Texit coming?

If the voters don’t like the Government and have no hope of changing it, they might want to vote themselves a new country.

And so it begins: The Texas Referendum Bill is Official

[Epoch Times] A lawmaker in Texas this week introduced a measure that would allow state residents to discuss, debate, and vote on independence from the United States.

State Rep. Kyle Biedermann, a Republican, filed House Bill 1359, also known as the Texas Independence Referendum Act.

Voters would choose in a referendum on Nov. 2, 2021, whether the state should leave the United States and “establish an independent republic,” the act states (pdf).

Joshua Phillips of the Epoch Times is looking forward to the discussion this sparks. And if Texas can’t vote itself out, it might still do it with approval from the other states (and there are more Republican states than Democrat ones). Besides, says Phillips, the Democrats might not mind if the giant Texas Electoral College count was rendered moot. The Republicans in the smaller old USA would never win again. (As if they have a chance now?)

The real problem, I suspect, is that other states would rather go with Texas, than the Tech-Oligopoly Lynch Mob, and that will definitely ruin some plans for global dominion.

In other news 6 State Attorneys General Warned Biden that if he over-reaches they will be firing back court challenges.

How much breaking can a Federation of States take?

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/2KVnhEK

January 28, 2021 at 01:13PM

By Paul Dorian,

Overview

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which occurred on January 28, 1986, when the NASA Space Shuttle orbiter Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight leading to the deaths of its seven crew members.  STS-51-L was the 25th American Space Shuttle Program flight since the program began in 1981.

It was also the first mission to have a civilian on board, American teacher Christa McAuliffe. The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida at 11:39 EST (16:39 UTC).  According to the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, weather conditions were likely one of the factors that contributed to the incident. Tests conducted during the subsequent investigation showed that O-rings were much less resilient at lower temperatures, but the extreme cold at the Kennedy Space Center was not the only weather factor involved with this tragedy. 

Weather’s role in scheduling changes prior to the actual launch day

Challenger’s launch had originally been scheduled for the afternoon of January 22nd. After a two-day slip related to the previous shuttle mission, bad weather at an emergency landing site in Senegal and problems with an alternate site in Morocco delayed the launch to Sunday, January 26th. Air Force weather forecasters provided a pessimistic Sunday forecast to NASA managers the night before, causing managers to postpone Sunday’s launch in advance. However, as it turned out, the weather was fine on that Sunday morning leading launch director Gene Thomas to say “Sunday morning, the weather was perfect. We got a bad report. It happens.”

The countdown then proceeded towards a launch on Monday, January 27th at 9:37 a.m. After the crew boarded Challenger, a tool used to close the hatch became stuck. The ground crew eventually removed the tool, but by that time crosswinds at the Shuttle Landing Facility rose above the acceptable limit for a Return-To-Launch-Site (RTLS) emergency landing. At 12:35 p.m., the launch was scrubbed for January 27th and rescheduled for Tuesday, January 28th at 9:38 a.m.  After Monday’s scrub, weather forecasters briefed managers on the outlook for Tuesday morning, January 28th. Clear skies were forecast, but unseasonably cold weather was expected to sweep through central Florida. The minimum predicted air temperature at the launch pad bottomed out at 22°F for the hours just before dawn on Tuesday, January 28th.  

With sub-freezing temperatures predicted, ground crews drained most of the water pipes at the launch pad to minimize ice formation. Those that could not be drained were left running overnight, and strong wind gusts blew water onto pad structures where it subsequently froze. The ice inspection team was sent to the launch pad several times overnight to evaluate conditions at the launch pad. Before each shuttle launch, the ice team would do a review of any potential ice buildup on the external tank caused by the supercooled liquid oxygen and hydrogen in the tank. Ice on the tank and launch pad structure was considered a debris hazard because it could break off and damage the shuttle’s fragile thermal protection tiles (i.e., heat shield). Upon seeing the amount of ice on the pad, the launch team decided to delay the launch to 11:38 a.m. in order to give the sun time to melt some of the ice and minimize the debris risk.

Surface weather map on January 28, 1986 featuring an Arctic air mass in the eastern US and high pressure sitting over Florida which set the stage for very cold temperatures at the launch pad; map courtesy Penn State eWall

Arctic air outbreak

There was indeed a widespread Arctic air outbreak in the eastern U.S. on that late January day in 1986 that pushed record-breaking cold air all the way down into central Florida.  Arctic high pressure extended southward into the region during the overnight hours helping to contribute to the record-breaking cold (surface map above).  Melbourne, Florida, located about 35 miles from Cape Canaveral, recorded a record low temperature of 26 degrees; the normal low on January 28th is 50 degrees. Likewise, Orlando also had a record low of 26 degrees that morning. Both records still stand, and both locations broke their record lows the following morning as well.  As a result of cold and some gusty winds, ice accumulated on the launch pad area in the overnight hours. The ice was removed by crews, and multiple ice checks took place prior to launch. According to the investigation report, the ambient air temperature at the time of launch, 11:38 a.m. EST, was measured at 36 degrees.  This measurement was made near ground level by a weather tower 1000 feet from the pad. However, the temperature near the failed Solid Rocket Booster joint – located at a higher altitude – was actually estimated to be 28°F. Not only was the ambient air near the Solid Rocket Booster joint colder than ground level measurements due to altitude differences, but the failed joint was shaded from the sun during the hours prior to liftoff.  Joints on the sun-facing side were estimated to be nearly 20 degrees warmer than those on the shaded side at liftoff.  Furthermore, the gusty winds created an enhanced cooling effect between the supercooled tank and the O-ring joint region.

The wind barbs (circled region on right) on this sounding plot at Cape Kennedy on the morning of the launch featured a noticeable change of wind speed and wind direction with height. This “wind shear” was an important contributing factor to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Map courtesy University of Wyoming.

The contributing factor of wind shear

In addition to the extreme cold, wind shear (change of wind direction and speed with altitude) played a vital role in the Challenger disaster as it contributed to the failing of the O-rings on the Solid Rocket Booster. The first hint of trouble occurred at liftoff, but was not noticed until film was developed after the accident. Several puffs of smoke were seen emanating from the right Solid Rocket Booster aft field joint.  Challenger encountered several bouts of wind shear (see sounding plot above) starting around 37 seconds into the flight and lasting through just after one minute after liftoff. About one minute after liftoff, a flame plume becomes visible on the right Solid Rocket Booster. The plume originates from around the aft field joint – the same area as the smoke puff seen at liftoff. The plume grew and was pushed by aerodynamic forces toward the external tank. The first evidence of external tank failure is the interaction of the plume with liquid hydrogen leaking from the external tank about 65 seconds into the flight. The plume also began to burn the strut connecting the right solid rocket booster and external tank.  The tank structure failed approximately 73 seconds after liftoff, causing the liquid hydrogen and oxygen to vaporize with local combustion. Challenger itself did not explode, but was torn apart by extreme aerodynamic forces. Several large components of Challenger, including the right wing and crew compartment, are visible in photographs and film after the breakup.

Tests conducted during the Rogers Commission investigation showed that O-rings were much less resilient at lower temperatures. As a result, they “would not be able to expand along with the Solid Rocket Boosters case motion, and may not seal the joint properly”. This is what happened with the sub-freezing O-rings in Challenger’s right Solid Rocket Boosters aft field joint. The shuttle was designed to handle a certain amount of structural load with margin built in. During the shuttle’s 8 1/2 minute ride to orbit, on-board computers steered the shuttle along a preplanned trajectory.

Before launch, upper level winds were typically monitored by series of balloons and other devices. Engineers used the wind data to optimize the shuttle’s trajectory to minimize load caused by upper level winds. If the predicted structure load was outside of the acceptable limits, the launch would be scrubbed. In general, wind shear is more important for structural load than just the wind speed by itself. The structural loads seen during Challenger’s ascent were among the largest in the history of the shuttle program. However, the Rogers Commission determined they were not outside of the design limits and therefore did not themselves cause the accident. Some experts believe, however, that the O-ring failure – and as a result the Challenger accident – would not have occurred without the high wind shear.

On September 29th, 1988 – thirty-two months later – the Space Shuttle Discovery launched successfully with its five man crew and the United States had returned to flight.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Perspecta, Inc.
perspectaweather.com

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3agV4kF

January 28, 2021 at 01:02PM

CO2 causing runaway warming is just junk science.
____________

Global warming is wrong, wrong, wrong

Yukon Jack

Snow, snow, snow because global warming (human-caused) is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Humans have burned over a trillion barrels of oil thus far. That is a lot of heat released, and the question is why aren’t we living in a frying skillet? Because all that heat from industry and motor cars ended up heating the air, then at night the heat radiated out to space.

Heat is a weird thing, like what is it really? Well, humans did not know until recently, and it took hundreds of years of science to figure it out. Heat are molecules in motion, when you heat your house you are making the molecules vibrate faster.

So let us say some atmospheric gas actually was causing the atmosphere to heat up in the daytime. What happens to that heat? Most of it ends up in outer space as the earth cools at night. If for some reason there is a daily carryover of heat, when winter comes all the accumulated heat will be dissipated in the long freezing cold winter nights.

So this CO2 causing runaway warming is just junk science. Earth’s temperatures are being determined by some other cause like solar output and orbital dynamics, not by us.

We can not heat the earth even if we wanted to, unless we could make the earth closer to the sun.

Lunatic Bill Gates wants to blot the sun out, because he has billions and believes the myth of global warming, that makes him very dangerous.

If we reduce solar input we could put earth into another ice age, which is going to happen anyways since we are stuck in an ice age cycle that started 2.6 million years ago.

The post Global warming is wrong, wrong, wrong appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/3cjwP7P

January 28, 2021 at 01:01PM

Ein Bericht zur aktuellen Stromversorgung im Winter. Prof. Schwarz bringt es auf den Punkt:

die gesicherte Leistung von Wind + Sonne = 0

Wintertime wind and solar energy “between 0 and 2 or 3 percent – that is de facto zero,” says German power distribution professor. 

Berlin’s power supply severely strained

Germany now finds itself in the dead of winter. Much of the country has seen considerable snowfall, meaning solar panels are often covered by snow and thus rendered useless. Even without snow cover, the weeks-long overcast sky prevents any noteworthy solar power generation.

Moreover, this winter there have been many long windless periods, and so Germany’s approx. 30,000 wind turbines have been largely out of operation. In a world 100% reliant on green energies, this would mean near 100% darkness at home.

Luckily Germany’s still existing coal and nuclear power infrastructure is (still) there to step in and keep the power on and the country running. This has been the case for Berlin this winter an RBB German television report reveals:

German RBB (Berlin-Brandenburg) public broadcasting recently aired a report (above) on the region’s winter energy woes titled: “Germany’s green energies strained by winter.”

Coal to the rescue

The report acknowledges that all the power is “currently coming mainly from coal, and the power plants in Lausitz” are now “running at full capacity”.

Strangely the RBB report has been taken down from the archives, yet is fortunately available on YouTube thanks to wind energy protest group Vernunftkraft.de.

In the report Daniel Bartig, a mechanic at the LEAG Lausitz plant, tells RBB he is skeptical that green energy can do the job, and says “the greatest share of power is currently coming from coal.”

Green energies will not keep pace with demand

Next in the report, RBB interviews Harald Schwarz, professor of power distribution at the University of Cottbus, who tells RBB he’s very skeptical of wind and solar energy doing the job. As Germany moves to shut down its reliable nuclear and coal power plants, the gap between supply and demand will grow dangerously wide.

Physical reality “totally neglected” by policymakers

According to Prof. Schwarz:

With this supply of wind and photovoltaic energy, it’s between 0 and 2 or 3 percent – that is de facto zero. You can see it in many diagrams that we have days, weeks, in the year where we have neither wind nor PV. Especially this time for example – there is no wind and PV, and there are often times when the wind is very miniscule.  These are things, I must say, that have been physically established and known for centuries, and we’ve simply totally neglected this during the green energies discussion.”

Will have to rely on foreign energy in the future

RBB then warns of the increased odds of blackouts for the region, like the blackout in Berlin in 2019.

So what will happen in the future?

The reporter says the plan is that Germany will have to rely more on natural gas (from Russia), coal power from Poland and nuclear power from France.

Green energy dumbness and obstinance on full public display.Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/2NGgH65

January 28, 2021 at 11:58AM