Climate change set to bumpify transatlantic flights, say researchers Rising sea levels, droughts, torrential downpours, "superstorms" – climate change has been blamed for a flood [Ahem...—Ed.] of calamities, but new research shows that an even worse global warming–induced fate might soon befall us all: an inflight glass of wine spilling onto our lap when our airliner encounters increased …
If we are trapping more energy in the atmosphere and if the atmosphere is not one stable isometric field, then clearly there is going to be more turbulence. Almost by definition, and certainly trivially.
But their claimed intensities of the turbulence? The chart in red meant to scare us and assure us that flight is about to become unbearable?
That one needs an explanation relative to the anthropic principle that explains how it is we were in the magical era where flight was possible and yet a 1 - 3 degree warming will make flight intolerable to aircraft and passengers.
Cause it smells like scare mongering bullshit to just publish charts in red.
Regrettably, there was sparse information on the graphic.
There was no fine scalar guide to ascertain what level of turbulence would be present. Is it a fasten your seatbelts level? Spilled wine? Shearing off the wings of the aircraft?
So, gotta go with you on this one.
Though, I was once in an aircraft that experienced such severe turbulence that it required an over-G safety inspection upon landing. That flight was, literally, bruising!
But, it was a military flight, so it doesn't count.
Or something.
"That one needs an explanation relative to the anthropic principle that explains how it is we were in the magical era where flight was possible and yet a 1 - 3 degree warming will make flight intolerable to aircraft and passengers."
It's not that we were in a magical period, it can be considered instead that we had a relatively stable environment that we developed flight capable vehicles to suit that environment. If flight had developed in the suggested "new" environment, you can assume it would have developed differently and been able to cope. In the above reply, there was talk of such severe flight that an over-G assessment was required. Presumably if turbulence were more intense when our planes today were developed, the airframe would have been built to withstand greater forces.
For years, I worked in military operations. Part and parcel of that occupation is predictions. If it does or does not come to pass does impact operations. And deaths.
After I retired from the military, I went into information assurance, aka information security. Again, prediction is part and parcel, though we have much finer maths to handle the predictions.
Considering the color (colour, if you're using *real* English and not the slop that I use, being from the US (I'm fluent in English and American)) of your questions, what does it mean when a network isn't compromised? Should no security measures have been made? Should your home be left unlocked because it wasn't burgled?
Sorry, but one plans for the worst. One guides away from high risk.
Though, Gore was a hack and alarmist in the extreme, the data is quite conclusive, save for those who obey their masters from the petrochemical industry.
Climate change is real, it's positive in thermal retention (it's getting warmer) and the models aren't worth a tinker's damn for the impact, as it's wildly divergent from what the models suggest.
In a bad way.
No, I'm not expecting a hypercane any more than I'd expect a novacane (yes, intentional spelling) to bore me.
But, significant extreme weather is predicted and has been occurring. Ice has been melted in both hemispheres, leaving the Northwest Passage open for the first time in recorded history and a chunk of ice larger than Manhattan breaking free from Antarctica.
What about those unconnected to any industry who remain skeptical given the way the IPCC obtain their data for reports ? They don't dispute, mostly, it is getting warmer recently, to which the rational response is "So ?". The atmosphere is not showing the hot spots the models predict. It is still cooler than the Minoan and Roman warm periods even if it is some what warmer than the climate coming out of the Maunder Minimum.
NW Passage has been used on and off for 40 years. See previous ElReg articles.
Cynics can point out that, so far, in the last 30 years, extreme events have yet to match19th century for heavy rain and cyclones. Finally, cynics have also noted that when-ever the "we are doomed, doomed" leadership make an apocalyptic prediction, the opposite seems to happen. Never rain heavily again in Oz, and 2 years worth of floods follow. Never see snow, and we all know how that goes recently.
So you're part and parcel of the problems in information security and risk management. One can never "guide away from high risk" because one can never know all the risks. One manages the known risks. And climate change alarmists like you ignore that in their rabid posts.
There is a hell of a lot more uncertainty in climate predictions than the smug predictors will allow. For one thing we don't have REAL observations over a sufficiently long base line. If you don't have that everything after it is suspect, as any astronomer can tell you. On the other side there are a lot of KNOWN risks with real costs (including lives) for implementing the changes Warmists claim we need to make to avoid their predicted catastrophes. If their predictions don't come to pass a lot of people will be dead because of them. Just because they'll be faceless dead in impoverished countries doesn't make them any less dead.
Wake me up when the data is strong enough to not require playing with charts. In this instance rather than showing temperature, it merely shows how many predictors agree on the increase, yet that's not the association in most people's heads when they view it. I mean, LOOK AT THE ALARMING RED!
More drivel from the alarmists. Most weather forecasts are 50/50 beyond three days and pretty worthless beyond that, other than to tell me "rain is on the way", something I can do for myself by stepping outside and glancing at the sky. If we can't even predict the weather for more than a few days with reasonable accuracy, why should we believe anything that these charlatans pretending to be "scientists" have to say?
This post has been deleted by its author
Predictions of an ice age based on a quiet sun are more trustworthy than predictions of run away climate change because of CO2 that assume constant solar output. The variability of the sun is an established fact. That the second assumes the established fact to be false means nothing after it is proven.
"Predictions of an ice age based on a quiet sun are more trustworthy than predictions of run away climate change because of CO2 that assume constant solar output. The variability of the sun is an established fact. That the second assumes the established fact to be false means nothing after it is proven."
The greenhouse effect is an established fact too. But that doesn't prevent climate skeptics from dismissing the solid foundation of warming predictions based on rising CO2. Instead skeptics advocate rube-goldberg style machines in the sky that would cancel out the warming from rising greenhouse gases.
I am just pointing out that same skeptics don't do the same with the Sun. They won't even consider similar mechanisms that would cancel out the expected cooling from a quiet sun and leave the sun as a bit player in climate. Quite the opposite! They predict cooling from a quiet sun as if it is some kind of strong certainty! In fact they often advocate hypothetical mechanisms that ENHANCE the solar effect (but scream murder at the suggestion of similar with CO2).
Talk about double standards. The same double standard that leads skeptics to claim climate is too complex to predict even as they are predicting cooling from a quiet sun or negative PDO elsewhere. Whether climate can be predicted seems to be all down to whether the skeptic likes the result of what is being predicted!
This post has been deleted by its author
Which isnt difficult when dealing with a religious cult. This is such demonstrated by anyone not 100% believing in the religion version is a skeptic and just wrong.
You guys (and I include you as you have done this to me) accuse anyone who is:
1. Absolute hardline the climate isnt changing.
2. Think its unlikely we have x number of days to save the world and dodgy data != science.
3. Believe climate is changing but not convinced the science is mature enough to blame co2.
4. Not leaning either way but instead waiting for the science to understand enough to base decisions on.
5. Believe the climate is changing even due to co2 but not that we will all die/burn/drown.
6. Believe the climate is changing due to man but co2 is not the only/primary cause.
Any of the above is a heretic to you. But then the cultists tar themselves pretty well.
If your wondering I am between 3 and 4 yet you frequently label me heretic.
@phil8192
There is a big difference between weather and climate! When one of them is consistently wrong we let the scientists continue predicting but we use our better judgement to take a coat or not. They know that if they claim the world is ending the people will go look for themselves instead of just taking their word for it.
When the other is wrong the 'scientists' make up an excuse about something they didnt seem to see coming but are still certain they have the answers. More claims that their failed prediction shows something more sinister and believers will continually try to convert people with the enthusiasm of the evangelicals.
Also this is progression. People used to worship the deities for rain/sun (weather) while now we are all doomed for not building enough windmills to the new deity of Co2 (climate).
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Actually the forecasts are decent up to 5 days now dropping off to 50/50 at 14 days. And given the wide variety of wrong available for a given forecast, 50/50 is decent at 14 days.
It's not the short term stuff that bothers me. It's the complete lack of a reliable baseline for the long term predictions.
12 years ago David Viner from the Met Office predicted that for children born at the time, snow would be a thing that they would never see.
Also, since global warming is mostly occuring in the northern latitudes in the summer and at night, it reduces the temperature gradient between the equator and the north. And it is these temperature differences which drive weather. So global warming will reduce the number of large storms.
And if the air has more energy the flight will be bumpier?
No shit Sherlock.
I wonder what happens to all those rising currents of hot turbulent air..what? they get into the stratosphere, condense and freeze, giving up their energy to space cooling and falling as rain, and forming clouds that shield the earth from the sun?
This cooling the earth?
No shit, sherlock.
Looks like there's a shed load of rubbish that needs to be cleared out here. Some of them don't seem worth the computer time spent used to calculate them.
Yes the graphs are alarmist (Nature now has a separate magazine devoted to "climate change." Business is looking good to my cynical business eye).
But keep going with at least trying to get some consensus.
Usual caveats. No new on site collected data. Obviously how realistic is this IPCC emissions scenario? Will climate modellers down grade some of the less accurate metrics or keep on using them?
This post has been deleted by its author
It is time for people with a background in maths and sciences to start educating themselves on this issue and pushing back. This global warming alarmism is now in our children's textbooks as an a prior assumption. These charlatans have brought all the rest of the scientific world into disrepute and to some extent scientists deserve the tarnished reputation. People in the AAAS, Royal Society, etc should have resigned in droves over this. Some did, but given the entirely fraudulent 'climate change' industry, all of them should have.
It is gratifying to see a preponderence of the more intelligent readers here coming down strongly against alarmist nonsense. The commentary here is worth examining a little more closely. It shows the fundamental moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the alarmist camp. They care nothing at all for science.
All of the scientists are wrong! WRONG, I TELL YOU - Listen to me, I know more than the AAAS, Royal Society and all the universities put together.
Or is it the case that you're not trained in the subjects in question and are therefore not qualified to assess your own knowledge?
I know which one I'll go for, given the options.
This post has been deleted by its author
This is more typical blather from those suffering from cognitive dissonance in the cliamte change crowd.
Is our climate "changing"? The answer is truly simple - YES IT IS, but no more changeable than it has been for however many billions of years the planet called Earth has held life. I am sure if we suddenly started seeing another bout of continental drift these same alarmists would blame the frackers and oil drillers for the continents drifting, yet not a wit of attention would be paid to the fact that our continental landscape has changed (and continues to change) with or without us.
But many are stupid, and the only way they can deal with anything in life is to *KNOW* it is our (mankind's) fault, and there fore also *KNOW* we can "do something" about it. Trouble is, no one can plausibly tell anyone with half a living brain cell exactly how creating a new tax, and spending money on goofball schemes will "save the planet", because th planet neither cares one wit about money, or our schemes. Indeed, the planet has been the planet, doing what a planet does, in a solar system with its own dynamics impacting said planet, out of our control since the rock in the sky began spinning.
But the stupid wil lap it up, and point to anything they *FEEL* is right because it agrees with their off the wall "beliefs", and since it isn't *THEIR* fault, but someone else's that has to be punished with taxes and such, not knowing or ignoring that taxes will be paid even by the "blameless", and not a single thing to alter the planetary dynamics shall come to pass.
But it sure feels good, despite being nothing but pure rubbish.
You're kidding, right Nom? Ice core samples from Antarctic, fossil records of ocean life found in mountains, the list is endless.
Are you paying any kind of attention to the big old world around you, or do you just read and listen to the charlatains you *FEEL* are correct (despite already being outed as complete fraudsters and tricksters - con men of epic proportions?)
Excuse me? What rot are you trying to peddle here, Nom? Oh, the last Century rot. Let's review this "last century" of charlatains, shall we?
THOSE OLD, FAMILIAR TUNES
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s
The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.
New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."
Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."
New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"
GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s
New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"
Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."
Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.
New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.
U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."
GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s
Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".
Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."
International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."
New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"
GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?
Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."
Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."
New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"
The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."
?????: 2020s?
RIA Novisty(Russian News & Information Agency), February 8, 2007
"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again."
Quoting Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. Full article at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
"Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years"
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
A history scholar, Nom, you are NOT! Unfortunately for you, I am.... This broken record has been playing for a long time, and every time it is played, it is the same scrtached vinyl, the same bogus baloney, by the same crowd of knuckleheads who want nothing other than your loot. Case closed....
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, your mis-informed self is repeating the same nonsense, and falling for the same lies, that have been told with alarmism for well over the last century..... Come back with real info, rather than rubbish talking points.
struck a nerve, did I? This has been the same tired nonsense for a long, long time. And every story and every claim has brought with it dire predictions of starvation, seas rising, seas receding, droughts, monsoons, frozen wastelands, barren, scorched deserts....... famine, disease, oh no!
This alternates between the impending inferno and the impending ice-age every 20 or 30 years, or so.
Here's a question: The 20th century saw 0.8C warming. To our knowledge was there a century prior to that which saw as much warming?
The answer is no. For lack of data. There is no evidence the climate was as changeable as this in the past, largely because we don't have that kind of resolution data. Fossils and ice cores do not provide it. Nor do newspaper and anecdotes from last century.
So you say there is no data. You say for certain that this is new and abnormal climate change with no doubt what-so-ever that its humans causing it. But yet you accept that climate changes naturally and that the actual normal climate change is unknown because we dont have the data so we cant know.
So you are either certain climate change is man made which requires adequate data you just said we dont have. Or climate change is a possibility but we need more data. Or you believe but the evidence just isnt there.
Just another historical tidbit for you, the last big push on this garbage before the "global warming" drumbeat began again was the impending ice age that was to engulf the planet in the 1980's, these predictions being made in 1970 on the first Earth Day. We were cooling the planet with all our activity, only in 1970 the demon gas was not CO2, rather Nitrogen.
They were wrong then, and they are wrong again, just like they have been since the turn of the 20th Century. Makes some sense though, the pattern of these alarmist claims happening every 20 or 30 years or so, with changes in predictions and such, as that is enough time for the new generations of skulls full of mush to be indoctrinated into the next line of BS, as they weren't around to hear the previous lines of BS that were so utterly wrong each "scientist" should have been laughed right out of their lab coats.
"Just another historical tidbit for you, the last big push on this garbage before the "global warming" drumbeat began again was the impending ice age that was to engulf the planet in the 1980's"
There was no scientific consensus. In fact more studies in the 80s were predicting future warming (from greenhouse gases), not cooling.
Fast forward to today. Today there is a consensus. Scientific organizations around the Earth accept man-made global warming.
"We were cooling the planet with all our activity, only in 1970 the demon gas was not CO2, rather Nitrogen."
No, it was aerosols not nitrogen, and it was a hypothesis advanced by only a few scientists. There was no agreement by scientific bodies and institutions as there is today with global warming.
science and consensus are conflicting terms, my friend. And I think you had better read the words of the doom and gloomers before proclaiming it was aerosols (which were damaging the ozone layer, nothing to do with global warming/ cooling, rather solar radiation increases, etc) and not nitrogen. For instance, in 1970 these were to beliefs of the day:
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
And your claim about "consensus" not existing? “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
and of course, these gems:
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
Same old song and dance..... Just a different point in time.
"it was aerosols (which were damaging the ozone layer, nothing to do with global warming/ cooling, rather solar radiation increases, etc)"
Not aerosols as in aerosol cans. Aerosols as in particles in the air (eg such as smog) which block sunlight and have a cooling effect when they increase in concentration. It was CFCs that were damaging the ozone layer.
Even back in the 70s most studies were predicting warming, not cooling, as shown by this metastudy
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Most of your quotes don't even mention cooling.
But sure you can find individuals predicting all sorts of things in the 70s. You can even find people predicting a coming ice age today (mainly climate skeptics). But there was no mainstream scientific view in the 70s that we were about to enter an ice age.
Today there are dozens of scientific institutions around the world with official statements warning about global warming. There were no scientific institutions in the 70s warning about global cooling.
Another more of the same con artist tricks from 1970, I particularly love this one.....
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Who is Kenneth Watt and why should we care?
I can accept that someone called Kenneth Watt was wrong. But his views did not represent the science at the time. The science at the time as represented by published peer reviewed studied in scientific journals shows more papers predicting warming than cooling. And reports by bodies such as the NAS at the time contradict the claim that there was a consensus of global cooling.
The parallel with today is the few scientists who are predicting an ice age. They tend to be climate skeptics. Maybe in 30 years time you can quote them and use their words to imply that the scientific community as a whole was predicting an ice age!
Sure did represent the science at the time. Just like the nonsense of today represents the science of today's time. Charlatains are charlatains. And history does repeat itself.
And the most striking similarities, besides the doom and gloom of every snake oil salesman being peddled, is that every single prediction made based on the "science of the day" was so wrong, even to this day, that it is an embarrassment to the discipline of science itself. On epic proportions.
Face facts, Nom..... This is the same old, same old, nothing but nonsense for an agenda of grabbing cash while weilding ultimate control over everyday life of every individual, in the false name of whatever the crisis du jour being "endured" by the planet is claimed.
And if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it to you? A puppy???? You're done.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
