IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: No climate change causes increase in clear air turbulance?
Topic Summary: Flat temperatures accused of increased turbulance
Created On: 17 July 2013 03:33 PM
Status: Read Only
Related E&T article: Climate-change turbulence risk for air carriers
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 17 July 2013 03:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



steverichards

Posts: 5
Joined: 06 February 2009

An interesting article but what did the research team think was driving an increase in turbulence? Temperature? That has not changed for nye on 17 years.

Did they factor in different aircraft types, pilot hours etc?

I would think the first step would be to collect masses of aircraft turbulence data. Perhaps fitting a self contained device (gps/battery/accelerometers) and download the data automatically.
 17 July 2013 10:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BryanLeyland

Posts: 45
Joined: 09 November 2001

This article is nonsense from beginning to end. As Steve said, the world is not warming so the climate is not changing.

More importantly than that, it is all based on computer modelling. We, as engineers, should know that for a computer model to give accurate results, it must be an accurate model of the system and it must have accurate input data. Nobody understands how the climate works - if they did, we would be able to predict the weather more than a few days ahead and we would be able to predict El Niño and other events. We cannot and the only rational conclusion is that computer modelling of the climate is a waste of time.

I am amazed that the IET even gives an article like this space. At the very least, it should be showing an open mind and publishing articles by people who actually study the the climate in the real world, rather than believing what they see on computer screens.

-------------------------
BryanLeyland
 18 July 2013 09:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



griggnz

Posts: 2
Joined: 21 June 2002

I agree with Steve and Bryan; this report is totally bizarre. I could understand if someone was genuinely attempting to predict turbulence by measuring temperature differentials on a flight path in real time, but to bring so-called climate change into the mix - what's that about?

The cynic in me suggests that this is a brazen attempt to secure funding, but that can't be true, can it?

As Bryan has intimated, it's of serious concern that the IET is publishing such articles without comment or disclaimer. The IET has, for example, adopted a scientific approach to such things as EMF alarmism; why has it not taken a similar stance against climate change politics?
 18 July 2013 09:44 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



steverichards

Posts: 5
Joined: 06 February 2009

People who 'believe' in man made climate change, (the catastrophic variety) are everywhere, the BBC, curriculum writers, Government.
You only had to watch Ed Davey on a political show last week to see how science and commonsense no longer exist in the upper echelons of Government.

Engineers and scientist who work from a basis of experiment and measurements are right to be very worried.
 18 July 2013 07:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rodgoslin

Posts: 2
Joined: 26 October 2009

Once again, the E&T have published a leading article based on utter balderdash. To suggest increased turbulence as a result of Climate Change is to pile one supposition on top of another supposition, where in neither case is there any evidence as to what the condition will be, in the next fifty years. If the researchers into turbulence are basing their own pet supposition on climate models, then they are basing it on models, not one of which has, to date, produced results which match with reality. In real terms, of course, there are only two answers to the question "Is there going to be more turbulence in the future?". One answer is "Yes" and the other answer is "No", and neither answer can be positively verified. It can be guessed at, but a guess is all it will be. And a guess based on Climate Change, when this itself is unverifiable is no better than rolling a dice, or picking the answer with a pin, when blindfold.
I do wish that E&T would confine itself to such things as are in fact verifiable and consistent with the data. Like knowing what day it is tomorrow, or whether it will get dark tonight, and forget these absurd speculations.
 23 July 2013 10:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Another one to add to the alphabetic list of things blamed on man-made global warming here http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Currently at 833 entries. So that's 834. Let me see, it should fit in nicely between 'Agressive weeds' and 'Air France Crash'.

I can't believe this is the E&T cover story this month. There having been no warming this century you'd think Dickon Ross and his team of E&T eco-zealots would be trying to gradually back away from garbage like this - but no. They're doubling-down on the alarmist rubbish.

Edited: 23 July 2013 at 10:42 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 24 July 2013 09:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: steverichards
People who 'believe' in man made climate change, (the catastrophic variety) are everywhere, the BBC, curriculum writers, Government.

And (to take just the UK, and just as a sample):
- Royal Geographical Society
- The Met Office
- The Royal Society
- Institute of Physics
- The Geological Society
- The Royal Society of Chemistry

Readers need to decide for themselves whether the the views posted above have more credibility than the views of these bodies.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 24 July 2013 12:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Originally posted by: amillar

And (to take just the UK, and just as a sample):

- Royal Geographical Society
- The Royal Society
- Institute of Physics
- The Geological Society
- The Royal Society of Chemistry

Readers need to decide for themselves whether the the views posted above have more credibility than the views of these bodies.

Andy, do you think the grass roots members of those societies believe in catastrophic man-made global warming? You know, the actual physicists, chemists and geologists? Or are they like the IET, with a small clique of 'yes men' at the top, just declaring their support for the government position, without any democratic accountability from their members?

Regarding the position of the RS, who's motto is ironically 'Nullius in Verba' (take no-one's word for it), I highly recommend reading this excellent report which catalogues the gradual politicisation of the RS over the last few decades:

"Nullius In Verba, The Royal Society & Climate Change"

Best Regards

Edited: 24 July 2013 at 03:36 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 25 July 2013 08:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 866
Joined: 19 July 2002

As I live on the big island my E&T takes a little longer to arrive. I do agree that the article is sensationalist (especially on the front cover) and probably incorrect.

I still have to remain a skeptic regarding man's influence on the climate on the following grounds. I am however a firm supporter of the reduction of our consumption of raw materials and the general reduction of our impact on our planet.

My main technical issue is as follows:

1) Do we believe the various proxy methods of measuring historic temperatures? If no then all the models are not credible. If yes then we must also accept the Ice Age cycles of around 40,000 years.

2) Looking at these temperature cycles we are currently on the steeply rising part of the curve before we drop into the next ice age. The cause of these cycles is not very well understood but the best suggestion appears to be constructive interference between various cyclic variations in the earth's orbit and cyclic variations in the sun's output.

3) The current climate models do not appear to incorporate any of this and yet are predicting a rise in temperature due to man when there is already a rise in temperature caused by these cycles.

I raised this point in the great Geoff Ben debate and he conceded that I had a point:

I have not yet been able to find anything definitive either way on this, so it remains to me a very large open point.


My other difficulty with the 'Man Made Climate Change' movement is just that, it appears to have departed from any original scientific base and has become a movement, 'either you're with us or you're against us'.

There is more than a hint of "Groupthink" and it has gone so far that to back away now would be very embarrassing for a lot of people ( The Emperor's new clothes springs to mind).

Once 'Activists' are involved a lot of thought tends to go out of the window. One well know activist, George Monbiot, had a recent 'The Emperor's new clothes' moments. He made the interesting discovery that a cause he strongly believed in and promoted was based on bad or non-existent science supported by circular peer reviewing.

http://www.monbiot.com.../04.....e-meltdown/

I did contact him enquiring if he thought that the same problems he found with the hazards of radiation also applied to man made climate change but did not receive a reply.

Best regards

Roger
 26 July 2013 01:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: rogerbryant

My main technical issue is as follows:

1) Do we believe the various proxy methods of measuring historic temperatures? If no then all the models are not credible. If yes then we must also accept the Ice Age cycles of around 40,000 years.

2) Looking at these temperature cycles we are currently on the steeply rising part of the curve before we drop into the next ice age. The cause of these cycles is not very well understood but the best suggestion appears to be constructive interference between various cyclic variations in the earth's orbit and cyclic variations in the sun's output.

3) The current climate models do not appear to incorporate any of this and yet are predicting a rise in temperature due to man when there is already a rise in temperature caused by these cycles.



I agree these are 3 important issues that Climate Scientists should be addressing with a wider range of approaches than they are using now.

As way of helping promote this I think lay people and out of field scientists including a good sprinkling of engineers should be represented say 40% to 60% on all scientific funding committees.

Our current peer reviewed funding system for scientific research is no longer fit for purpose.

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 26 July 2013 04:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

In regards to a wider range of approaches, I don't personally yet discount the possibility that the mean global temperature will soon begin to fall slowly but consistently, starting some time in the next four decades (in the run up to 2050).

If this were true the excess CO2 now accumulating in the atmosphere would help us by acting to slow the rate at which the global mean temperatures drop over the next thousand years (as part of the 100,000 year cycle), relative to what would have happened without the excess CO2 being there.

As to climate change occuring at a particular geographical locations, that is a different issue, which climate models are not yet designed to predict. Indeeed climate models may have to be completely rewritten and redesigned to make even regional climate modelling start to work as a semi-predictive science.

In any case I don't need to develop a climate model to consider this possibility, I just need some thoughts inspired by some experiments I remember.

Paul Williams and Manoj M. Joshi's research letter in nature is here

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~will...ions/nclimate1866.pdf

As Paul Williams stated in another interview, airlines choose to fly when they can, with the jet stream (with associated increases in wind shear and boundary air turbulence) to reduce flight times and reduce fuel consumption. They try to avoid the jet stream when they would have to fly against the jet stream for the opposite reasons.

As they did not separately classify the reported instances of turbulence between these two different flight strategies (or aircraft type and size, or indeed correct for things like the total mass of the aircraft or the effect of wing tips) then their research really doesn't appear to add up to much more than media puff.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 31 July 2013 04:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



scferg

Posts: 7
Joined: 21 September 2003

It was Eisenhower who said in his farewell speech:
"
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. "

Unfortunately the climate scientists, so called, are now so much in thrall to large scale funding that they have forgotten the scientific method. Everything hangs on their models - which are being proved to not include a considerable number of important variables.

As someone who has, in my youth, designed computer models I am well aware of their shortcomings. I am therefore appalled at the thought that public policy is being designed on the basis of these models.

I have no idea how the gentlemen at East Anglia and Reading have come to their conclusion about more turbulence due to warming but since there has been no warming, this conclusion is not just questionable, it is risible.
 31 July 2013 04:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



scferg

Posts: 7
Joined: 21 September 2003

It was Eisenhower who said in his farewell speech:
"
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. "

Unfortunately the climate scientists, so called, are now so much in thrall to large scale funding that they have forgotten the scientific method. Everything hangs on their models - which are being proved to not include a considerable number of important variables.

As someone who has, in my youth, designed computer models I am well aware of their shortcomings. I am therefore appalled at the thought that public policy is being designed on the basis of these models.

I have no idea how the gentlemen at East Anglia and Reading have come to their conclusion about more turbulence due to warming but since there has been no warming, this conclusion is not just questionable, it is risible.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.