Ash cloud models – overrated? A word on Post Normal Science by Dr. Jerome Ravetz

The BBC reports that there is ‘zero tolerance’ on ash.
” ‘No tolerance’ rule for volcanic ash”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8629609.stm
[Quote] “Over the weekend, [our observations] have detected dust in the atmosphere and on the ground,” the Met Office said on its website.
“A research aircraft has recently encountered dust during its flight, albeit in fairly low concentrations.”
And, no matter how low the concentration, aviation authorities will not reinstate normal control over airspace while the ash cloud is still there.
A spokesperson from from Nats, the UK’s air traffic control authority, told BBC News that there was “no threshold” for concentrations at which volcanic ash was acceptable…Whether to open or close airspace is a decision for national aviation authorities, but all European nations abide by the rules set by ICAO, which recommends implementing a no-fly zone if volcanic ash is detectable in airspace. [end quote]
Theoretically, therefore, if we have sensitive enough detectors we will always find SOME volcanic ash everywhere in the world. If the only safe threshold is the threshold of detectability, we could soon see all aircraft banned at all times the world over as instrumentation and thus detectability improves. What utter stupidity. There surely has to be an ash density below which the risk to passenger aircraft is acceptable (say, commensurate with other normal hazards), for example 100ug per cubic metre continuously and 1mg per cubic metre for periods not exceeding one hour.
To adopt a ‘zero tolerance’ approach is like the Royal Society’s definition of ‘Dangerous Climate Change’ which is that there is no safe limit for climate change. All climate change , however miniscule is always ‘dangerous’:
“There is no such thing as ‘safe’ climate change…Any level of climate change will be dangerous”
Whilst it may be exceedingly difficult (or philosophically impossible) to define what is ’safe’, i.e. to define the boundary where it becomes ‘dangerous’, the problem is not solved by eliminating the category ’safe’ and therefore defining the whole universe of possibilities as ‘dangerous’. That neatly avoids the problem of having to define limits of acceptability and thresholds, but it is crass stupidity as well. Since climate has changed ever since the world began, by the Royal Society’s definition it will have always been dangerous.

Better safe than sorry!!!

This only shows that Post Normal Science creator Jerome Ravetz had some shares of aviation companies in his portfolio.

Over the weekend, I did see an article somewhere that mentioned “Met Office” and “computer models.”
And I thought,
Hmmm.

REPLY: This is BOGUS HOAX GARBAGE – IGNORE IT EVERYONE
I’m leaving it up here so that people know.
– Anthony
=================================
See below email exchange on Iceland volcano links to money and climate change. Seems like something is rotten in the state of Iceland!!!
—– Forwarded message ———-
From: Halldor Eggertsson
Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:11 PM
Subject: Fw: Latest from Iceland
To: rjedwood@dailymail.co.uk
Dear Ron,
The embargo is Midnight GMT 20th April. Please DO NOT publish prior! This is the biggest story our little paper is ever likely to break unless Bjork dies choking on her herrings!!!
Yeah, this is big story. Lot of people sweating here. I dont know how far this goes but lots of angles.
When this breaks its going to go crazy here so lets catch up when the dust settles (no pun intended heh!). We think there may be more to the climate change angle. The team is busy following up on that. It looks they made 2.6bn euros before the agencies caught on to them.
Halldor
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Ron Jedwood (Daily Mail – News Desk)
Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:25 PM
Subject: Fw: Iceland Volcano
To: h.eggerstsson@gmail.com; Halldor Eggerstsson (Reykjavik Bureau)
Hey Halldor,
Ron from London here, just got your mail. Your phone isnt answering. Must be getting a lot of traffic.
This is a big story! When are you running this? When can DM go? Unclear on the embargo.
Call when you can.
Ron
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Hanfluss Janesbaer
To: Ron Jedwood (Daily Mail – News Desk)
CC: Halldor Eggerstsson (Reykjavik Bureau); Fjaldar Sigur Jonsson (Editor); Gunnar Skoleskar (Reykjavik Bureau)
Sent: Mon, 19 April, 2010 18:51:08
Subject: RE: Icelandic Volcano
Attention: Ron Jedwood – News Desk
FYI below. I received a bounce back message from your e-mail account. Please confirm receipt.
Rgds,
Hanfluss Janesbaer
Reykjavik: 20th April 2010
GEOTHERMAL COMPANY LINKED TO ERUPTION GROUNDING FLIGHTS
By Gunnar Skoleskar in Reykjavik and additional reporting from Hanfluss Janesbaer in Amsterdam
In a new twist to the ongoing eruption of Iceland’s Mount Ejafjallajoekull, spreading volcanic ash and dust across Europe and grounding thousands of flights, investigations into the activities of the energy consultancy, Icelandic Geothermal have revealed massive short selling of airline stocks, a leading airline organization has revealed.
The Amsterdam based Center for Airline Carbon Emissions (CACE) are investigating claims that Mr. Olaf Selfoss Olafson, founder of the Reykjavik (RSX) listed technology company, sold substantial holdings in several European airlines just weeks before the eruption.
Olafson’s company, a geo-thermal consultancy, developing technology to harness volcanic lava flows for water heating and steam turbine production has been linked to the eruption, following a several month undercover CACE investigation trailing the activities of Icelandic Geothermal, acquiring incriminating evidence on the way.
“We know that these guys were involved in the eruption” Helmut Schnellerflugzoeg, in charge of the CACE investigation told us. “Our team of analysts have been following the company’s activities after intelligence analysts intercepted their plans and contacted us.”
“They hired drilling machines to bore into the area where the volcano erupted, a couple of months ago, and we have video-footage of the lowering of large objects into the bore holes.”
When asked as to what these large objects could be, Schnellerflugzoeg was vague. “We have a good idea what it may be, and we know that it is a catalyst to volcanic eruptions,” he told reporters.
“The whole point was to help kill the airline industry and prove that global warming was in part due to aircraft emissions,” Schnellerflugzoeg said. “With aviation grounded, scientists would be able to gather evidence of a drop in mean temperatures and doctor the figures, showing perhaps as much as a 2 degrees centigrade drop.”
“It’s too early to say whether it may be linked to a wider conspiracy,” he continued, “but we are determined to get to the bottom of this exploding volcano.”
The fall-out could be sulphurous if there is any evidence linking the climate change lobby to the eruption, already reeling from criticism for providing information leading scientists to predict the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035. “If the climate change lobby is in any way linked to this volcanic eruption, it could be very damaging.” Professor David Sonnenbaum a climate specialist at the University of Berlin told us.
A spokesperson for Icelandic Geothermal denied any involvement in the eruption or the sale of any airline stocks. “We categorically deny any involvement in the eruption of the volcano,” Lars Grindavic Magnusson, CEO of the company told reporters at a press conference in Reykjavik on Monday.
Analysis of trades on European Stock Markets, including London, Paris and Frankfurt seems to indicate a substantial turn-over of stock in major airlines in the first week of April, a source close to the CACE investigation told the paper.
“There’s activity which potentially links the company to the eruption” Verloke Shomes, a senior investigator told our reporter in Amsterdam. “We are investigating a surge of buying activity on the markets on Friday, where a Cayman Islands holding company appears to have bought a lot of stock in publicly listed European carriers at bargain basement prices.”
The eruption has caused serious disruption to global air-traffic, grounding more than 17,000 flights daily and preventing transit across European airspace, potentially affecting more than 1.7 million travellers a day.
<<>>
—–Original Message—–
From: Hanfluss Janesbaer (Amsterdam Bureau)
Sent: 19 April 2010 10:02
To: Reuters (London Desk); AFP (Paris Desk); IHT (Brussels Desk); Associated Press (London Desk); The Times (London Desk); The Daily Telegraph (London); Bild (Editor – Berlin); Le Monde (Paris Desk); Frankfurter Allgemeine (Frankfurt Desk); Editor (El Mundo – Madrid) La Republicca (Rome Desk); IHT (New York Desk); Editor (Washington Post); Editor (New York Times); News Desk (Daily Mail); Editor (Sydney Morning Post); Editor (LA Times) Editor (Straits Times); Editor (China Daily); Editor (South China Morning Post); Editor (Shanghai Daily); Editor (Khaleej Times – Dubai); Editor (Hindustan Times – New Delhi); Editor (Times of India – New Delhi); Editor (Indian Express – New Delhi); Editor (The Bangladesh Today); Editor (Dawn – Karachi); Editor (Kathmandu Post); Editor (Cape Times – South Africa); Editor (Jornal do Brazil); Editor (Buenos Aires Herald); Editor (Ashai Shimbum-Tokyo)
Cc:
Subject: Re: Icelandic Volcano
All. Attached is our piece we have just put out on the Icelandic Volcano, which you may run Midnight GMT 20th April.
Rgds
Hanfluss Janesbaer
> This message
> and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any
>
>
>
> attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment
> or disclose the contents to any other person.
—–Original Message—–
From: Fjaldar Sigur Jonsson (Editor)
Sent: 13 April 2010 16:37
To: Hanfluss Janesbaer (Amsterdam Bureau); Gunnar Skoleskar (Reykjavik Bureau); Jon Smorgesbord Stefanson (Reykjavik Bureau); Kristabjorg Soren Kjellner (Reykjavik Bureau); Hjalmar Ericson (London Bureau);
Cc:
Subject: Re: Final Copy
Dear team,
Attached is a piece which we are going to press with in tomorrow’s edition.
Gunnar, Hanfluss, make sure you double check the copy for any errors and double check your notes for the quotes.
Some fantastic undercover reporting here. You get your cases of Vodka for this one.
Hanfluss – Expense the accommodation and keep your meal receipts.
We’ll syndicate it with the agencies next week.
Ed
—–Original Message—–
From: Hanfluss Janesbaer (Amsterdam Bureau)
Sent: 13 April 2010 16:37
To: Fjaldar Sigur Jonsson (Editor); Jon Smorgesbord Stefanson (Reykjavik Bureau); Kristabjorg Soren Kjellner (Reykjavik Bureau); Hjalmar Ericson (London Bureau);
Cc: Gunnar Skoleskar (Reykjavik Bureau)
Subject: Re: Final Copy
Team,
Eitt tungumál er aldrei nóg. Attached is the final draft in English. Good to go when you’ve checked the facts.
Gunnar – you’ve got anything to add from Olafson?
Looks like I’m going to be stuck here in Amsterdam for some time. Hvar er klósettið?
Brgds
HJ
—–Original Message—–
From: Fjaldar Sigur Jonsson (Editor)
Sent: 12 April 2010 09:46
To: Hanfluss Janesbaer (Amsterdam Bureau); Jon Smorgesbord Stefanson (Reykjavik Bureau); Kristabjorg Soren Kjellner (Reykjavik Bureau); Hjalmar Ericson (London Bureau);
Cc: Gunnar Skoleskar (Reykjavik Bureau)
Subject: Re: Final Copy
H – Gætirðu skrifað þetta niður? Any more?
G – Langt síðan við höfum sést. Speak with Olafson – he’s hiding something, I can smell it. Svifnökkvinn minn er fullur af álum
Krista – Lawyers?
What a story! Náið í lögregluna!
ED
==========================

REPLY: This is BOGUS HOAX GARBAGE – IGNORE IT EVERYONE
I’m leaving it up here so that people know.
– Anthony

Is this analysis an invitation to scientists to cheat?
It’s an invitation for them to get out of the way and let people with real-world experience handle the issue. Test flights have been safely concluded, some have recommended daytime flying as pilots can see and avoid ash clouds… Those who actually do the flying know they can be flying, those sitting behind computer screens looking at model outputs say they can’t.
Reality trumps modeling. Experience trumps theory. It’s a reoccurring theme, better get used to it.

JIm (08:18:41) :
Met Office computer models, like other weather models, work fine for a few days into the future.

“Oh, models, models, how many crimes have been commited in thy name”

Aircraft have been damaged. The BBC reported that “A build-up of glass has been found in the engine of a Nato fighter jet in Europe, a US official says”
Now, ask yourself, would you risk it? are you feeling lucky? Or should we play safe?

Nothing is better than real experimentation… I mean, we are not talking about a sand storm here!

Ouch.
You know what? You who are parroting the “precautionary principle”: get a clue.
Atmospheric ash is a measurable risk to aircraft. So are storms, turbulence, quality of fuel, loading, etc. etc. etc. It is not very intelligent to believe that zero-ash is the only way to fly.
It should be the decision of the airlines in this case, and if it requires more frequent engine and window maintenance, then so be it.

Bureaucrats will always destroy the industry they manage. In a bureaucracy you advance by saying no, never by by allowing things to move forward. There is a “policy” of ,When in doubt say NO, you don’t need judgment. Normal people live with risk.

Tero-Petri Ruoko (08:06:36) :
There are always second order consequences. 9/11 and the fear it produced pushed large numbers of passengers away from airplanes and into their cars. Car travel (per mile) mortality rates are far greater than is air travel and death rates rose dramatically in the months following 9/11.
Risks are rarely avoided they are transferred . Its at the heart of the precautionary principle fallacy– you must look at all risks not just the ones you choose to fear.

Funny, on the NationalPost today there is an article about how the EU is planning on using taxpayers money to send poor people on vacations. They say that vacationing is a `human right`. Where do they keep finding all of these extra tax dollars..

I wonder if the 10 747s and A340s were a sort of sacrifice to the volcano in lieu of the traditional virgins, as they couldn’t find any on short notice?
@ScientistforTruth,
Clearly it is the ‘wrong sort of ash’?

If the models are acceptible, which model predicted the eruption? But the models failed?
What percent of the time should we go by computer models and simulation and what percent of the time do models say we should ignore the models?

Pops (08:09:18) : “Barely a peep from the sheep.”
I don’t think that contemptuous language likes this is going to help us to convince people of the strength of skeptic arguments. Most of us can be unaware and even gullible sometimes when it comes to questions outside of any expertise we may have. Slurring people who have different views from oneself is largely the domain of Real Climate and the like, lets keep it that way as it just alienates most people.
In this instance, most people have barely been exposed to any evidence that some current flying bans may be unreasonable. The only such reports I’ve seen in the media suggesting this are quoting the airlines. Airlines, to say the least, have not always put passenger safety first when money is at stake so the general public would not be unwise to treat their views with some suspicion, even if they might happen to be right in this instance.

Just a minute. The Brits shut down Heathrow on the basis of a model from the Met Office?? Where is Piers Corbyn when you need him?

“Facts Uncertain: how thin must the dust be, for it to be safe enough for flying?”
Since aircraft have been flying around volcanoes for decades, not to have threshhold levels (say, 100ug per cbm continuous; 1mg per cbm not exceeding one hour; 3 mg per cbm not exceeding 2 minutes etc) is unforgivable. This is therefore simply an ‘own goal’. It is negligence by the regulators (not only financial regulators guilty of this, then).
“Values in Dispute: Regulators wanting safety at all costs, others needing to get flying now.”
Give over – passengers want safety as well. The problem is conflated with the ‘facts uncertain’, since if it ‘safe enough for flying’, then that’s going to satisfy all parties.
“Stakes High: Crippling costs to industry, versus big risks to aircraft and people.
Decisions Urgent: Every day the immediate costs mount, and the long-term costs grow.”
Only because of the paralysis due to the ‘facts uncertain’, which should never have been allowed to happen. This is a self-generated problem. There was, after all, an International Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Aircraft Safety, in Seattle in 1991 NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO, see here for Proceedings:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pKY_VLqMTgsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22volcanic+ash%22+aviation+safet&lr=&cd=6#v=onepage&q&f=false
The paper by Przedpelski and Casadevall states:
“The greatest threat to aircraft and engines is presented by “new” clouds (within hours of eruption) that contain large concentrations of ash particles…The ash particle size distribution in volcanic eruption clouds should be documented. In addition, engine and (or) combustor tests should be sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish threshold values for “safe” levels of ash concentration and the “safe” range of combustor temperature. This information, combined with updated dispersion and theoretical fallout models (and with improved cloud tracking) can establish when an ash cloud ceases to be a flight hazard. These efforts will enhance aviation safety and reduce air traffic delays resulting from volcanic activity.”
Let’s face it, the regulatory authorities and the engine manufacturers have had decades to perform actually very simple and controllable experiments, and so enact the recommendations from the international symposium. I have no idea whether they did so – it appears that they focused on detection and avoidance rather than thresholds, and so we have the unacceptable situation we have today. The same type of thing occurred when London had an unexpected snowfall in 2009: not a single London bus ran that day. Strangely enough, this sort of invocation of the precautionary principle (if in doubt do nothing or shut everything down) is nothing more than a cop-out, and it is interesting to note that the more businesses are required to do ‘risk assessments’ the more the precautionary principle is employed, not the less. Risk assessment today seems to be more a process of risk identification and avoidance, giving more and more excuse to shut activities down rather than properly manage the risks.
If the authorities have not actually performed the relevant experiments to determine what ash density thresholds are commensurate with acceptable aviation risk (say, similar to other risks) – experiments that CAN be done in the lab on multiple engines in controlled conditions – and ESPECAILLY after that International Symposium 19 years ago, then they have saddled the world with the problem we are facing today. The fact that ‘scientists’ seem to want to avoid doing properly conducted experiments with copious real world observations withrobust physics is a drift back to the Aristotelian method where dogma, theory and dialectic took the place a proper evaluation of the real world. This is where we have arrived at in climate science, to a large degree.
I conclude that this is NOT a scenario suitable for Post Normal Science, but a complete fiasco that could have been avoided by the application of proper scientific method.

Short flights inconclusive, eh?
http://www.flightradar24.com/ currently shows whatappears to be a test flight from Airbus Industrie (callsign F922),an A340-642, with the track first originating around Paris. The aircraft flew athigh latitude to the Germanborder and turned North until it was well over the sea and about level with the Danish border, whereup it did a U-Turn while losing altitude. The crossed the coast and headed towardsHamburg which it “buzzed” at less than 3000 m (10,000 ft), flying a loop around before turning towards Berlin. But before it was about half-way there, it turned NE, climbing gradually until it got near the coast before it again turned at the Polish border, still climbing.
But it’s not landed in Berlin. (Flights have been taking off from there all day.) F922 is currently on a track (heading) of 282 — no, now 227 — at FL410.
A B747 cargo flight left Amsterdam a while ago, now at FL290 on a track of 156.
There’s been activity like that since dawn.

Tell the decision makers who are trying to duck the responsibility for the consequences of their decisions the following:
1. You picked the software program
2. You picked the people to run the program
3. You picked the people who selected the data for the program to use
4. You made the decision to rely on the computer output
5. A computer can do only what it is told to do
6. You are responsible for the consequences, not the computer
Unfortunately, this is asking them to deal with reason, reality, and logic, Such things don’t seem to be the concern of the “decision” makers. They have the power and they will use it no matter what. That reality does not behave according to their decisions makes, in their opinion, reality wrong. The only thing that matters to them is that the rest of us have to beg “Mother may I?” before we can act.
Question: why have we allowed the inmates to run the asylum?
Question: why have we given them the tools to force their psychosis upon the rest of us?
Question: why do we accept the situation without doing something about it?

This will be a grand lesson in who’s got the beef in European international politics.
1. The traveling public have interests in getting where they want
or have to go, getting there affordably, and getting there safely.
2. The airlines have a quadruple interest in getting them there, getting them there safely, getting them there at a profit per seat, and maintaining their overall corporate revenue streams.
3. The EU in conjunction with several members’ nation air
administrations want no additional risks accepted by airline
companies ro get their passengers from one place to another.
They want to enforce their ability to restrict travel under the
terms of the EU charter.
4. The investors in airline companies, including those nations running their own airlines, want to stay in business while breaking even or turning a profit.
5. The insurance companies covering airline companies for risks to passengers, or assets like planes and ground facilities, and/or
unavoidable revenue or profit loss due to involuntary situations
like being grounded for “dust”.
6. The re-insurance companies that cover the insurers in case a
whopping claim can’t be immediately covered by the regular
insurance firms.
7. The individual nations who have travelers that conduct their
business on an international level and keep their respective
national economies pumping.
8. Investors and the investment community in general who hate
falling profits, stressed insurers and re-insurers, impediments
to economic expansion, and national/regional economies made
sluggish by some unnecessary government impediment.
I’m betting on No. 6, the re-insurers having the most influence.
I doubt the EU will continue to have unfettered dominion in
situations like the Icelandic eruptions in the future.
It looks like both the politics and the science have yet to be
decided.

This event is not a good advertisment for using “models”.

Short flights inconclusive, eh?
http://www.flightradar24.com/ currently shows whatappears to be a test flight from Airbus Industrie (callsign F922),an A340-642, with the track first originating around Paris. The aircraft flew athigh latitude to the Germanborder and turned North until it was well over the sea and about level with the Danish border, whereup it did a U-Turn while losing altitude. The crossed the coast and headed towardsHamburg which it “buzzed” at less than 3000 m (10,000 ft), flying a loop around before turning towards Berlin. But before it was about half-way there, it turned NE, climbing gradually until it got near the coast before it again turned at the Polish border, still climbing.
But it’s not landed in Berlin. (Flights have been taking off from there all day.) F922 is currently on a track (heading) of 282 — no, now 201 — at FL410.
A B747 cargo flight left Amsterdam a while ago, now at FL290 on a track of 156.
There’s been activity like that since dawn.

Is this analysis an invitation to scientists to cheat?
This question is lost in translation to me: How would this be a chance to cheat? Cheat what? Tweak the results instead of releasing the actual model output?
I fail to see what this has to do with post-normal science. It seems to be a problem of models versus the real world and preliminary reports indicate the models are wrong.
So what is the incentive to cheat here? Some scientist might change the data for the actual results in order to cover up the failure of the model?

Here in Norway the flight ban has actually taken life. Even ambulance helicopters are grounded due to ash clouds, which means that people in rural areas dont get to hospital in time for treatment.
Is it even a danger for helicopters to fly through a thin ash cloud??

Surely this will give the Poley bears in Canadia grey hair.
(I get credit for being the first to predict)
My experiment is performed under controlled conditions. I use a white cat and poof a little ash from the fireplace on the cat.

This is Stephen Schneider’s much vaunted Precautionary Principle on display in all of it’s ugly, twisted, dehumanizing, civilization-crushing glory. Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted each day as tens of thousands of people are left stranded at airports across Europe — and for what? As a “precaution” to protect them against a simulated danger that exists primarily in a computer generated fantasy world. Certainly there is a physical risk that exists in the real world as a result of the volcanic plume from Iceland; but the severity and extent of that risk has yet to be quantified on a continental-wide basis. It’s time to dump the post-normal pseudo-science of Schneider et al and get back to real science.
For all those who say “better safe than sorry”, I say let the airlines run their tests and then give people the option to fly based on the results of those tests. Make it known to the flight crews and the passengers what the results are and what the possible risks are and then let them decide whether or not the uncertainties are acceptable to their own interests. These are adults. Let them make informed decisions and act based on their own tolerance of risk instead of relying on nanny-state bureaucrats with computer models to protect everyone from every possible hazard (whether real, imagined or simulated).
If the airlines and passengers were free to make informed decisions based on the best available information that’s backed by real world, physical data, I’d bet that those planes would all go out full and, furthermore, that they’d all arrive safely at their destinations.

It is not so much the danger, but rather the expense. Ash significantly reduces engine life. These are the most expensive engines on Earth. As for helicopters, not only is engine life reduced, but also that of the innumerable other moving parts.

1] Facts not Uncertain: the alleged cure to the alleged CO2AGW disease induces disasterous consequences as demonstrated by the very existence of the underdeveloped countries as well as by the effects of the biofuel programs. China and India have apparently made this calculation and have decided strongly against the CO2CAGW “precautions”, at the least. Russia apparently doesn’t believe anything about the alleged mechanism. CO2 has not been known or shown to be a significant cause of GW, ever. Even the alleged Heat in CO2AGW mechanism has been “lost”. Ipcc Post Normal Climate Science has eschewed the Scientific Method and has thus not done what the people of the World trusted it to be doing, including me. Etc., etc.
2] Values not in Dispute: see above, unless you happen to be a PNS, Communist, World Government controllist or a useless idiot “save-the-worlder”, or perhaps some other transient beneficiary of this kind of truely enslaving, obviously deranged controllism, which has never worked towards the benefit of Humankind, ever.
3] Stakes High: see both above.
4] Decisions not Urgent: see all above. Panic is unwarranted and contravenes the use of both the Scientific Method and Rationality. Instead calm decisions based upon efficiency, rational use of resources, the rational development of new energy sources and the extention of Nuclear Energy use, as per France, and rational moves to address real pollution and other real environmental threats are indicated, critically involving the use of the Scientific Method!
Dr. Ravetz, having eschewed the Scientific Method and Rationality as being relevant to the benefit of Humankind and the World, what’s next?

“Britain’s flight ban to be LIFTED tomorrow ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267257/Iceland-volcano-eruption-UK-flight-ban-LIFTED-tomorrow.html

ScientistForTruth:
Our ability to measure things far outweighs our ability to determine the significance of the measurement.
I agree that we must know at what levels ash are actually significant, but not just to engines but to all flight system (especially sensors).
As a follow-on from that, we must be able to survey and measure what’s in the airspace. Then feed that data into systems to provide a risk assessment with 3-dimensional “threat envelopes” as used in military operations available for flight planners on a “real-time” basis.
In areas where there are lots of aircraft, real-time information can probably be gathered by the airliners themselves and fed into the assessment analysis to augment what would be routinely collected by ground-based monitoring and aerial surveys.
Manufacturers of engines and aircraft can, through testing, observe the behaviour of exposure to ash, and recommend operating cycles to minimise damage if exposure is inevitable. Such procedures *might* be to deliberately shut down individual engines in recovered flight to thermally shock any fused deposits from turbine blades, combustion chambers and injectors.
Ancient, bureaucratic planning processes must be overhauled. Flexibility to divert air traffic so that passengers and cargo can detour efficiently around an actual problem area, to save the passenger’s time, to try to get the cargo to destination as quickly as possible, even if a little late.
e.g. My sister is “stuck” in Vancouver, trying to fly to Milan but her airline wants to take her via Frankfurt, which is closed. Oslo is open. So is Milan a lot of the time it appears. There are flights from Oslo to Milan. None direct from Vancouver to Oslo. Because of a bureaucracy.
Little planning flexibility on the part of the airlines.

This post deserves a separate post >>>>>RajKapoor (08:20:17) :
It is BIG NEWS

RajKapoor (08:20:17), is that chain of emails real or someone’s idea of a joke (hoax)?

Just remember that models are one thing and one thing only: a guess. And not very good guesses for complex situations like the planet system.

“Challenger O-Rings worked fine, until they didn’t. The computer simulations are the best tool available.”
LOL!!!
The O-rings failed several times and the reasons for failure were well-known. Had you taken the time to study the Challenger Accident, you’d have known this.
http://www.mahal.org/articles/space/1995/12/the-space-shuttle-challenger-accident/page/1
In fact, the Shuttles could have kept flying if the environmental parameters for the o-ring issues were mitigated by flying only when it was warm and when there was little wind shear!!!
Here in the US, in Texas, Southwest Airlines is famous for routing its commuter flights around bad weather, which covers the state of Texas like acne on a teenager. They use radar, pilot reports, and dispatchers to make this work. Sometimes they fly at 10,000 feet or loop out over West Texas or into Louisiana to make it work.
I’ll bet a few tweaks to radar could give the Europeans the data they need to route the flights properly. Or a few data flights run at night would give them the data they need during the day.
Eurocontrol is overreacting and rather than come up with a testable model for sampling and deciding when and where to fly, they are just saying no. The real problem is that they just do not know – they could send flights into areas where there is ash because they have no data. None.

@Jimmy Haigh

RajKapoor (08:20:17) :
Is this for real? If so, it’s like something straight out of Michael Crichton’s ‘Climate of Fear’.

Hmmm let’s look at some of the names here…
Mr. Olaf Selfoss translates to Olaf Self-Ourselves which is true since Olafson is Olaf’s son
Helmut Schnellerflugzoeg translates to “slow airplane”
Professor David Sonnenbaum (the climate specialist) translates to “solar tree”
etc…

Elementary my dear Watson, when in doubt, start the propeller and measure the dust, I would never trust a computer proggy with my live
Facts Uncertain: only trust what you can see and feel
Values in Dispute: only trust what you can see and feel
Stakes High: only trust what you can see and feel
Decisions Urgent: only trust what you can see and feel

It is much worse than we in UK plc thought. The jokers at the Met have not carried out any measurements of the concentration of ash?
Well done Watts Up With That, again you are in there before the MSM

This whole volcanic ash aviation article was posted by Dr. Ravetz in order to clarify a real world example of PNS. The idea is that this incident is supposed to meet all the criteria for PNS – facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent. Yet, when we deconstruct the volcanic ash incident in the framework of PNS, we find the problem the authorities are facing is a problem of their own making.
Facts are uncertain because, despite 19 years since the volcanic ash symposium, no science was ever done to ascertain them. The facts in question, as already pointed out, are the concentrations of airbourne volcanic dust that constitute a risk and the dataset of concentrations against engine wear. By ignoring this vital research, we are guaranteeing that facts will remain uncertain for ever and are now forced into an artificial zero tolerance argument.
So rather than being a methodology, PNS in this example turns out to be no more than an observation that “facts are uncertain” and we need to make a decision anyway. If we try and apply PNS to climate science, we don’t uncover any neglect to ascertain facts – quite the opposite. What we do find however, is that the assertions of “high stakes, values in dispute and decisions urgent,” are themselves in dispute. So PNS doesn’t apply even by its own definitions.
Maybe an appropriate example will be found that exactly fits into the PNS format, but I suspect that PNS will continue to recede into the distance becoming more and more emphemeral and irrelevant, much like “Aristotlean” science.

chemman (10:00:29) :
” * Facts Uncertain: how thin must the dust be, for it to be safe enough for flying?
* Values in Dispute: Regulators wanting safety at all costs, others needing to get flying now.
* Stakes High: Crippling costs to industry, versus big risks to aircraft and people.
* Decisions Urgent: Every day the immediate costs mount, and the long-term costs grow.”
Once again this isn’t about science but is a decision making methodology.

Give the man a cigar!
Don’t forget to included fear of litigation in the equation. The lawyers will line up like vultures if an aviation accident can be blamed on the volcanic ash — particularly if it involves a spectacular crash with major loss of life.

real data doesn’t count! Models are “science”. Anyone who questions them will be punished.

This whole mess is simply the application of that European invention the Precautionary Principle taken to some absurd extreme. Or to quote Will S. “Much To Do About Nothing”. (unless you happen to live in Iceland) It is not Post Normal or anything else except the orthodoxy of ignorance, all to often that is the Normal. That my friends has been with humanity since day one. It is simply just another example of a little knowledge being miss used and miss interpreted and therefore dangerous. That’s my cynical model of the world, my story and by god I’m sticking to it.

” Daniel H (10:16:43) :
[…]
Helmut Schnellerflugzoeg translates to “slow airplane””
Sounds like mock german; “Schnelles Flugzeug” would be “Fast airplane”. But nobody i know is called Schnellesflugzeug, largely because german surnames were defined and fixed before the invention of fast airplanes (you might find someone called Stahlbock which means “steel bracket”).

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267257/Iceland-volcano-eruption-UK-flight-ban-LIFTED-tomorrow.html
Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: ‘This is a European embarrassment and it’s a European mess. It took five days to organise a conference call with the ministers of transport.’
‘Europeans are still using a system that’s based on a theoretical model, instead of taking a decision based on facts and risk assessment.’
‘This decision (to close airspace) has to be based on facts and supported by risk assessment. We need to replace this blanket approach with a practical approach.’

Rob (10:01:09) :
“A BA 747 from Kuala Lumpur to Perth went through a cloud of volcanic ash from Java’s Galunggung volcano. There are several incidents where inflight loss of power has occured from volcanic clouds. Shortly after the BA incident, a SQ 747 returned to Singapore after losing two engines. In 1989 a KL 747 lost all four after Alaska’s Mount Redoubt erupted. These all were clearly tied back to the volcanic ash and the havoc they play on engines, windscreens, and the airframe in general. Certainly different from the TWA incident, though just as tense for the crew.”
You are not going to be able to avoid incidents where an eruption takes place (starts) close to a flight path, i.e. a close event takes place with a plane in flight, and they are flying through the plume. Those cases you mentioned are quite different from the current situation where the planes are thousands of miles away and the ash very dispersed.

James Delingpole: “I suggest we ground all passenger aircraft forever. On the Precautionary Principle”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100035261/why-the-precautionary-principle-always-works/

artwest
“Airlines, to say the least, have not always put passenger safety first when money is at stake so the general public would not be unwise to treat their views with some suspicion, even if they might happen to be right in this instance.”
Puh-lease. No airline would choose to compromise customer (not to mention pilot or aircraft) safety. The fact that the CEO of British Airways was along for the ride on a BA test flight demonstrates more than any other act that the airlines truly believe the risk is minimal or non-existent.

This was so obviously a massive overreaction from the start I am surprised that there was no more criticism.

Likely hoax.
This guy’s name: Helmut Schnellerflugzoeg
means “faster airplane” in German with a single letter letter change (change o to u in “zoeg”)

The BBC are being really weird about this issue – They are amazingly pro European Council (who have been exposed for what they are) and massively pro global warming.
Been watching their weather reports and they are SO pathetic. This is one of the major weather events of our lifetime and they arent even mentioning it.

Here’s my post-normal analysis of the problem:
Facts Uncertain: How best to hide the fact that models are wrong? Denial, cover-up or asserting the models are essentially correct, but need tweaking?
Values in Dispute: Will saying it’s safe to fly get more funding than dire warnings of doom if the airlines presume their flights?
Stakes High: If people figure out these models are wrong, how much sooner will most of them realize the climate models are also wrong? Mucho government funding is at risk.
Decisions Urgent: The sooner we cover up the fact that we’re wrong, the less chance more people will figure it out. How do we defuse this ASAP?

DirkH,
The Metair Dimona, NERC Dornier, SAFIRE Falcon and ATR, are all flying, or will be in the next few days to investigate the ash extent and compostition. In the meantime, plenty of data has been gathered by ground-based lidar and sun-photometers. The problems are that the risks of flying through the ash layers are still uncertain – especially for higher-speed in-situ aircraft that would give the most relevant data.

Bernd Felsche (09:49:38) :
SI agree that we must know at what levels ash are actually significant, but not just to engines but to all flight system (especially sensors).
A very good point. Airbus products (among others) rely heavily on sensors which must have unobstructed contact with the air — the sensors provide input to the computer doing the actual flying. How the computer interprets interference with pressure and temperature sensing determines what inputs it will send to the flight controls, and the pilots will become passengers until they can disengage the computer.
Ask any A-320 pilot how exciting the cockpit can get when that happens.

So, what is it about volcanoes that they might respond negatively to Solar Activity ?
A CME hits yesterday/today, and the volcano quiets down.
Coincidence due to lack of available water or the CME hit on Earth damped it down.
Haven’t heard from Piers Corbyn in a while.
The Icelandic volcano was in his latest update.

Matt’s NASA post about the damage sustained to the turbine engines on the DC8 in 200 is instructive. Insidious is the watch word. The problem is: nobody knows how bad the ash is at any location at any time. Its like an icing forecast, its always given as “potential for icing” If you have appropriate di-icing equipment you can fly into certain known icing conditions. But you can’t do it in aircraft without di-icing equipment. Not legally; you might and you might get away with it, you might get away with it several times. But there are plenty of accidents out there to review at your leisure about what happens when you don’t get away with it. There isn’t any “anti-ash” equipment – and we don’t know exactly how bad the ash is or where it is. We do know that there is no good way to tell you are in it until it is potentially too late. In the risk-averse (and litigious) societies we live in today – we just can’t send airplanes full of passengers up into the ash and hope for the best.

Leonard Weinstein (10:54:08) :
———-
I agree. Each case needs to be considered on its own merits, and there is no need for labels as post-normal or normal or pre-normal anything to discuss these measures. If volcanic ash is known to pose a significant risk to aircraft, and you have a large cloud of the stuff moving around and area with extremely heavy traffic, it makes perfect sense to restrict flights until you can sort out things and evaluate the situation.
Cases of plain insane behaviour promoted by scientists are older than the current CAGW nonsense. In the 40s and 50s, when the lobotomy craze swept the US and various other countries, thousands and thousands of people were lobotomized and left incapacitated (or dead) after the procedure, including the sister of one US president (JFK). That kind of butchery, given the primitive to non-existent knowledge about the brain by the practicioners, can only be described as barbaric. Some countries, as early as 1950, began banning lobotomy, saying the only thing it could ever accomplish was to transform some people with mental illnesses into clinical idiots. And yet the practice continued well into the 70s. And, amazingly, some of its cutting edge “researchers” got the Nobel Prize. It is now specifically banned in most places, including many US states. I wonder how close we came in the 70s to following the recommendations of those lunatics who were urging the release of massive amounts of stuff over the poles in order to save us from the coming ice age. Similar climate engineering proposals of all kinds keep popping up, always meant to do good. Some have already been put into action, such as the official inclusion of CO2 in the list of pollutants. Next in line is the proposal to bring carbon as a key player in the financial markets. I believe we are, as a species, totally insane.
But the flight restrictions? I don’t know what’s the big deal so far. The decision is up to the aviation authorities, and one can understand those with the power to make those decisions want to be very, very sure it is safe to lift them before they do. Wouldn’t you?

Bill – are you volunteering to fly the planes? 🙂
or at least have them fly over your house, so if the pilots have to bail out…

Zero tolerance?
Is there ever zero ash in the atmosphere?

When you put all your eggs in one basket… etc., etc., etc.,..
With 6.5 Billion ‘Carbon Units’ infesting the planet I can see where we might need a few more lawyers now than we did… ah, say 2000 years ago; but do we need as many as we currently have? I believe there is a direct correlation between AGW and the number of lawyers on planet Earth. One sure way to reduce CO2 is to recycle 99% of the lawyers on the planet (be they practicing or no) and make them CO2 Meter Readers at HazMat sites around the Globe.

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…
Who was it said that?
Oh. here it is:

Met Office?!?!
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/met-office-atmospheric-models-cause-international-chaos-why-am-i-not-surprised/

RajKapoor (08:20:17) :
Stuff and nonsense, people can’t make volcanoes erupt!

Ralph (11:28:45) :
“Why do you think the older 737s are still flying with only one rudder actuator (PCU), despite this failure mode ending up with several aircraft doing barrel-rolls and diving into the ground. They just make the pilots fly a little faster now, as they say this stops the aircraft turning upside down.”
The 737 ? With 47 fatal flights out of 76 million flights flown? It’s roughly the same as getting killed by lightning. If that’s the worst example you have . . .
I’m not a fan of big corporations, but I do recognize that airlines have every incentive to avoid fatalities.

What Are the Odds a single death may occur due to this issue?
Flying through volcanic dust at 32,000 feet may lower a persons odds of dying in a plane crash due to aircraft failure to the same odds as being struck by lighting twice in the same year. It’s about the same odds as being killed by a terrorist, yet we spend a trillion dollars a year on trying to beat those odds. I’ll take my chances of not being killed by a terrorist or being killed by the volcanic ash. My odds are better of something not happening to me than being struck by lighting twice in the same year for crying out loud. We need to stop wasting so much money on this nonsense. Your odds of dying due to a complete and total economic collapse are much greater caused by the paranoid schizophrenics running the world.
Knee-Jerk No Fly Ban Discredits Global Warming Alarmists
http://www.infowars.com/knee-jerk-no-fly-ban-discredits-global-warming-alarmists/

Today’s engines have a lot of sensors. A “flying into ash” profile should be easy to develop. Data from all these engines could be downloaded in real time to a central location for analysis and monitoring.
As for sampling the air, a few dozen piston craft could do it. They can be fitted with air filters.

Anent the Geothermal company
– I can’t find a company called “Icelandic Geothermal” per the emails in RajKapoor’s comment (but there is an “Icelandic Geothermal Company” company).
– neither Gunnar Skoleskar nor Hanfluss Janesbaer seem to exist (the supposed reporters in the emailed articles byline).
– “Professor David Sonnenbaum a climate specialist at the University of Berlin…” I think the University of Berlin is no longer the name of a German University. I think it’s called the Humboldt University of Berlin (I’m not sure about this though..) – oh yeah, and Sonnenbaum (Sun Tree) is not an unknown German surname. But for a climate specialist… it’s starting to get to be a bit much…

Austin (12:47:44)
Better make that a Lazy Susan of air filters, and a team replacing/shaking out the clogged ones.

Just been looking at the photos_ isn’t it beautiful?
God our planet is amazing!

Michael (12:42:34) : quote:
“And, no, again. You needed wind shear around Max-Q, too. They could still fly when cold, just had to make sure there was little wind shear that would create a bending moment on the SRB joints when under max stress due to the flight profile. ”
Really? So no wind shear at max Q = no Challenger explosion? You assert that bending caused the SRB joints to fail ?
Are you unaware of the video showing the black plumes of smoke coming from the area of an O-ring on the right SRB *while still on the launch pad* ?
Are you unaware of video showing the flame emitting from the hole in the external tank for several seconds prior to max Q?
And that this hole is exactly opposite the point on the SRB where the hot gasses were venting from the failed O-ring?
And that the hole was likely cause by the cutting-torch effect of the hot SRB gases impinging on the external tank?

We always say Orwell is rolling in his grave but in the case of the grounding of the airline industry over a non-threat, I think the person rolling with laughter in his grave is Orson Welles.

By the way guys, yesterday while looking at our crystal clear ash free skies over London I spotted a satellite (yes, in space) with my naked eyes and watched it for an hour. This was during the daytime. If there was ash, it would have reflected the sunlight bouncing off the satellite back into space and I would have not seen it at all.
I took a photo of it. It’s not as bright at I saw it with my eyes due to the lame camera lens…
http://img709.imageshack.us/i/img0395w.jpg/

OT
This study helps put the scale of you into perspective. I wonder what their carbon footprint is with all their off gassing combined. The planet is much bigger than people are willing to believe. Screw “It’s a small World”. It’s a huge world after all.
Census Of Marine Life Tries To Account For Thousands Of Microscopic Sea Creatures
“What ocean microbes lack in size they make up for in numbers. Marine census researchers calculate there are a “nonillion” of them.
Never heard of nonillion? Well, it’s a lot. It’s 1,000 times 1 billion, times 1 billion, times 1 billion.
Of course no one can really envision a number like that, so the researchers turned to the popular comparison measure — the African elephant.
A nonillion microbe cells, they say, is about the same weight as 240 billion African elephants — or the equivalent of 35 elephants for every person on Earth.
And that’s just the microbes.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/census-of-marine-life-tri_n_542652.html

stevengoddard (12:10:18) :
I don’t share other’s aversion to computer models, particularly when it comes to weather forecasting. Weather models are amazing in their accuracy for several days into the future.
The computer you are reading this on was designed using a number of very large computer models.

Many things are built using models. But we’re comparing apples to oranges, aren’t we? A computer model used for manufacturing gets tested each time something comes off the assembly line.
But in this case, the claims are being made the model overestimates danger from the ash. The real world is the test for the model and if the reports are accurate, then the model is wrong.
Some of our local TV stations have dedicated weather channels on cable. Often the meteorologists spend will time discussing the various model outputs and also how they tweaked the results from multiple models to get their forecasts. They never seem to rely upon model output alone or a single weather model.
Those models get tested daily (and tweaked regularly, I presume) but still give a divergent range of outcomes. Models have their limitations.

Read this and other to the point publications @: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/virtual-cloud.html

As am American, I am fed a steady diet of European Railway Superiority. Europe has trains EVERYWHERE! They go ANYWHERE! They can do ANYTHING! They are an unstoppable force of mass-transit awesomeness that silly wrong-thinking Americans are fools for ignoring!
So why aren’t trains and alternate flight paths joining forces to rescue the world on this? Judging from that map, it seems like trans-Atlantic flight paths between the USA and Portugal / Spain / France are clear and unaffected. Why can’t people fly in/out from there, and harness the Awesome Power of Rail to get to the rest of the continent currently inaccessible by air?
I would certainly imagine that this is happening. But I haven’t heard about it. All I see are poor stranded German Foreign Exchange Students living out the rest of their days in makeshift hobo-towns in various US international airport terminals.
Hrm. Foreign Exchange Co-Ed Hobos, here indefinitely. If that isn’t a reason for an Ace o’ Spades HQ get-together, I don’t know what is.

Allan M (12:31:06) :
Zero tolerance?
Is there ever zero ash in the atmosphere?
The earth is constantly being bombarded by debris from space. If you were daft enough to have a zero tolerance to “ash” you just wouldn’t fly, wouldn’t drive, wouldn’t walk and certainly wouldn’t go into space.
In terminator, the computers took over by redirecting nuclear weapons. Perhaps that scenario is far too obvious:- has the Met Office computer become sentient and become the “nanny super-being” deciding to save mankind from all risks?

Dr Ravetz,
As an initial supporter turned hardened critic, may I observe that:
1. You have been very opportunistic in using this widely publicized event to promote your PNS theory. Not one word you uttered however is of any value in resolving the matter. What value then your theory?
2. Stakes high, decisions urgent. Forgive me, but from whence comes the urgency? Are there starving people somewhere in the world cut off from food supplies grounded by the ash? Is there an outbreak of some deadly disease for which the vaccine cannot be airlifted safely? Is there a city encircled by some army intent on ethnic cleansing from which we must evacuate the innocent and can’t? I see the economic impact and the inconvenience alongside your self serving promotion of your theory, but surely you jest that the urgency your PNS theory proposes is exemplified by this current matter.
3. Might some scientists use this opportunity to “cheat” you ask? May I ask, what precisely does that question even mean? It has no more value than my asking you, if there is a thermometer in the forest but no one to read it, does the temperature change?
As for your post later in this thread:
“Also, what to (do) when the relevant science has been neglected, and all we have are Models”
To which I advise, if the relevant science has been neglected, then we have no means to build a model. If the relevant science has been neglected, then the only answer is to do the science. Which is precisely what is being done, and it is science upone which decisions must be made. Had the models that predicted disaster instead predicted that no harm would be done, would you have considered skipping the science and sending the planes into the air? The answer you choose implies either that you are a fool or that the models in the absence of science are, in fact, of no value in your opinion.
Your application of PNS in this case is hence falsified. I will have greater respect for you when you apply your theories in a practical manner and show that there was a beneficial outcome to the decision making process from doing so. Simply making observations for obervations sake proves nothing. At least in the case of a thermometer in the forest, we would know if the temperature changed.

OT: (CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64297

“Values in Dispute: Regulators wanting safety at all costs, others needing to get flying now.”
This is the same perversion of the precautionary principle as we have with climate change.
Regulators should never want safety *at all costs* because *at all costs* is impractical. It pushes regulators into the realm of deciding what people can and can’t do with their time and money rather than merely setting some minimum or maximum level of acceptable behaviour/quality/etc and letting people get on with it.
A true implementation of the precautionary principle *must* weigh the cost of doing nothing against the cost of doing too much but this is frequently forgotten by the loudest proponents of it. Any regulator that behaves in such an absolute way is not regulating an industry but running it. It has ceased protecting people from sharp practises and is instead engaging in social engineering, trying to shape consumer demand rather than simply being concerned with what is safe and what is not. It is also mistaken (as statism trying to appropriate free market thinking often is) that consumers are some magical bottomless pit of pennies who will accept whatever cost a regulator can impose upon them.
We are seeing the same kind of thing with water supplies in the UK. The European Union has insisted on new and needlessly stringent water supply standards of cleanliness despite existing levels of cleanliness being adequate enough. It is adding billions of pounds to the bill the consumer has to pick up. The cost vastly outweighs any perceived benefit.

I would say, fly them until they don’t stay there. That is the only scientific test that will yield valid results that can be used to show real tolerances. This assumes they can get the planes back in a piece for analysis, and also know what density and type of material they flew through.

A perfect mission for an telemetry instrumented UAV. An umanned, flying probe. Anybody have any?

I can’t understand what Ravetz is on about – why would scientists want to cheat? This seems like a non sequitur, and the quickness of Ravetz’ reaction to this in terms of his expertise raises an eyebrow as well.
Mind you the Met Office computer model is another matter. Most of us in the physical sciences would have sent a balloon up with the necessary kit to take an air sample and actually measure what’s up there (ahem).
Or is this procedure too hazardous in terms of OSH guidelines and the Precautionary Principle?
But no, they rely instead on a computer model designed after the Chernobyl disaster to tell the airlines when it’s safe to fly again.
Since the computer modelling would have to be based on atmosphere circulation dynamics and a sound understanding of volcanic activity, we are then left with the problem that as the Met Office has no skill in either of these two areas, (there is always hope for improvement) , then we accept their pronouncement not on the weight of evidence, but on the greater weight of authority, much as a primitive tribe would accept the authority of their chicken entrail reading witchdoctor.
No wonder there is such a persistent belief in AGW among the elite – for it too is the result of modelling.
Makes me suspect the elite have addled brains which are now replaced centrally located super-computers.
It’s sort of like a Quasi God situation, don’t think for yourselves, instead rely on the government super computer instead.

@ reason (13:47:08)
“So why aren’t trains and alternate flight paths joining forces to rescue the world on this? ”
That now seems to be getting a bit under way, under pressure from some rational critics, but the immediate impression is of a massive political organisation (the EU) mesmerised and paralysed by and in thrall to the dire predictions of its soothsayers – and by its own equally paralysing regulations. It has taken 5 (count ’em), 5 days for European transport ministers to have a videoconference. Not a surprise in Britain, where the major political focus is on the election, not on taking care of business.

ANYONE been looking at the IR satellite national and global scans?
Unless I’m “kooky”, I’m rather sure the “signature” of the “fine ash” is all OVER these scans.
Northern Hemisphere has completely “high altitude” dispersed about 5% of the ash.
This WILL cause cooling…within weeks.
Cold summer, bad winter.
Ugly.
Hopefully make a mockery of AWG.
Max

In 2008 around 35,000 people died in road accidents in the EU
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/statistics/2008_transport_mode.pdf
That’s around 100 deaths per day in tragic accidents. Better safe than sorry, we should ban all cars right ? …. no you get in your car, you take the risk.
Better safe than sorry is for pathetic socialists.
I bet that 95% of people would have happily signed a disclaimer and boarded the planes and why shouldn’t they take the risk on themselves ?
I bet the airlines would have rather risked 1 or 2 accidents than been automatically out a quick billion.
The choice should be the people’s to make, not some snivelling bureaucrat hiding behind a computer model and fat Government paycheck.
No one has the right to tell people what to do. No one has the right to ban all air traffic over Europe. Charge everyone an extra $20 to cover the 1 in 50,000 chance of a crash. Then Govt. doesn’t have to pay for clean up….. but leave it open to the people to decide.
There should have been open riots over this issue, there is no excuse for this kind of Govt. heavy handedness, its none of their business frankly.

You don’t need to know the science, you just have to follow the current logic:
Volcano erupts
Ash goes in the air
Planes will crash
Ban planes
Volcano erupts some more
More ash in the air
“EU experts” say situation is improving
Unban planes
Most science today appears to be what 40 years ago we called “magic”. No rules, no logic, no experiments, no empirical data. I’m reminded of those cardboard masks that used to be printed on the side of cereal packets, such that children could instantly be transformed into a wolf, or Batman, or the Lone Ranger. I must have missed the “scientist” one.

“reason (13:47:08) :
As am American, I am fed a steady diet of European Railway Superiority. Europe has trains EVERYWHERE! They go ANYWHERE! They can do ANYTHING! They are an unstoppable force of mass-transit awesomeness that silly wrong-thinking Americans are fools for ignoring!”
My colleague just bought an Opel because he was fed up with the ICE’s failing on the way from Berlin to Hamburg… they had a quite high failure rate this winter.
“[…]
All I see are poor stranded German Foreign Exchange Students living out the rest of their days in makeshift hobo-towns in various US international airport terminals.”
Great picture, thank you. If they are German, they probably already have installed some solar panels on their tents to be energy-independent in an ecological way… and are lecturing everybody else…

The fat lady has yet to sing….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8631144.stm

“Francisco (13:43:35) :
[…]
”One of the worries is that tiny environmental changes could have these effects.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7604188/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Global-warming-may-trigger-more-volcanoes.html
”
You know, first i thought, it’s a postmenstrual scientist but then i realized it’s a he. Okay, i thought, maybe alarmism is a kind of mental decay like Alzheimer’s and this is a grave case.
But actually i think it’s most likely they just gave this McGuire guy a suitcase full of dough and said “See what you can do for us” and this is what he came up with.
But a funny flavor of alarmism nevertheless, one for the exposition…

Pictures from a Finnish Air Force F-18 Hornet engine after the first ash clouds.
” Five of the air force’s Hornets were involved in a training exercise on the morning of 15 April, just hours before the imposition of airspace restrictions due to the ash cloud spreading from a major volcanic eruption in Iceland. ”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html

I’m uncertain what “the Local” is but they are way off-base with this statemant.
““The flight ban, which is completely based on computer calculations, is causing economic damage in the billions. This is why, for the future, we demand that dependable measurements must be available before a flight ban is imposed.””
To be fair, the Ash Detection Tool used by the Met Office isn’t NAME (a computer model). Its a “collection of polar orbiter and geostationary satellites” that use infrared sensors to distinguish volcanic ash from water in the atmosphere.
Met Office; Volcanic Ash detection Satellites
source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/ash_detection.html
However, if they can so clearly define the ash clouds and their likely trajectory…

Volcanic ash cloud: Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure
The Met Office has been blamed for triggering the “unnecessary” six-day closure of British airspace which has cost airlines, passengers and the economy more than £1.5 billion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html