She's back.....

"bryan40oop" (bryan40oop)
06/10/2016 at 10:16 • Filed to: None

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (39)

CalzoneGolem > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 10:19

At this point your no better than fox news.

bryan40oop > CalzoneGolem
06/10/2016 at 10:24

Better now?

CalzoneGolem > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 10:25

Eh, you could capitalize Fox News.

djmt1 > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 10:26

Cooling isn’t the problem. The Type 45 has a set of new experimental engines which to be blunt, suck massive donkey bollocks. Sure better cooling would help but it doesn’t fix the issue of the engines just not being powerful enough.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 10:27

Your comment is utterly tangential to the premise of the article, though. The thesis is that people will only pay attention to climate change when there are real and noticeable impacts. And considering the US Department of Defense has the best climate change mitigation policy in any part of the US government, her thesis is correct.

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 10:29

just don’t click on her articles mate. Less clicks, less ad revenue, less likely she’ll survive the next cull.

BigBlock440 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:30

But what real and noticeable impacts? There were no example of any in the article.

Sam > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:31

But the whole premise of the article is flawed. She is trying to claim that the engines are failing due to climate change, but that isn’t at all true. The engines and cooling systems just suck. I could claim that Americans are getting fatter because climate change is making it too hot to go outside, but that would just be a false connection.

450X_FTW > CalzoneGolem
06/10/2016 at 10:32

They don’t deserve to be capitalized

Aaron M - MasoFiST > BigBlock440
06/10/2016 at 10:32

Besides the design of the ship cooling systems?

Because “unable to cope with changing conditions” is a more defensible argument for the failure than “ill-equipped to operate in literally the most popular theater of war of the last 30 years”.

I’m not saying the argument is correct, I’m saying “you’re wrong to frame it this way” is not a counter-argument, especially with no evidence.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Sam
06/10/2016 at 10:34

Then the commenter should prove it, rather than making a self-congratulatory self-post of a rhetorically devoid comment. Premise is flawed? Argue the premise is flawed, don’t say “you’re wrong, nyeahhh, Fox News”.

jariten1781 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:39

Her thesis is that ships designed for blue water ops with excursions into brown water have reduced capability when continually operated in brown water therefore people will finally start thinking/doing something about climate change.

That is so logically incongruent that it's mind boggling. It's straight up irrational.

bryan40oop > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:39

What causes overheating? Insufficient cooling. It’s only plaguing these ships, therefore design flaw. Not exactly rocket science. Just boat science.

BigBlock440 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:41

Since when is poor engineering/design/specification caused by global warming? Not even Mister Fantastic himself can stretch enough to get that one to work.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 10:42

Cooling of any boat engine is done through a heat exchanger, which has an expected efficiency rating based on the expected temperature differential between the working fluid and the water. In the event that the water was warmer than expected (say, due to the impacts of climate change), the heat exchanger would never hit its efficiency rating, and never provide the necessary cooling for the engine.

Making a tautological argument does not disprove anything.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > BigBlock440
06/10/2016 at 10:44

Since when has anyone brought evidence that the design was out of spec? Heat exchangers work entirely based on temperature differential, and higher temperatures of the external fluid will cause them to work less effectively. You need more evidence than “that sounds dumb and I don’t like the author” to disprove an argument.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > jariten1781
06/10/2016 at 10:46

Except if the thesis is that the reduced operational envelope will make people notice the water temperature differentials, there’s enough evidence given how the US DoD already plans for these sorts of things that this could be true.

Hardly irrational.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard
06/10/2016 at 10:48

Pretty much this, ignore her to death.

jariten1781 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:54

That would be a sensible argument if the operational envelope was reduced. Say the blue water temperatures had risen 20 degrees since IOC so that reduced capability expected in brown water were happening in the open oceans. Then you can make that argument.

That’s not what happened at all. They specced operations different than they’re actually operating them and they have a marginal system design for the current posture. Relating that to rising ocean temperatures is irrational; it's a requirements flowdown and design issue. Parliament and the MoD didn't even discuss AGW because it straight up has nothing to do with this data point.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > jariten1781
06/10/2016 at 10:58

You’re probably right. Keep in mind, I’m not saying she’s right. I’m saying to dismiss the argument out of hand because you don’t like it or don’t like the author is rhetorically bankrupt. The fact that you’ve engaged with me on this and brought evidence to bear in a way the OP never did further proves my point. And then sharing the comment on Oppo like “told her, didn’t I gang” is even more irksome.

BigBlock440 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 10:59

Nobody said it was designed out of spec, but if it wasn’t then it was speced wrong. And the evidence of that is that it doesn’t work. If a 2-3 degree coolant temperature difference is enough to cripple your design, maybe it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > BigBlock440
06/10/2016 at 11:03

“Man, we goofed, a 3 degree ocean temperature change FUBARED the turbine heat exchanger.”

“Why was the temperature 3 degrees higher?”

In the end, I’m not saying the argument in the article is wrong or right, but it is an argument and it does have evidence provided. The OP’s comment is just blather because he doesn’t like the author. If Alissa Walker hadn’t written this the OP wouldn’t have commented, either because he didn’t care or because he’d have realized that maybe you should have something to say before deigning to talk down to someone who’s committed the awful crime of having an opinion.

BigBlock440 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 11:06

But it was a terrible argument with no basis in reality. “Oh shit the sun’s out, guess we can’t run today”

CalzoneGolem > 450X_FTW
06/10/2016 at 11:08

Found the liberal.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > BigBlock440
06/10/2016 at 11:10

In what way does it have no basis in reality? The DoD already documents these things under Directive 4715.21. I keep hearing all these people saying that the argument is ridiculous/terrible/whatever and then providing 0 evidence backing up their statement. Prove to me this has no basis in reality. It has basis in how heat exchangers actually work, in the historical operations in the Middle East out over the past decade and longer, and in the fact that the US already includes things like this in their mitigation plans. Does this mean she’s right? Of course not. But it means you’re wrong in thinking you can just say she’s wrong and have any credibility.

Berang > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 11:25

If it wasn’t plaguing them before the water heated up, what changed then? Oh yeah... the water temperature.

450X_FTW > CalzoneGolem
06/10/2016 at 11:25

I can’t be a liberal, I won guns, a lot of them, plus several other qualifications that would make it impossible for me to be a liberal. I just don’t care for fox news and their scare tactics of clickbait headlines they produce

“YOU WONT BELIEVE WHAT THESE MUSLIMS DID!!!”

As for political parties, I’m a Libertarian Socialist

CalzoneGolem > 450X_FTW
06/10/2016 at 11:26

complains about clickbait headlines

is on a gawker site

450X_FTW > CalzoneGolem
06/10/2016 at 11:36

Doesn’t click said clickbait headlines

Only gawker articles I read are those on Jalopnik and Gizmodo (except for Alyssa walkers)

BigBlock440 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 11:40

Global warming causing the ships failures has no basis in reality because even if there was no warming, ocean temperatures would still range from 30-90, and the ships would still fail at the upper limit. You keep going off about heat exchangers, but seem to think that they only work within a narrow temperature range. A few degrees difference in coolant temperature could easily be overcome by pumping a few more gallons through. You know what the coolant temperature is in your car? It can swing from below 0 to 210+. Since we’re talking turbines here, wanna take a guess at the normal coolant temperature of a helicopter? 160-215 degrees. Just because a ship designed to operate in cold water can’t operate in hot water (that would be hot regardless) doesn’t mean that the failure is caused by “global warming”. Now, please show where the “global warming killed my ship” is based in reality.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > BigBlock440
06/10/2016 at 11:44

Since we’ve been operating in the Middle East for over a decade, there’s a reasonable question to why these failures started happening recently, or why the design envelope needed to change on a new ship. “Basis in reality” is a very broad claim, and you fail to show that the argument has none. Note you’re going for a much higher standard of rigor than attempting to prove the argument wrong, which your evidence could potentially do with a little more depth and maybe some BAE specs.

Besides, this whole thing started because of the self-congratulatory nothing of the OP. By taking all this time and word count to actually bring evidence into the mix, you’re proving my point that the original post was pointless and ill-intentioned.

CalzoneGolem > 450X_FTW
06/10/2016 at 12:02

Doesn’t click clickbait headlines

Reads Alyssa Walker’s articles

Rock Bottom > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 12:24

The delta in sea temperature is on the order of tenths of a degree over the last century ( https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/… ). That’s a lot of change for turtles and coral, but not for war machines.

If they designed their cooling circuits to such a tight margin out of ignorance, then they’re bad engineers and they should feel bad. I doubt that’s the case. The more likely problem here is that they were designed to an inadequate specification relative to the manner in which they were deployed. The design intent likely allowed the ships to operate in 95% of the seas, ignoring the few small places where the water is this hot. You don’t always want to let a single extreme case drive the entire design of a complex machine. That would add substantial cost and complexity. So after the ship was designed specifically not to go into hot water, the Royal Navy deployed these ships into a climate they weren’t meant to go to in the first place either out of ignorance or indifference.

Rock Bottom > bryan40oop
06/10/2016 at 12:26

Nobody seems concerned about the Russian icebreakers that haven’t been able to sail into the “warm” waters near the equator since the mid 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal_(ic…

450X_FTW > CalzoneGolem
06/10/2016 at 12:28

I didn’t read the article, I just enjoyed reading the response to said article

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Rock Bottom
06/10/2016 at 12:29

And you know what you did that the OP never did? Brought facts, data and evidence into the argument.

Also, having read the article, the argument was that thermal problems could raise awareness of sea temperature rise (potentially regardless of causation), which is borne out by some of the DoD proceedings around climate mitigation.

jariten1781 > Aaron M - MasoFiST
06/10/2016 at 12:30

This didn’t just start happening recently. We’ve always had issues taking blue water ships into littorals. EX: when my boat approached ports in Thailand the combination of high water temperatures and bio-debris in the main seawater strainers necessitated a diver op for cleaning so the steam generator condenser’s cooling flow would allow full electrical and propulsion steam and stay in spec. These ships are operating in in those type of conditions all the time, the Gulf is a harsh environment. They weren’t specced for that. There are ships that are...but type 45s are mainly UK Aegis style anti-air anti-missile ships intended for task force operations in blue waters. They’ve also not been operating in the gulf for ten years, the first only became operational in 2010ish IIRC and these type of discoveries are fairly common for first and early in class vessels...it’s the standard bathtub curve. They’ll fix the marginal designed intercooler and you won’t hear a lick about this specific failure again in the decades that follow until they start having aging and obsolescence failures..

I understand what you’re trying to do, but it’s really an indefensible position she took. There’re nearly infinite things that can be written about AGW, this just straight isn’t one and it’s frankly a disservice to the conversation surrounding the issue.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > jariten1781
06/10/2016 at 12:35

Fair enough. I still take issue with the rhetoric and attitudes that many on this site take, especially considering that most of the urban planning/land use articles she writes are on much more solid ground. It’s not good practice for anyone to feel like they should get kudos for writing a banal response because it reinforces collective opinion.

CalzoneGolem > 450X_FTW
06/10/2016 at 13:51

Just taking the piss.