Feeds

back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Happy

...an inflight glass of wine spilling onto our lap...

Don't worry -- the way things are going airlines will make this threat almost impossible. Inflight glasses of wine will soon cost Us$ 425, credit card or cash, exact change only.

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: ...an inflight glass of wine spilling onto our lap...

Nonsense!

The charge will be in platinum bars.

1
0

Re: ...an inflight glass of wine spilling onto our lap...

And then they'll charge you more to cover the extra weight of the bars...

1
0

This result is trivial, obvious, and almost certainly wrong

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.

19
4
Bronze badge

Re: This result is trivial, obvious, and almost certainly wrong

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.

2
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: This result is trivial, obvious, and almost certainly wrong

"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.

3
3
Silver badge

So if the predictions are WRONG then what?

Is there smooth sailing for the 2nd half of the 21st century?

We should ask everyone who DOES make "predictions" the simple question: If what you predict doesn't come to pass what will that mean?

It could be enlightening! (even to Al Gore!).

6
0
Bronze badge

Re: So if the predictions are WRONG then what?

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.

7
7
Bronze badge
Unhappy

Re: So if the predictions are WRONG then what?

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.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: aka information security...One guides away from high risk.

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.

5
0
FAIL

Hitting Snooze

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!

7
3

Re: Hitting Snooze

Turbulence, not temperature.

1
0
Silver badge

re. Maps and Routes

If they'd fly in a direct path then they'd be able to fly through 'better' air, and save fuel too, perhaps reducing global warming a bit in the process.

0
5
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: re. Maps and Routes

The London to San Francisco route shown on the map in the El Reg article is the most direct path. You need to google "great circle".

7
0
FAIL

Re: re. Maps and Routes

frank ly - member of the flat-earth society?

3
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: on the map in the El Reg article is the most direct path.

No it's not. But the black hats are keeping us from using the alien tech from area 51 to create the tesseracts that would be the shortest path AND cut down on pollution all at the same time.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: on the map in the El Reg article is the most direct path.

Oh no - I forgot the joke icon again :(

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Oceans absorb heat

The oceans weigh 280 times as much as the air though so they can absorb quite a bit. Also understanding the energy transfer of phase change - melting ice - is essential to knowing what is going on here.

0
1

Re: Oceans absorb heat

Bureaucrats and "scientists" working off government grants absorb money. They'll say and do anything to get more money, and that's a demonstrable fact.

4
3
Bronze badge
Joke

Why is this a problem?

Since there isn't going to be any oil for jet fuel ....

The solution is obvious ... a transatlantic tunnel!

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: Why is this a problem?

Viva, Harry Harrison!

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Why is this a problem?

Hurrah!

5
0
Trollface

By mid-century eh?

Oh well... by then, most trans-continental flights should be sub orbital jumps anyway, at an altitude well above the problem. Also in 20 years we will finally have limitless cheap fusion power as well. This problem will just fix itself. I have much confidence in this.

5
1
Coat

Excuse me, I need to paper the shelves in my kitchen cabinets.

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?

5
5
Silver badge

Re: Excuse me, I need to paper the shelves in my kitchen cabinets.

"If we can't even predict the weather for more than a few days.."

So you would be unable to make any prediction about the state of the planet if the Sun's output were to double over the next 100 years? None at all?

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Excuse me, I need to paper the shelves in my kitchen cabinets.

@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).

2
0

This post has been deleted by its author

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: Excuse me, I need to paper the shelves in my kitchen cabinets.

I have also experienced in the past some climate skeptics claiming the climate is too complicated to be predicted, but then they make predictions of an ice age caused by a quiet sun.

0
3
Silver badge

Re: forecasts are 50/50 beyond three days

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.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: predictions of an ice age caused by a quiet sun.

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.

2
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Excuse me, I need to paper the shelves in my kitchen cabinets.

The Sun's output has nothing to do with climate- the IPCC said so!

1
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: predictions of an ice age caused by a quiet sun.

"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!

0
3

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: predictions of an ice age caused by a quiet sun.

skeptics tar themselves

0
1
Anonymous Coward

@Nom

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.

0
0

What happened to the snow

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.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: What happened to the snow

Well not necessarily, given reduced temperature gradient between pole and lower latitudes has been fingered for making the jet stream more wavy...

1
4

Pretty soon the only people who will be able to afford to fly are environmentalists going to the next conference so - meh.

6
0
FAIL

Wonderful.

Is there nothing CO2 cannot achieve? What a remarkable trace gas.

3
1
Go

Benson

Stop worrying about the bloody climate ,there is nothing humans can do about it.

3
4
Pirate

The world is facing much bigger dangers than the climate these days , yet all we hear is all this crap about climate change. The risks of just walking onto the street and getting mugged, robbed, and killed is much greater than getting harmed in anyway by climate change.

4
2
Silver badge
Holmes

Aeroplanes fly in air.

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.

2
0
Gold badge
Go

20 different turbulence metrics and no agreement.

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?

2
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Pint

Stupid

Aircraft will fly at 60,000+ feet by then. No weather at that altitude. Problem solved. Duh...

0
0
Silver badge

Time to push back

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.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Time to push back

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.

1
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.