1,522 people died because of global warming

from JoeUser Forums

Yes, today is the anniversary of the 1522 deaths caused by global warming in a single day, and no one seems to care.

 

This is how it happened. That year there was an unusually warm winter and a very warm preceding summer. The New York Times reported that we were on the verge of destruction due to the climbing global temperature and that within a few decades all life on earth would perish. This global warming caused the ice shelves at both poles to melt sending hundreds of huge ice bergs into the oceans, some large enough to land the most modern aircraft of the year on. Because of the warm temperature it caused an effect called “blackberg”. This is where the ice has melted to its clear core and would reflect the colour of the surrounding water and sky so at night it would be almost invisible to the human eye. To top it off the global warming caused little wind that would have splashed water around the blackberg giving hints to its location.

 

Into this we enter a ship traveling the ocean, not just any ship but the most modern ship of the time carrying every modern piece of lifesaving and safety equipment known to man. None of it would prove helpful to the doomed passengers and crew that night. Because even with all that modern equipment, man is no match for that awesome power called Mother Nature. The iceberg rammed into the ship at 11:40 PM April 14 and began taking on water faster than the pumps could remove it. The listing of the ship made it impossible to use half of the life boats until it was too late. The ship sank beneath the water at 02:20 April 15 1912.

 

Of the 2,227 passengers and crew members who set sail, only 705 Titanic passengers survived, most were rich white people. Not one person of colour survived the tragedy

 

Remember the sinking of RMS Titanic and the 1,522 lives lost due to global warming. The poor and the women and children were the ones that suffered most because of it. Fifty children died only one was a first class passenger. Only about 30% of the women in third class survived, while almost 50% of second class women survived. It is a shame that we treated women and children and the poor so badly.

33,546 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, so does this mean man did or didn't cause global warming?

btw, I'll see your 1522 and raise you the 14,802 French people who died in the summer of 1997 because of a chronic lack of air conditioners.

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes, 1912 was one of the warmest winters on record, and yes, the NYT was writing about how the weather was going to get worse and we are all going to die from this warming. Of course 30 years later we were told of the coming ice age and that we are all going to die, burried under a mile of ice.

In truth, we are starting a cooling trend that began ten years ago, so expect to see stories and articles on global cooling. What happened to global warming? Nothing! It is a cycle that we have seen for a thousand years. The only difference is that we are using better data and the cold periods will be shorter as each cycle repeats itself. In the end global warming will kill all life on earth it is just not man made and there is nothing man can do about it.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

What happened to global warming? Nothing! It is a cycle that we have seen for a thousand years. The only difference is that we are using better data and the cold periods will be shorter as each cycle repeats itself. In the end global warming will kill all life on earth it is just not man made and there is nothing man can do about it.

You obviously haven't been listening to Al Gore enough. *_*

Humans just want to believe that we have more control over the Earth than we do.  I think our fate is more like what Wall-E portrays than us dying because of "Global Warming".  Personally, global cooling sounds scarier.  How do you grow crops in snow?

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, so does this mean man did or didn't cause global warming?

Good question! Man has nothing to do with global climate change. There is no proof that man is even a contributing factor. The best the scientists can claim is that man is responsible for 6/100 of a degree over a one hundred year period. So if we do nothing in six hundred years man will have added one degree of warmth to the planet. Just remember that last year the global temperature dropped two degrees because of the cooling trend we are in. So all of mans warming pollution of the last 100 years was wiped out in one year. If you keep with the averages then last year the Earth wiped out 1200 years of man made global warming. Man is not the cause.

 

btw, I'll see your 1522 and raise you the 14,802 French people who died in the summer of 1997 because of a chronic lack of air conditioners.

 

Yeah, they have taken vacations in France every August to get away from the heat for the last 60 years. They leave the old people behind each year. Man made global warming was only man’s fault since the 80’s. Europeans are not into air conditioners because the energy costs are so high over there. Being cheap has its costs. Not caring about your old and infirmed has its costs as well.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

You obviously haven't been listening to Al Gore enough.

I watched is global warning hoax movie twice and his addendum to the first movie once. The problem is I went to a boarding school rather than public school because I needed an education. I dropped out of public school and paid for my private school education at age 18 where I did 9 through 12 in one year. I then got my teaching certificate and taught at that same school as I furthered my education. Back then you did not need a college degree to teach in a private school. I truly enjoy science and taught it well. Mr. Gore did not seem to have learned any science while in school because he stated things in his movie that goes against scientific facts. :D

 

Humans just want to believe that we have more control over the Earth than we do.

 

I strongly disagree with you here. I think the arrogant liberals that want to say there is no God believe that man has more power than we actually do.

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

I'll be the first to say I'm not an expert on this nor am I a Scientist.  I have strong opinions but they are based mostly on my belief as a Christian and from the reading I've done on both sides of this debate for years. 

My gut is telling me we are being led to go into a direction globally.  Have you not noticed everything is all about global this and global that.  Global warming, global economy, global currency etc?  Just do a google search on the word "global."   Globabl is like the new 21st century buzz word.  This whole global warming thing is nothing but political. 

We are being herded into a globabl society. Quite often fear is used as a tactic to get people moving.   Eventually we'll be all under one head.  It will  be similar to our 50 states.  They are only autonomous as the Federal Government now will allow.  Soon to come will be a global world under one head. 

And we're being led like sheep to the slaughter and there's not one thing we can do about it. 

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

And we're being led like sheep to the slaughter and there's not one thing we can do about it.

I disagree with you my friend. There are many things we can do about it. First we can pray. A LOT!

Second we can get together as a group and make or positions known. I truly believe there are more of us than there are of them we just don’t open our mouths and as it was once said. Stand up and be counted. This must start in the grassroots, the local community just like the tea parties sprung up with no national leadership. In most cases leaders are just very astute followers. As one liberal leader once said. “The people are going somewhere, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them”. This is the way it is with most leaders. They follow the group and when no one wants to be in charge they take over.

 

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

1. We had a global COOLING until 1970... only then did the earth start warming up. It is most likely sun activity (which was decreasing until then and increasing since). but even if it was humans than the titanic is still not a global warming issue.

All the following points will deal with how you know fucking NOTHING about the titanic.

2. Icebergs have always been known to drift, there is also the possibility of other ships, uncharted tiny islands, whatever. The titanic was going full throttle in a fog with 0 visibility, against all safety regulations. This is one of the few things the movie got right, they HAD to make the it to the destination on time to put on a good show, so they disregarded safety, it helped that they thought it was "unsinkable" because of its hull segmentation.

3. the titanic was not "carrying every modern piece of lifesaving and safety equipment known to man", in fact it got rid of those unsightly life boats, because everyone knows its unsinkable, so why bother with life saving equipment?

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I disagree with you my friend. There are many things we can do about it. First we can pray. A LOT!

I agree actually but I also know that there is a master plan and it's all going according to plan.  So in some aspects it is a "God's will be done" sort of thing.  But we really have no one to blame but ourselves. 

And we do need to stand up and continue to do so but have you noticed lately that it's the minority ruling the day?  Pretty interesting.  The government seems way out of step with it's people.....especially considering the people were supposed to be the government. 

 

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

1. We had a global COOLING until 1970... only then did the earth start warming up. It is most likely sun activity (which was decreasing until then and increasing since). but even if it was humans than the titanic is still not a global warming issue.

I was at the first Earth Day it was a cold day to help put a point on how we were all going to die from the coming ice age. It was not until the UN's IPCC report on Global Warming the IPCC repot on climate change was first published in 1990 after ten years of study. Man Made climate change came along ten yaars later. It has been revised four times the last revision says we must destroy the world economy to reduce global warming. Now they have vacked off of this foolishness. They now call it global clinate change.

All the following points will deal with how you know fucking NOTHING about the titanic.

I will begin by saying that I have been studying the Titanic since I was 11 years old that means I have been looking at the Titanic for 42 years. I even met Ms. Edith Brown a survivor of the tragic global warming insident.  I would not say I know nothing about the subject.

2. Icebergs have always been known to drift, there is also the possibility of other ships, uncharted tiny islands, whatever.

True, icebergs have been known to drift into the shipping lanes for over one hundred years prior to 1912. It was rare that icebergs were seen that far south that time of year. The Titanic took the most southern route to avoid most of the ice.

The titanic was going full throttle in a fog with 0 visibility, against all safety regulations. This is one of the few things the movie got right, they HAD to make the it to the destination on time to put on a good show, so they disregarded safety, it helped that they thought it was "unsinkable" because of its hull segmentation.

This is a crock of crap. First the speed was 22.5 knots one half knot below full speed. Sorry that nit had to be picked. Second the visibility was great, no fog that night it was a clear night. The thing that ships slowed down on was the ice flows. Most ships stopped for the night to avoid plowing into ice that was flowing freely in the area that day.

 

No one affiliated with the White Star Line ever said the ship was unsinkable. That was what a reporter called it and it stuck. What cruise line is going to say, “No! Our ships will sink”! The captain did run fast for the conditions but it was not fog it was the ice flow that was slowing down most of the ships in the area.

3. the titanic was not "carrying every modern piece of lifesaving and safety equipment known to man", in fact it got rid of those unsightly life boats, because everyone knows its unsinkable, so why bother with life saving equipment?

You are not reading what I wrote you are reading what you want to see. They had lifeboats. I never said they had enough boats for all passengers and crew but they had boats.

 

Again it was never said that the Titanic was unsinkable by anyone that was part of the White Star Line. Passengers thought it was unsinkable which made them not want to get into lifeboats. That’s right blame the media for hyping a lie. May I suggest you read the two courts of inquiry one in the US and the other in the UK. The weather was clear, the water was calm and the water temp was a warm 31 degrees. If there was some wind they would have seen the blackberg sooner. I suggest you watch the movie again there was no fog portrayed in the movie.

 

As an aside I used to work for Carnival Cruise Lines which has bought the Cunard Line which bought the White Star Line owned by J. P. Morgan who died on the Titanic. So once again the Titanic and its remains are American responsibility.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

God's will be done" sort of thing.

Yes, the world is falling apart just as God planned. When I was shot in a firefight I died a few times before they got me back to a doctor. I like to look at it like this. If this is Gods will he is going to have to prove it. Since I am weaker than God if he wants me dead all he has to do is tell me so. Until then I will keep on fighting to live. The same is true with other aspects of his will.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

Man has nothing to do with global climate change

Global warming is indeed a natural phenomenon but that doesn't mean that anthropogenic warming is impossible.  Saying "it happened before, so we're not the cause" is crappy logic and bad science.  It could be a natural cycle and it could be man-made.  No one knows with 100% certainty.

~Zoo

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

Again it was never said that the Titanic was unsinkable by anyone that was part of the White Star Line.

So they didn't say it, they just decided not to put lifeboats on the vessel despite being sure it is going to sink, perfect logic there...

And 22.5 out of 23 knots is practically full throttle, they could have gone 10 or 5 knots, but they were in a hurry. why 22.5 and not 23? I would guess because increase in fuel cost is not linear, as well as engine heat might be an issue, so they went on a high speed they can maintain for the whole trip instead of redlining the engine.

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

Global warming is indeed a natural phenomenon but that doesn't mean that anthropogenic warming is impossible.  Saying "it happened before, so we're not the cause" is crappy logic and bad science.  It could be a natural cycle and it could be man-made.  No one knows with 100% certainty.

You are right, that is a fallacy, but humans account for only 3% of carbon dioxide emissions, which isn't even the only greenhouse gas out there, carbon dioxide spurs faster growth of phytoplankton and other plant matter so increasing it does not linearly increase atmospheric concentration of it, we are supposed to be going into an ice age so slowing it down a bit is a good thing. and finally, predictive science of this sort is not very good right now.

I do however, agree that a tiny change is a huge thing, only half a degree increase of ocean temp is a LOT of energy and results in stronger storms, but do the amount humanity contributes ACCOUNTS of half a degree change yet? show me the math.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

So they didn't say it, they just decided not to put lifeboats on the vessel despite being sure it is going to sink, perfect logic there...

The actually had the prescribed number of lifeboats according to British Maritime regulations of the day.  Not defending them, but that was the truth.  They built the ship to be very seaworthy, no question, and paid for all the teak with the money they saved on lifeboats.  Just as we do today, they believed the technology of the day was impervious to fault.  Nobody sets out to build something with the intent that it fail.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

yes, they put the MINIMUM required by law, but they knew that the law did not account for the passanger density they had and that, in the end of the day, there weren't ENOUGH life boats.

sorry for saying you don't know anything about it paladin, you DO know, you just pick and choose facts to push your anti capitalistic anti corporate propaganda.

PS. sorry 0-visibility was an exaggeration, you are right there wasn't 0-visibility, there was insufficient visibility. Icebergs often have large underwater invisible portions, and it was night, and they were going fast. Like a car or a plane, you need to limit your speed by how far away you can see, the fact that they hit the iceberg is proof enough that they went beyond what was safe.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

I do however, agree that a tiny change is a huge thing, only half a degree increase of ocean temp is a LOT of energy and results in stronger storms, but do the amount humanity contributes ACCOUNTS of half a degree change yet? show me the math.

The math isn't exact on what human emissions do to the environment.  In fact, there may be many more factors instead of the basic greenhouse gas effect.  There are a lot of things to consider when you talk about atmospheric science on a global scale- greenhouse gases, thermohaline circulation, albedo, air circulation, terrestrial geography and probably some more stuff...and then you have the numerous feedback loops (positive and negative) that work off of all these factors and more...it's complicated as all hell.  People try to make global warming simple...it's not by a longshot.

Do I know exactly what's happening?  No chance.  Do I presume to know?  Not that arrogant.  I think it's possible that human CO2, methane, halocarbon, and NOx emissions can have an effect on climate...I might even venture to say it's likely.  I do hold on to the possibility that I can be completely wrong.  I just feel it's important to consider and research it. 

~Zoo

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

yes, they put the MINIMUM required by law, but they knew that the law did not account for the passanger density they had and that, in the end of the day, there weren't ENOUGH life boats.

Actually there were more lifeboats than required by law. So Harland and wolf ship builders went above the minimum requirements dictated by the law of the day. The flaw was in the law itself. It dictated that any ship over 40,000 tons needed X number of lifeboats. The Titanic was 70,000 tons way over what was anticipated by law.  And yes, there were not enough lifeboats, The law was fixed after Titanic sank to read that there had to be enough lifeboats for every person onboard. don't blame the businessmen blame the legislators.

why 22.5 and not 23? I would guess because increase in fuel cost is not linear, as well as engine heat might be an issue, so they went on a high speed they can maintain for the whole trip instead of redlining the engine.

Wow here you are guessing while telling me I don’t know, and then that I pick and choose what facts I want. If you read the transcripts of the inquiry you would know that they ran at high speed during the day and slowed down at night. The reason for the rush was to break the transatlantic record. It seemed clear when the orders were given at 5:45 PM. Conditions changed when the iceberg was sighted.

 

I do however, agree that a tiny change is a huge thing, only half a degree increase of ocean temp is a LOT of energy and results in stronger storms, but do the amount humanity contributes ACCOUNTS of half a degree change yet? show me the math.
 

One of the little things not mentioned in the IPCC report was underwater volcanoes. These vents spew out tons of carbon into the water. They also heat the water. If you study them you will find that the temperature around them is between 700 and 900 degrees, don’t you think that those thousands of vents might warm the water a little. Water temp at the bottom of the sea is about 28 degrees around a vent 800 degrees. Well the global warming nuts playing with the data to favor thier cause says that man is increasing the global temperature by 6/100th of one degree every hundred years. If that is the best they can do to convince me that it is man's fault they failed and I know thier numbers are wrong because they have been caught faking the numbers.

 

Do I know exactly what's happening? No chance. Do I presume to know? Not that arrogant. I think it's possible that human CO2, methane, halocarbon, and NOx emissions can have an effect on climate...I might even venture to say it's likely. I do hold on to the possibility that I can be completely wrong. I just feel it's important to consider and research it.
 

 

I am with you on this one ZOO.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do I know exactly what's happening?  No chance.  Do I presume to know?  Not that arrogant.  I think it's possible that human CO2, methane, halocarbon, and NOx emissions can have an effect on climate...I might even venture to say it's likely.

It is possible that we have a NON NEGLIGIBLE effect, if we do have a non negligible effect, it is equally possible that it is endangering us as it is protecting us a natural global cooling trend.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

The law was fixed after Titanic sank to read that there had to be enough lifeboats for every person onboard. don't blame the businessmen blame the legislators.

I blame legislators for a LOT of things, and typically absolve the businessmen. Not including enough lifeboats for the PEOPLE on board because the law mandated minimums based on the ship's tonnage instead of its passanger capacity, that is the fault of the person who owned the ship. Just because something stupid (like not having enough lifeboats) isn't illegal doesn't mean you should do it. I managed to avoid stabbing myself in the face despite there being no law (that i know of) forbidding me from doing so.

It is absurd that there even needs to BE a law mandating the existance of lifeboats.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is absurd that there even needs to BE a law mandating the existance of lifeboats.

An old legal term: Caveat emptor look it up.

Old business term: you pays your money, you takes your chances.

Using your logic why are there not parachutes on airplanes? Think of all the lives they could have saved since 1920. Think of the lives that could have been saved on 9/11.

Most laws are written in blood. people have to die before someone will say, there should be a law. I like the California criminal code. 187 is the code for murder, and I always wonder what are the 186 bad things they thought of before someone said, "Hey, you know murder is bad too".

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

maybe the first few hundred codes were written at once and sorted alphabetically?

AFAIK there are some serious issues with parachutes on commercial airplanes. All the chairs are made to float, there are oxygen masks, there are personal floatation harnesses, there are a TON of lifeboats, there are slides on the side who also turn into lifeboats and so on. The one thing they don't have is parachutes and I remember being explained that it wouldn't be practical when I asked why.

a simple google search found this:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archive/index.php?t-267608.html

1: If you try and parachute out of a plane at/above 35000ft, you will most likely die.
2: If you try and parachute out of a plane at/faster than 550mph, you will most likely die.
3: Retrofitting commercial airlines with parachutes would cost a fortune and plane ticket prices would sky rocket.
4: There are not enough parachute manufacturers to make parachutes available to all US airliners.
5: Parachuting from the heights at which commercial planes fly would require special oxygen tanks along with the parachutes.
6: Plane doors would have to be modified and added so that people do not get stuck all trying to get out at the same time.
7: Not very many people know how to properly use a parachute, you'd probably die.

Good discussion of the issue, with all reasons why not explained in detail. Well, most at least, there is also the issue of people rushing for the door due to some turbulance, and then killing everyone on board by opening it (at 35k feet there isn't enough oxygen and its too cold for humans)

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

1: If you try and parachute out of a plane at/above 35000ft, you will most likely die.

2: If you try and parachute out of a plane at/faster than 550mph, you will most likely die.

3: Retrofitting commercial airlines with parachutes would cost a fortune and plane ticket prices would sky rocket.

4: There are not enough parachute manufacturers to make parachutes available to all US airliners.

5: Parachuting from the heights at which commercial planes fly would require special oxygen tanks along with the parachutes.

6: Plane doors would have to be modified and added so that people do not get stuck all trying to get out at the same time.

7: Not very many people know how to properly use a parachute, you'd probably die.

1. Without oxygen yes you will die, you will also die when your plane slams into a building.

2. Very true unless you have special training and a space suit, but if the choice is jumping out and maybe dying or slamming into a building, colour me gone.

3. They gave that same argument for ten years before Valujet had its little mishap. Now it is mandatory to put in a fire suppression system in all passenger carying aircraft. I know I worked for Valujet at the time. (no I was not working out of miani, I worked Fort Lauderdale Station)

4. You don't have to do it all in one year.

5. That is true for any jump over 10 thousand feet.

6. Not really FAA regulations say that any fully booked plane has to be able to get all the passengers out using only half the exits in 90 seconds or less. Each airline has to demonstrate this before they are given a certificate to fly that type of aircraft. It costs each airline about a million dollars to do this demonstration for the FAA before they can earn one passenger dollar.

7. Not everyone knows how to die but they do it every day. And just for the record people are allowed to bring thier own if they want and a few hundred people do.

Were I on a hijacked plane I would love the option of kissing the terrorists goodbye by jumping out of the plane.

and yes some of my answers are tongue in cheek.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

you seem to think that every plane crash involves the plane slamming into a building, that is EXTREMELY RARE.

Most commercial airliners have 4 engines and even with NO engines the pilot can still glide them to perform an emergency landing. even in a city, highways are wide enough for a plane to land... so the only time the plane explodes in a fireball is when you watch a holliwood movie, or if you crash in the mountains.

Which, again, requires all four engines to be gone AT ONCE and there being no flat surface to land on.

If you actually lose a wing you will spiral in a way that no human could make it to the door due to extreme g-forces, and that is also extremely rare.

Emergency landing on a field, or in the ocean, or on a highway, you will not all die; in fact most likely you will live.

You will be exactly the kind of passanger that will kill other passangers by acting in a paniced way influenced by unrealistic holliwood representation of "plane crashes".

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

you seem to think that every plane crash involves the plane slamming into a building, that is EXTREMELY RARE.

Plane crashes are extremely rare!

When I worked for the Airline industry the pilots called a landing a controlled crash, the mechanics called a take off, "Another miracle".

Most commercial airliners have 4 engines and even with NO engines the pilot can still glide them to perform an emergency landing. even in a city, highways are wide enough for a plane to land... so the only time the plane explodes in a fireball is when you watch a holliwood movie, or if you crash in the mountains.

I don't know what country you are talking about, the last four engine commercial aircraft I remember was the Boeing 707, the 747 has five engines, one engine is used as an onboard APU. The 727 was three engines, the 737, 757, 67, triple 7, 87 and the 717 all have two engines. The Airbust 380 has four engines the rest of the Airbust fleet has two engines. I call it Airbust because their planes work great for 12 months and after that you need a new one because they are always breaking down. McDonald Douglas, their largest plane was the DC-10 that had three engines, the same when Lockheed bought them and made them under the L-10/11 banner. The 747 and the A-380 are the only commercial passenger planes that still have four engines. The work horse of most air fleets are the boeing 737 and the A-320 both have two engines or the DC-9 now called the MD-80.

As far as glide ratios the FAA mandates all commercial passenger aircraft operating in America have a 7 to 1 glide ratio. That means for every mile it drops in altitude it can glide seven miles forward. That means that at the top cruising altitude of 35 thousand feet it can glide about 46 miles then it becomes a big car with wings. Airbus had two planes run out of fuel because the fuel gages are metric and the Canadians still pump fuel in gallons. When the pilot did not do the math right he and his airplane found out exactly how far it could glide. The other time they had a fuel leak and did not know it till they pumped out all the fuel into the leak, over the Pacific Ocean. Oops. In both cases they found a place to land but it was tight on the last one because there was only one place to land and if they missed it they would go swimming, and once the engines ran out of fuel they ran out of electrical power to run their nav system.

You will be exactly the kind of passanger that will kill other passangers by acting in a paniced way influenced by unrealistic holliwood representation of "plane crashes".
 

XD  

And how many HALO jumps have you made? How many jumps have you made? I was only shot once and that was not out of panic but because it was my first firefight (not last) and I wanted to see everything rather than shoot everything. (Word of advice, bullets start flying, duck!) I also know how to drive and aircraft like the 727, got lessons from a mechanic when I worked for Carnival Airlines. I was also able to fly jump seat for the company. Sorry I am not prone to panic and any chance I get, I learn about whatever I work with. I learned how to fuel planes, tow planes, then taxi planes. I am willing to bet your total experience with aircraft is watching them fly overhead or riding in one. Next time you are a passenger sit on the wing and look at the carpet you will see two patched areas. They can be pulled up and you can look down through a mirrored system to see if the gear is up or down, there is also a place for you to hand crank the wheels down if they get stuck or if there is a hydrolic failure.