Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Climate Change Will Boost Plane Turbulence, Suggests Study

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the ready-made-climate-change-panic-movie-plot dept.

Earth 184

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

or, like most of the tens of thousands of models (2, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402335)

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (4, Insightful)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402381)

citation needed

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402589)

citation needed

They are frequently making *major* revisions to the data and timelines supporting the current theory of evolution too. Scientists, quacks all of them!!

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403055)

Other mods didn't get the joke, apparently.

Flatly speaking (4, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403355)

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

Re:Flatly speaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403537)

These planes already tend to fly in the appropriate plane that allows them the least air resistance and therefore best fuel efficiency, as well as just plain plane comfort. As you can plainly see, the next step is to take the plane to a plane above the plane of the atmosphere. If there's no air, then plainly the air cannot cause plain plane turbulence.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403143)

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (3, Insightful)

catchblue22 (1004569) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402423)

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: [wikipedia.org]

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402459)

that would be the CPC climate predictions for over a decade, even the one to be released is backpedalling on core predictions

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402735)

[Citation needed]

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402837)

[Citation needed]

yeah.. expect a Slashdot poster to thoroughly document how and why he dispute the consensus of close to all the leading scientists in the field ;-) I think he will find continuing the soundbite accusations easier. It's like listening to Fox News (actually, also on this topic, exactly like listening to Fox News).

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403247)

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).

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403373)

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1)

catchblue22 (1004569) | about a year and a half ago | (#43404087)

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402679)

Do you actually believe that, or are you just parroting some pseudo-skeptic's nonsense?

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402803)

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?

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402901)

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403437)

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.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403503)

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.

Yeah, they have to be actual predictions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43404315)

So please try again.

"Such as "The Arctic will completely melt by September 2009" prediction." ONE paper said it COULD be. Most say by 2050. 2035 is looking pretty unlikely, now: 2020 is possible.

"Or the "Hockey Stick" graph that predicts a 0.5C temperature increase by 2010". Yup, 0.7-1.2C. Hardly an alarmist prediction given it was under the actual figure.

"And don't forget the prediction of ever increasing hurricanes after Katrina." Bullshit. Doubling of the KATRINA LEVEL STORM SURGE.

This is why "skeptics" (nee deniers) will never change their beliefs: they make up the statements of the science just so as to be able to say "See! Never happened!!!".

The problem with people like yourself (1)

arcite (661011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402881)

...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.

Re:The problem with people like yourself (2)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403175)

Shilling is not a bad existence. You get paid by your masters to argue in favor of their position, and you can ignore whatever other facts may make that position seem harmful over the long term, because you are able to spend their money today.

He doesn't have to be directly in their pockets, of course. Perhaps he believes that by shilling for the Koch Brothers that he'll get cheaper gas or lower taxes. Maybe he prefers their flavor of John Birch racism. Whatever the reason, for him it's "profitable" in the short term, and he truly doesn't care about the long term. So he's not going anywhere. Best tactic is to ignore him.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403191)

Why is this modded as flaimbait?
Three day forecasts are no better than 50-60% accurate, so why do so many people automatically and instantly believe studies that 'prove' something will happen years or decades from now?

Well, you're wrong right off the bat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43404357)

Weather not climate.

Shit, when you heat water, when PRECISELY will it start boiling and where will the bubbles form (and when)?

THAT is weather.

Will it boil?

THAT is climate.

Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43404291)

I hope you idiots all fall for the cheap beach house offers and drown once the sea levels' rise accelerates.

Turbulence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402349)

How dangerous is turbulence really?

Re:Turbulence (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402413)

That depends on how hot the coffee on your lap is.

Re:Turbulence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43404391)

The temperature of the coffee could be directly related to how he interacted with the stewardess who serves it to him. More then one kind of turbulence after all.

PC note: So call them a flight attendant instead and make pronouns interchangeable, unwanted/unwarranted attention is still unwanted/unwarranted attention.

Re:Turbulence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402705)

The danger varies a lot depending on the script writer -- from you-lose-your-virginity-to-a-big-chested-model-dangerous in "The day after tomorrow" to die-years-after-the-turbulence-dangerous in "Final destination".

Study was probably funded by the airlines... (1, Funny)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402387)

They just want another excuse to avoid giving in-flight service.

Re:Study was probably funded by the airlines... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403263)

They just want another excuse to avoid giving in-flight service.

You caught them. You'll never get a frequent flyer mile again, kind sir. ;)

HSR (3, Interesting)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402447)

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.

Re:HSR (3, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402539)

One of the issues with the high speed rail I've seen them try to implement is too many stops, so the train is only traveling at its top speed for a relatively short time before it slows down for the next stop.

Then there's also the fact that a lot of "high speed" trains in the US are in the 40-60mph range... not very fast compared to what other countries have.

Re:HSR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402885)

Obviously if you build high speed rail in the US with the intent that it'd succeed you'd build high speed rail. But to do that we'd either have to break the Amtrak monopoly or remove the requirement that Amtrak allow freight on its lines.

Re:HSR (2, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403047)

...remove the requirement that Amtrak allow freight on its lines.

Unless I'm mistaken, you've got the situation backwards: Amtrak doesn't own any lines; it's the freight companies that "allow" Amtrak to run on their lines.

Re:HSR (3, Informative)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403351)

Amtrak owns 730 miles of track, including nearly all of their routes in the Northeast . But most of their routes outside that do run on freight rail tracks.

Re:HSR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403121)

It's the other way around. The lines belong to the railroad companies which allow Amtrak to use them. Freight then has priority (since they own the lines) which increases long distance trip times for Amtrak. If Amtrak had dedicated lines, which would be too costly to do now, then most of the time related issues we see would go away.

Re:HSR (1)

Rolgar (556636) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402895)

Another issue being utilization. You need to have the shorter trains get out of the way so passengers on long haul trains can keep going, having higher numbers of trains running at a time, spreading the infrastructure cost across more passengers, so the trains will have a cost advantage over planes.

Re:HSR (2)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403455)

One of the issues with the high speed rail I've seen them try to implement is too many stops...

That's why the good Lord invented limited-stop express service, so that not every train needs to stop at every station, and electric trains that accelerate after a stop much more quickly than diesel trains.

Then there's also the fact that a lot of "high speed" trains in the US are in the 40-60mph range...

Top speed or average speed? See above.

Re:HSR (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403721)

Like I said, the implementations I've seen are poor because they don't do things like limited-stop express service more. And the advertised top speeds are usually 45, 50 or 60mph. I don't think I've seen any with an advertised top speed above 70mph.

Re:HSR (1)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402627)

No you can't! Global warming now will produce earthquakes and asteroids according to popular belief [youtube.com]

Re:HSR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403099)

One newscaster talking out of her ass is the same as popular belief in your mind?

Re:HSR (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403565)

If the made-up bogeymen on Fox News can be real and common, then something a real live person was videotaped actually saying can sure as hell be popular belief!

Re:HSR (1)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | about a year and a half ago | (#43404361)

An anchor on CNN, a channel that has 1.1 million of viewers, shows stupidity. She was brainwashed to a point where she associates global warming with literally anything. The scare tactics would always work on stupid people, forcing them into believing without questioning, organizing institutions, and collecting money (e.g. religion). Your global warming became your new religion. Something to be scared of, waiting for the end. Peace.

Global warming and rails don't mix (2)

cirby (2599) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403107)

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)

Re:Global warming and rails don't mix (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403625)

If only the rails had small gaps in them to allow for thermal expansion [wikipedia.org] ...it's too bad we don't have such Star Trek technology. Rails could even be installed in places that experience the massive temperature changes between winter and summer! Imagine that!

Re:HSR (1)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403197)

At those speeds, aerodynamics are important to the train, right? Can surface winds cause turbulence-like effects?

Re:HSR (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403631)

Not turbulence like on an aircraft, but it could cause the train to rock back and forth a bit. Trains do have the benefit of a suspension system.

Re:HSR (1)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403747)

I'm just thinking of the examples of a truck or bus getting blown over on the interstate due to high cross winds. Sure, a train is far more massive than a truck or bus, but a bullet train is also traveling three times faster, meaning a small change could have a much bigger effect.

Re:HSR (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403273)

This is yet another reason to build high speed rail wherever it makes sense

That's crazy. If we only build high speed rail lines where they made sense, we wouldn't have any.

Re:HSR (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403557)

Name one bullet train line anywhere in the world that's at least a few years old but still doesn't make a profit. Frequently, profit from the HSR line(s) help subsidize a country's passenger train lines as in Japan.

how many predictions have come true? (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402473)

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

Re:how many predictions have come true? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402575)

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.

Re:how many predictions have come true? (0)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402945)

so why is the temperature in 1900 normal and today its too warm?

maybe the last few hundreds years were really too cold and the world is going back to normal?

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403031)

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.

Re:how many predictions have come true? (2)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403585)

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.

Re:how many predictions have come true? (2, Funny)

Aonghus142000 (908581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402669)

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

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402759)

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.

False Memory Syndrome? (4, Insightful)

cirby (2599) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403043)

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.

Re:False Memory Syndrome? (4, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403655)

You were studying ecology and didn't know those predictions were nonsense made by a crackpot? The "Ice Age scare" was about as popular in the scientific community as the 2012 Mayan apocalypse theories.

Re:how many predictions have come true? (2, Informative)

tbannist (230135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403017)

[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 [skepticalscience.com]

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402717)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402831)

Uh, global warning is not measured at 'the beach in NYC'

Not that you even have records for that.

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403005)

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/ [berkeleyearth.org]

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403223)

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.

Re:how many predictions have come true? (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403241)

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.

Panning out like other past predictions probably (1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402483)

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.

Re:Panning out like other past predictions probabl (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402653)

I really wish there were a "-1 scare quotes".

Except they never claimed that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43404433)

Only denier fuckwits like yourself claim it being said by others.

++++
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
++++

Now let me ask you: do you think the UK had a lot of snow in the Cambrian Era? No.
Has the UK seen less frequent snowfall? Yes.
Has the snowfall caused chaoes? Yes.

Oh yea... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402521)

Of course. We need to add it to the list of problems this minor trace gas causes [whatreallyhappened.com] . It's really extraordinary stuff!

Is it "climate change" getting warmer, or colder? (0, Troll)

KirklesWorth (952367) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402557)

Wait - is it "climate change" as in "global warming", or "climate change" as in "nuclear winter"? Which meteorologists' turn is it to flip the scare coin?

Re:Is it "climate change" getting warmer, or colde (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402807)

The nuclear winter will happen if we decide to start a nuclear war right now. If we can put off the nuclear war, then there will be no nuclear winter.

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.

Re:Is it "climate change" getting warmer, or colde (0)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403203)

Wait - is it "climate change" as in "global warming", or "climate change" as in "nuclear winter"? Which meteorologists' turn is it to flip the scare coin?

The one needing grant money.

But I welcome turbulence! (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402637)

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.

In other news... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402677)

... "climate change" will also: Kill cats, dogs, babies, cause record lows (and highs), low birth weights, high birth weights, socks disappearing then reappearing, my underwear fitting tighter (and looser), unprecedented increase in the size (and shrinkage) of the male anatomy, massive increases in Al Gore's bank account and wealthy White Liberals' guilt (the two are tightly correlated), raising and lowering of sea levels, rain, snow, sleet, heat, hail, mist, unprecedented bird migration, hot weather, cold weather, and, last but hardly not least, nothing at all.

Ugh. I'll be glad when the religion of AGW "climate change" / "global warming" / "YOU'RE KILLING THE PLANET SO YOU NEED TO CUT OFF ALL TECHNOLOGY" (they say via their iPhones, Facebook, Twitter, etc. accounts, all of which require massive amounts of energy to run) is utterly and completely discredited, as it's well on its way to being.

Re:In other news... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402935)

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?

Re:In other news... (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402969)

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.

Re:In other news... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403715)

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 [guardian.co.uk] that there is enough oil after all for "capitalism to continue", making it pretty obvious what their true intentions were.

Re:In other news... (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43404471)

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.

Re:In other news... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403673)

STRAWMAN ARMY, CHAAAAARGE!!!

One more for the warmlist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43402739)

'Turbulence' not previously noted on the list [numberwatch.co.uk] .

Question (4, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402765)

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.

Re:Question (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403179)

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.

Due to the passing of the ice age, I imagine the air was lighter than it is today. Oh, but there was also more pressure equalization due to temperature variations between night and day, so I guess it's turbulent in some areas and not in others, weather systems included. Oh, wait.. that's the same as it is today. /snark ;)

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43404113)

They same way the 'know' what the turbulence will be in the future, or right now?

You start with a climate model that represents the atmosphere (matches relevant observations) today and in the past, and predicts the future (by predicting historical data as if it were the 'future'). Then you use the same climate model to predict the climate with (approx.) 200ppm of CO2 (pre-industrial), and 400ppm (today), and 500ppm (e.g., future). You calculate the same measures of turbulence using each model and compare them.

They're not guessing what the turbulence was. They're taking a good representation of the current and past atmosphere, using that as a guide for the future atmosphere. Using the model of today's atmosphere, along with measurements of today's turbulence, to predict both future and past *with confidence limits*. The confidence limits explain how likely, under the scenarios tested, their prediction is correct.

captcha: carbons !

even more turbulence (1)

olegalexandrov (534138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402791)

> 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."

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.

Re:even more turbulence (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403187)

> 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."

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.

And I think that clearly labels the article as "stretching AND milking 'it'". ;)

Other effects of climate change (1)

Shompol (1690084) | about a year and a half ago | (#43402875)

Let's see:

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!

Re:Other effects of climate change (0)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403161)

Let's see:

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!

Studies say suicide rates will quintuple in the next 30 years. I don't think your children need to worry about all of that "clean up the mess of earlier generations" crud! ;)

Chemtrails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403011)

See subject line.

List of Global Warming Induced Problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403101)

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" [numberwatch.co.uk]

Wow now that's stretching it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403137)

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?

Re:Wow now that's stretching it (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403371)

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.

Sounds like this paper's in the running... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403215)

...for an Ig Nobel prize. [improbable.com]

FUD, much? (2, Informative)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403239)

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.

Idiots. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403493)

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.

Fear and Dread,.... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#43403601)

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.)

Climate Change Will Boost Flatulence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403733)

Warming climate leads to increased flatulence according to experts in relavant fields. There is consensus, scientists say. Dasterdly anti-anthropogenic flatulence campaing expected from well financed Beef lobby. Panic to ensue.

"Hydrogen Sonata" by Iain M. Banks covers this (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43403955)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?