry if I sound obstinate but it really IS funny.

Well, I have to admit, you have me laughing my ass off over here!!

[ableChair]

You are 100% wrong

Listen to yourself! This is too F'kn funny. You keep saying, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, but you've clearly been disproven.

[DB]

Atmospheric convection carries heat away from the surface not to it. Again, what your saying makes no sense.

[ableChair]

Some of these debates on FR go this way. It's like, you argue that the Earth is basically not flat and someone just INSISTS that it is. It's weird.

[ableChair]

Atmospheric convection carries heat away from the surface not to it

Really? Wow. That's the first I've heard of that. But don't you see that you're really saying "Cambridge makes no sense". I mean, sure, they can be wrong but in the absence of anything else this is getting silly. It's not me saying it!

[DB]

No, I'm saying your interpretation of Cambridge makes no sense.

You can quote Cambridge or whatever claiming 2+2 is 5.

It simply isn't so. There's a wealth of information out on the Web to confirm it.

You won't be able to find one reference on the Web to confirm your contention, why do you suppose that is?

If you could you would have already provided it.

[Boot Hill]

"We're talking about how well the atmosphere can 'block' light, no matter how it does it, which is what is relevant for the laser discussion."

EXACTLY!

And that is precisely what those university gifs in #387 were telling you! That the atmosphere only absorbs 16% (in the first gif) and 19% (in the second gif) of the incoming solar radiation, NOT 95%!

Here is another...

University of Saint Louis says atmospheric absorption is 19%, not 95%...

This "19%" is the atmospheric absorption of the incoming solar radiation, and as you said, this "is what is relevant for the laser discussion".

--Boot Hill

[R. Scott]

Several years ago a pulsed lazer was developed to use for blinding enemy troops – including pilots.

[Cboldt]

And that is precisely what those university gifs in #387 were telling you! That the atmosphere only absorbs 16% (in the first gif) and 19% (in the second gif) of the incoming solar radiation, NOT 95%!

Not only that, the graphics represent a whole earth energy balance, not the physics of light attenuation in air.

Light attenuation in air is variable as well. Clear vs. haze being an easily understood example. Further, attenuation will be wavelength specific.

When the question is "how much attenuation of beam energy is provided by transmission in air," a reference work that examones the solar energy balance of the planet is not directly useful.

[Cboldt]

Some of these debates on FR go this way. It's like, you argue that the Earth is basically not flat and someone just INSISTS that it is. It's weird.

Indeed, it is. I know the earth isn't flat. There is a ditch in my front yard, and a hole that a chipmunk lives in. I can see mountains in the distance too. Harumph, flat indeed.

[Boot Hill]

"When the question is "how much attenuation of beam energy is provided by transmission in air," a reference work that examones the solar energy balance of the planet is not directly useful."

Agreed, long story how we ended up down this path!

--Boot Hill

[Imal]

"Don't you like acronyms that are made into nouns that are made into verbs?"

Acronyms That Are Made Into Nouns That Are Made Into Verbs = ATAMINTAMIVs.

Of course, there are several examples of atamintamivs not only in this thread, but most newscasts these days.

Indeed, it seems that nearly every human language is becoming atamintamivated.

Even this post is a showcase of atamintamivation!

[DB]

Hey, that's from the paper I posted a link to sometime ago...

That 19% is only an average for the whole earth including typical cloud cover, water vapor, etc. Light also reflects off the atmosphere and clouds sending it out to space.

On a clear day with no clouds and low water vapor the amount of radiant energy reaching the ground has to be much higher.

It is widely accepted that the sun provides about 1380 watts per square meter of radiation just above the atmosphere. It takes 1000 watts per square meter for a 13% efficient solar cell to produce 130 watts per square meter. This is what they do on a clear day not too far from the equator. Therefore about 72% of the suns radiation has to penetrate the atmosphere and land on the solar cell's surface to produce this much electricity. Significantly higher than the 49% average world wide

[Rebelbase]

When lasers are outlawed.....There will be no more Pink Floyd laser shows.