Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Boost Plane Turbulence, Suggests Study
sciencehabit writes "Get used to a bumpy ride. The strength and frequency of atmospheric turbulence affecting transatlantic flights will increase by midcentury, a new study suggests. During winter months, 16 of the 21 often-used ways in which scientists measure turbulence suggest that the average intensity of the plane-rattling phenomenon will be between 10% and 40% stronger when CO2 concentrations are double their preindustrial value. Accordingly, the frequency of moderate-or-greater turbulence—intensities at which passengers will experience accelerations of 0.5 g or more, which are strong enough to toss items about the cabin—will rise by between 40% and 170%. As a result of pilots needing to dodge strong turbulence, flight paths will become longer, and fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions will increase—possibly leading to even more turbulence."
or, alternatively, none of those things will happen. Since the mid 90s billions of dollars and euros and yen have been wasted on climate models, most of which have been utterly useless. Even this year major factors have been discovered that render all previous models void, and the "climatologists" cherry-pick, cook the books, from the pile of models after the fact to try to justify their existence. This pseudo-science should have its plug pulled, it serves no purpose other than pumping "cap and trade" scams.
How dangerous is turbulence really?
citation needed
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
They just want another excuse to avoid giving in-flight service.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
or, alternatively, none of those things will happen. Since the mid 90s billions of dollars and euros and yen have been wasted on climate models, most of which have been utterly useless. Even this year major factors have been discovered that render all previous models void, and the "climatologists" cherry-pick, cook the books, from the pile of models after the fact to try to justify their existence. This pseudo-science should have its plug pulled, it serves no purpose other than pumping "cap and trade" scams.
Definiton of bull shit:
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
"Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may also merely be "filler" or nonsense that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it actually means something.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
This is yet another reason to build high speed rail wherever it makes sense, between city pairs at least 100 miles apart where it starts to become too far to drive, and up to 500 miles apart where flying starts to become faster (curb to curb) and more cost-effective.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
that would be the CPC climate predictions for over a decade, even the one to be released is backpedalling on core predictions
Given how UK is not seeing "winters without snow" as "scientists" were also proclaiming at one point, I am taking the story of an alarming 100% increase in turbulence with more than a bit of salt.
Even if it were the case I'm not sure how bad this really is. In multiple trans-atlantic flights I have yet to feel any turbulence, so even a number as scary as "100% increase" in turbulence does not really seem like that big a deal in context.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Global warming involves temperature changes on the scale of a couple of degrees over decades... it's not something you'll really notice on a personal scale even over 25 years. It's more likely your beach water is part of a fairly localized change that may or may not be the result of the overall GW picture.
I, for one, quite enjoy the mid-range turbulence. It helps me sleep better on the plane. By mid-range I mean stuff that's strong enough to move things around on your table, yet not strong enough to accelerate the decline in airframe's fatigue life by a factor of 10. Assuming that a normal non-turbulence flight is affecting the fatigue life at "realtime" rate (no speedup), a flight with turbulence I find unacceptable would be equivalent, in terms of fatigue life use, to 10 normal flights of same duration. Someone with knowledge in aerospace structures could perhaps chime in as to whether the factor of 10 is a realistic one, or should it be a larger one.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I really wish there were a "-1 scare quotes".
Keep going back. I can remember from my childhood in the '70s, the warnings about the new ice age that was coming if we kept burning fossil fuels. Funny how the solution for warming (Global Warming) and cooling (Ice Age) were exactly the same. Remarkable stuff, this CO2, it can make things hotter and colder, must be some kind of molecular thermos. :P
Do you actually believe that, or are you just parroting some pseudo-skeptic's nonsense?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
i first read about global warming sometime around 1990. have any of the original predictions come true?
so far i have noticed that the water at the beach in NYC is colder compared to the 80's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_temperature_changes
As far as I can remember, the predictions became worse for some time and now get a little less negative, but are still worse than at the begin of the 2000s. It wouldn't call that backpedalling.
Differently than you, I actually remember the warnings about the new Ice Age, putting it somewhere between 3000 AD and 5000 AD. This in no way conflicts with a continious warming until 2100 AD.
How do researchers know what turbulence was like in the pre-industrial era? Unless Ancient Astronomers took the readings and handed them down to us in carved stone tablets, we are merely GUESSING what the turbulence was like.
sudo make me a sandwich
To say that the longer flight paths will add enough carbon dioxide to increase the turbulence even more is just plain silly. This is a second order effect.
Pretty obvious when there's a sentence like this " Even this year major factors have been discovered that render all previous models void"
ALL? Really?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
This is a completely different problem than global warming.
Or to put it in words more accessible to you: A warning that you might burn yourself when setting that can of gasoline on fire does in no way offset the validity of the warning that you might freeze to death if you get completely drunk and then decide to walk 25 miles through a dark North Canadian winter night.
Uh, global warning is not measured at 'the beach in NYC'
Not that you even have records for that.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
1. Turbulence increase, making air travel uncomfortable
2. Rice fields drying up worldwide, resulting in mass starvation and war for resources, with prime overpopulated countries having access to nuclear arms.
Not sure which one worries me more... nuclear holocaust vs coffee spilled on my crotch... Nah let our children figure out the mess, load up those coal power plants!
...who believe in conspiracy theories, is that no amount of evidence will change your mind as you are not a rational person. Thankfully, people like yourself are in the vast majority. One wonders what a persona such as yourself is doing reading a site like Slashdot in the first place. Or are you just here to troll? A sad existence either way.
This is what is commonly known as a quote mine. Care to put that back in context, with full citations.
My goodness, you deniers are just as bad as Creationists.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What a delightful group of strawmen.
Tell me, do you think the universe gives one flying fuck about liberals versus conservatives. Do you honestly think nature cares one fucking tiny little bit about your political ideology?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Exactly. This is why the Earth stopped warming nearly twenty years ago, even though the Warmists were telling us the sky was about to fall if we didn't destroy the Western economy.
i first read about global warming sometime around 1990. have any of the original predictions come true?
Temperture is up about 0.7C since then, which is right on the predictions. http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
[citation needed]
There was some concern that we might be entering a natural cooling cycle or that if aerosol emissions continued to increase we could trigger an ice age (they decreased), however, even as far back as 1969 global warming was the more widely published and accepted theory. You might be confusing "scientifically illiterate reporters" with "scientists".
Citation provided
Fanatically anti-fanatical
because it has only been recently that humanity has started releasing millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Millions of tonnes that took millions of years to sequester, all being released in a very short period of time.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
I was studying ecology in the mid-1970s, and the panic then was certainly "the ice age is coming NOW!"
If you're "remembering" the predictions as being 3000-5000 AD, then you're probably recalling the "normal" ice age predictions of the time. The panic-mongers were claiming that the ice age was already starting to happen in the 1970s, and that we'd be well frozen over by 2000 or so.
It's not hard to see the utter nonsense behind the whole "global warming" farce with stuff like this:
List of Things Caused by "Global Warming"
If the high summer temps ever get around to climbing like the AGW folks claim, high speed rail will be pretty tough.
You see, even with those highly-engineered rails, too much heat can cause expansion that warps the metal.
Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.
Odd, that.
(No, it's not because the rails are so much better - HSR uses welded, continuous rail, which is more susceptible to that sort of thing)
I could see two ways in which these studies are/will be wastes:
1. By now, the studies are telling us what we already know, and aren't convincing policymakers or lobbyists to change because their opposition to curbing carbon dioxide emissions wasn't ever really based on skepticism of the science.
2. When most of the developed world starts feeling the negative consequences, they'll do something to alleviate the problem. And it will be some short-sighted solution that no one really fully investigated. Like iron injection. To deal with the consequences of that will be a chain of other decisions terminating in gorillas freezing to death. The bill will be sent to people who weren't involved in the decision to ignore the early warnings about climate change anyway.
have any of the original predictions come true?
Does it matter? We have little evidence that extra carbon and heat in the atmosphere will make our lives better, and plenty to the contrary. If the original predictions weren't very accurate, well I suppose that must be funny to some people rooting in favor of fossil fuels, but nobody "wins" either way.
Climate change will ruin the crops.
Climate change will ruin crabs.
Climate change will kill all the coral.
Climate change will benefit or kill insects (whether they're considered pests or beneficial in that particular article, respectively).
Climate change will cause areas to get wetter (if that would be bad).
Climate change will cause other areas to desertify (if that would be bad).
Climate change will make some places warmer (if that would be bad) or colder (if that would be bad).
Climate change will cause (whatever animal or vegetable species is held fondly) to die off.
Climate change will cause (whatever animal or vegetable species is nasty, disliked, or hated) to flourish.
Climate change will cause your airline rides to be bumpier.
Climate change will cause weather patterns to "change".
Climate change will cause widespread war.
Climate change will cause famine.
Climate change will increase the rate of disease.
Specifically, Climate change will cause more diarrhoea.
Climate change will cause more snowfall (where that's bad), or reduce it (where that's bad).
Climate change will cause more, bigger hurricanes and extreme weather events.
Climate change will increase the number of volcanoes and earthquakes. (My personal favorite.)
Climate change will increase the incidence of stress-related behaviors* and mental illness.
*presumably, more mass killings since that's the fear-du-jour?
Climate change will increase the level of particulates in the air, and generally decrease air quality everywhere.
Climate change will raise the cost of (everything), including internet services and cable television.
Did I miss any?
I haven't yet heard how climate change will increase meteorite impacts, but I'm almost certain there's someone, somewhere working on a rationalization to "explain" that too.
This list was assembled from the news reports I've paid attention to in JUST THE LAST 4 months.
-Styopa
i first read about global warming sometime around 1990. have any of the original predictions come true?
so far i have noticed that the water at the beach in NYC is colder compared to the 80's
Where are mod points where I need 'em? You make a very astute point.
As far as I can remember
So how many kilos of bullshit is your memory worth?
As for me, I find it interesting how much of the most alarmist climate research comes out of two places, the University of East Anglia (this research) or the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NASA (particularly, the James Hansen stuff).
It's plain that the plain the plane is flying above serves as a base for an infinite number of planes; which plane is it that the increased turbulence is in? Can the plane not fly above or below this plane? Can't a fella go off on a tangent around here?
--Geometrically Challenged Guy
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In other news today, due to increased CO2 values, O2 values will increase by 2% due to more feeding of plant material, increasing animal intelligence and short-term memory by 24%.
Citation? WHAT citation? I said CO2 - that's enough to warrant an immediate applause, right?
This is even weaker than the typical AC rebuttal to this type of story because the story actually does have a citation and critics can access the paper and evaluate it based on its description of the source data, model, and stated assumptions.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
Bullshit. Bullshit is just a non-PC way of saying citation needed.
I'm not sure who you're referring to. Me making fun of the GGP, or the GGP who said that all previous models were void.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Disclaimer: I am a pilot. Yes, climate change will influence aviation.
We might be able to debate whether turbulence will be an issue (but it makes sense when you're talking about how ocean temperatures affect the air above them), but warmer temperatures certainly adversely affect aircraft performance.
All you nerds should know intuitively that warmer air is less dense. That means aircraft engines are less efficient, and wings provide less lift. Many factors of aircraft performance are determined by density altitude (which is pressure altitude adjusted for non-standard temperature). This means more distance is required for takeoffs and landings.
If you are worried about the skeptics, all you have to do is point out all of the predictions made on global warming that have come true already.
Such as "The Arctic will completely melt by September 2009" prediction. Now all we have to do is wait until September 2009 to prove all those skeptics wrong.
Or the "Hockey Stick" graph that predicts a 0.5C temperature increase by 2010, and rapid increases every year after that. That should be easy to check when 2010 comes around.
And don't forget the prediction of ever increasing hurricanes after Katrina. The year after that storm was predicted to be even more destructive than ever. Let's see how many destructive hurricanes occur in the year following Katrina.
I can't imagine that any skeptics will be left after all these predictions come to pass.
Yes, the climate changes over time naturally. There have been cyclic ice ages and warmings.
But now the amount of change over time is increasing more than the historical records show occurred naturally in the past.
Instead of looking just at your beach thermometer (which is only one set of data points on a very large globe), try reading up on paleoclimatology, and see how the history of planetary weather has been preserved in ice, rocks, and plants, and how researchers use the different forms of evidence to cross check their measurements. There is a lot of evidence out there if you know where to look.
John
Our sodas are going to get more bubbly all because of Climate Change. You see, there will be more CO2 in the air. And therefore less CO2 can be absorbed by the air. And therefore less CO2 will be released into the air by our carbonated beverage. Thus resulting in a measurable, but imperceptible, amount of increased carbonation 30 minutes after a soda can has been opened.
Also, pigeons are going to fart louder because of global warming. (More dense air.)
STRAWMAN ARMY, CHAAAAARGE!!!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Har har you such a smartey man
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The universe doesn't but you are naive if you think that the climate change debate here on Earth, and on both sides, is immune from politics. There is plenty of history of the "environmentalist" lobby, i.e. mostly left groups, using bogus or exaggerated environment related issues to drive their political agenda. See "peak oil" fiasco as an example. I don't know if you are old enough to remember but it was all the rage in the 70s. They are now even publicly lamenting that there is enough oil after all for "capitalism to continue", making it pretty obvious what their true intentions were.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
About page 280 he discusses the problem of modeling the future, given huge computer power.
There are 2 choices of models : either one models the physical reality in careful detail or one has averaging functions. Detailed models necessarily have chaos built in, in which case the results vary wildly and the modeler has to apply averaging or a selection function.
The choice of averaging or selection functions, in both approaches to modeling, determines the actual real-world usefulness of the models. There is no a priori way of knowing what averaging functions are useful.
It seems to me there is little discussion of the effects of different averaging functions in climate model, and not enough history to know which will be useful.
In any case, it is easy to build models, and very difficult to know their relationship to external reality.
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
Bullshit. Bullshit is just a non-PC way of saying citation needed.
It is a derogatory term for a despicable practice.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I don't give a flying fuck about the environmentalist lobby. I'm talking about the overwhelming majority of climatologists and what they say. Trying to assert that climatologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy makes about as much as sense as Creationists claiming biologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
In short, you're picking the low hanging fruit (which is the green movement), and insisting that the actual scientists are somehow part of a large political cabal. I reject that completely, just as I reject Creationists' claims that biologists are part of some atheistic cabal to bring down religion.
Again, I repeat, the universe doesn't give one fucking shit about your political leanings. They are utterly meaningless. If releasing hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon in the space of three centuries of industrial activity is seriously influencing global climate, then that's what is happening, and that's the end of the sentence. How we choose to deal with it is the political aspect, but we are gravely stupid species if we somehow think that any particular economic system is somehow favored by the universe, and that seems to be where your problem lies. The universe will kill a Libertarian just as quickly as it will kill a Conservative, a Liberal, a Socialist or a Communist. It does not fucking care about politics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh good grief. Either you're a liar or a gullible moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The point was, the scare tactic in the 1970's was "nuclear winter". The scare tactic now is the non-committal "climate change" which defines absolutely nothing. Climate is change. Apparently "global warming" was too specific and had evidence to the contrary, so the newer vogue vague term (I should coin that phrase) is "climate change".
Your post doesn't address mine. You've referenced some general atmospheric effects of CO2 and aerosols, I was talking about the '70s "global cooling" scare:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Strange that in one post you are accusing others of strawman tactics while in the very next post you build couple of your own strawmen by accusing global warming "doubters" of a) asserting that "climatologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy" and b) somehow thinking that political thinking influences behavior of nature (?!).
While the first accusation is somewhat understandable given the wilder claims of the nuttier section of the right wing (which should in fairness be discounted in the same way you are discounting the nutty environmental extremists), the second accusation is puzzling and yet you keep repeating it over and over again. The issue is obviously the political implications of the actions proposed to supposedly combat the global warming, not somehow thinking that liberal thinking "causes" global warming. Can you give me one example of somebody even claiming the latter?
Anyway, it is the overall chain of reasoning that is the suspect in my opinion:
a) Global temperatures are increasing (more or less universally accepted fact - except for above mentioned nuts) ->
b) This is mostly caused by human carbon emissions (not a generally accepted fact with solid proof behind it, just a very, very, very often repeated assertion) ->
c) This has serious negative consequences for the planet (the "negative" part is simply stated with little evidence, the "serious" part is often vastly exaggerated without any evidence) ->
d) There are specific policy actions proposed involving centralization of the global power through UN, global taxation system levied mostly on developed countries, and in general great increase of government control over private industrial activity (zero evidence that they will make any difference to the global warming, and if they do that the difference will be measurable and even if it is that the benefits will outweigh the cost)
The problem is that people are jumping from a) to d) and that is just about as scientific as some of the wilder claims of the extremist fringes that you like to shoot down.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
i first read about global warming sometime around 1990. have any of the original predictions come true?
so far i have noticed that the water at the beach in NYC is colder compared to the 80's
Yes, sea levels have risen due to there being less ice covering the poles of the planet.
Also, a local temperature of water in one place going down does not actually preclude the planets average temperature having gone up as it is quite big.
The real thing to remember about climate change though is that there is only really one certainty and that is that the already extreme weather events you experience will become far more extreme due to there being more energy in the atmosphere (even cold weather events as increased wind chill causes temperatures to feel colder even if the are actually slightly warmer)
I dont read
Crotch rot. herpes, navel fuzz, athlete's foot, excessive nose hair, etc. etc. Call me back in 100 years when you really figure it out...
Because I do know how to use Google I know that the study was shot down almost immediately. The people behind it realized their mistakes. Yet you think the fact that this was ever published overturns the majority opinion in the scientific community at the time, suggests that this mistake can never be taken back and can forever ride on the reputations of the publishers, and apparently that all crackpot predictions of an imminent ice age are legitimized by proxy...no wonder your reasoning, and by extension your understanding of science, is so fucked up.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
massive increases in Al Gore's bank account
DRINK!
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
You link me to a 100% un-cited article that simply pretends oceanic heating is not a real thing, in response to a well-cited article that points out the very facts you're ignoring?
Get the fuck outta here.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
But you see, that's the power of a great theory. It explains everything you want to explain when you need to and generates a few tens of billions of dollars a year in public funding for your societal engineering schemes.
At one time there will not be any oil left, therefore air travel will vanish, and the problem will only happen for birds and zepplins.
Bring back airships! - Perhaps equipped with jet engines... They are not susceptible to air turbulence as far as I know.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Yes, lucky Wright brothers and Icarus for enjoying the smooth flights of the preindustrial era...
What scientists proclaimed winters without snow in the UK?
Clever signature text goes here.
Ok... The Hockey Stick didn't predict anything. It showed past temperatures. So I guess that shows just how credible your claims are in general, eh?
Clever signature text goes here.
Are they flip-flopping, or are you simply misrepresenting their position?
Clever signature text goes here.
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."
-THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I'm not sure why you seem to think I am religious in any way, just another example of you being unable to think of people's beliefs outside of your little pre-conceived box. What I am not, unlike yourself, is bigoted towards those that are religious - I am actually tolerant of others beliefs, unlike so many that proclaim tolerance while speaking hate.
I have the courage to say what I believe, you hide behind the AC wall of shame and cower from truly believing anything. I am firmly grounded, all of my beliefs come from lots of research and a deep understanding of what science really is - yours come from the winds of what popular people tell you to think, paid for by sponsors of the status quo. How much sadder your life than someone like me who is right 90% of the time and tells people the facts before the facts are readily apparent or popular.
Do you enjoy life at all I wonder? It cannot be so; someone so full of fear and hate, in the end it has to spill into everything you do, into all you touch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley