Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Climate Change WILL Double Turbulence ..headlines

- Can we please have a rebuttal of this headline ..which is successfully spreading a meme all over the worlds media.
Journalists in awe of such complicated science have given a free ride to Paul Williams and Manoj Joshi to spread their alarmist propaganda. Following the fashion of being trumpeted all over the inncocent/activist media with a misleading hyping headline prer to the release of the paper.
..where is the rebuttal ?
1...oh it's in the flippin REAL title
"Intensification of winter transatlantic aviation turbulence in response to climate change" Nature Climate Change (2013) says only WINTER only TRANSATLANTIC
..what about for the rest of the world ? it might half ?
2. ..oh and the study is based on "Climate Modelling"
3. How much has turbulence increased over the last 50 years of Climate Change ? should be the simple question these awed journalists should have asked. Has it .increased by 50%, 30% ..i think if had changed noticeably in the recent past then we would already know about it .. *
4. it's a big deal if planes like the Air France one in Brazil crashed cos of Climate Change #
5. So if it didn't increase dramatically in the last 40 years why can he be so certain about his dramatic future prediction ?
6. BTW other things would cause turbulence to change : smog, tall buildings ..ooh and wind farms cause turbulence don't they ?
7. MajorMike on WUWT points out the Nature Journal article is used to plug biofuels ..but says they don't save CO2 cos of all of the fuel used by the agriculture industry & fertiliser so why not put the fossil fuel directly in the planes.

* I see "Rob Burton" made the same point on BH
# jamspid on BH

Apr 13, 2013 at 10:12 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

- ah he might not saying that there us an increasing trend, but rather that the jetstream (or similar wind patterns) might move to spend more days per year effecting the transatlantic flight path, but then surely it is equally likely in other parts of the world similar steams might be moving away from flight paths ?

Apr 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Firstly, there's no such thing as "the transatlantic flight path."

North Atlantic tracks (see here) change daily, the general idea being to avoid headwinds when westbound and pick-up tailwinds when eastbound, while simultaneously achieving safe traffic separation.

So flights avoid the jet stream when westbound and try to get in it when eastbound. Everything possible is done to achieve a minimum fuel burn.

The jet stream is not turbulent in itself. An eastbound aircraft flying right in the centre of the jet stream will enjoy smooth air and a tailwind of up to 200 knots. However, at the edges of the jet stream there is turbulence where the fast moving core meets the slower moving surrounding air. The faster the jet stream, the greater the turbulence. Flying in this turbulence can be uncomfortable, but is never dangerous – airframes are easily able to withstand the relatively low forces involved. (The only turbulence which poses a danger to civil aircraft is that associated with thunderstorms – cumulonimbus clouds.)

The jet stream is driven by the temperature gradient between cold Arctic air and warm temperate air. The higher the gradient, the stronger the jet stream. It is claimed the Arctic is warming at a higher rate than the rest of the planet, so that should lead to a lower temperature gradient and hence a weaker jet stream, with lower turbulence at its edges.

Williams and Joshi write; "At typical cruise altitudes in the northern half of the North Atlantic flight corridor in winter, most diagnostics show a 10–40 per cent increase in the median strength of turbulence and a 40–170 per cent increase in the frequency of occurrence of moderate-or-greater turbulence."

In my experience (over 30 years as an airline pilot), light turbulence associated with a jet stream is common, moderate turbulence rare, severe turbulence unheard of.

Apr 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottie

When deciding to investigate turbulence and whether we have seen any changes over the last few decades, do you think the scientists phoned up Boeing to see if they had any useful data (You'd think they might be interested in knowing turbulence was increasing significantly) or interview veteran pilots such as Scottie above? If we haven't noticed any effect up to now you might then question future model predictions for notable changes in a similar time period.

Apr 14, 2013 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

"4. it's a big deal if planes like the Air France one in Brazil crashed cos of Climate Change"

IIRC this was nothing to do with turbulence - it was pilot error (a high speed, high altitude stall) as a consequence of a frozen air data sensor (Scottie, please confirm?).

Apart from that, Scottie says it all.

Apr 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

More pure climate pr0n from the people that brought you such gems as 'our children won't know what snow is'. I'm impressed by the bare-faced cheek (chutzpah) being exhibited by the alarmist clan about all the things that can happen, or rather *will happen* if you set up a model to provide 'evidence'

Apr 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

Thanks for the replies guys . One begins to lose hope when you switch on the radio and another "true believer" producer allows an activist scientist to spout propaganda with the the presenter sitting back in awe . saying "yes, yes of course catastrophic climate change is happening" ..and refusing to take the opportunity to ask any difficult questions..
I have a feeling when we go back through Williams and Manoj Joshi's past prdictions we will find some duds.

Apr 16, 2013 at 6:05 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen