“We sent ten Boeing 747 and Airbus 340 jets on transfer flights from Munich to Frankfurt,” Lufthansa spokesman Klaus Walther told the paper. The planes were moved in order to be in the most useful place once the ban is lifted, he explained.
“Our machines flew to a height of 24,000 feet, or around 8,000 metres. In Frankfurt the machines were examined by our technicians. They didn’t find the slightest scratch on the cockpit windscreens, on the outer skin nor in the engines.”
“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.”
Source: “the Local”
At left: the model from the Met Office used to look at dispersion.
The Nuclear Accident Model (NAME) was originally developed after the nuclear accident in 1986 at Chernobyl, which highlighted the need for a capability to predict the spread and deposition of radioactive material released into the atmosphere. The model has continued to be developed and is now applied to a wide range of atmospheric pollution problems, ranging from emergency responses to daily air-quality forecasts.
Over the years, NAME has been applied to a number of atmospheric releases, including radioactive releases, the Kuwaiti oil fires, major industrial fires and chemical spills, and two major volcanic eruptions that occurred in Iceland. Both of these eruptions resulted in aircraft having to be re-routed to avoid potentially dangerous ash clouds. An example of the volcanic ash guidance provided to the aviation community is shown in Figure 1.
Source: NWP Gazette
Here is what Professor Jerom Ravetz of Oxford has to say about the issue (via email):
Interim contribution to the Post-Normal Science debate.
Considering the effects of the Icelandic volcano on air transport, we seem to have:
- 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.
Is this analysis an invitation to scientists to cheat? Some of my critics would say so, and perhaps even some of my supporters as well!
h/t to WUWT readers Nigel Brereton and Bernd Felsche
I just read over all the comments and I’m more then surprised that no one questioned the accuracy of an excerpt from a rag called “the Local”. When was the last time any news agency checked their facts before publishing a truckload of canned alarmist drivels.
Admittedly, they don’t have the sexiest website but does everyone completely distrust the Met Office?
Why don’t the geniuses sequester the ash out of the air and problem solved. After all, they think they can sequester co2, something that can’t be seen out of the air. They can see the ash. Heck, it should be easier for them than co2.
😉
A computer wrong? Computers are smarter than people. How can it be wrong?
😉
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer (13:59:53) :
While it isn’t for me suppose I could or should defend Dr Ravetz, and I don’t wish to engage in a negative manner, I can’t help but pick out a couple of things in your last post.
“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?”
It’s probably just me, but I believe Dr Ravetz’ PNS theory is offering a process rather than a solution. Or a way to get there, not a road map to the solution to every problem.
“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.”
If you see the economic impact, then you’d see the that means less money for many things. Foreign aide is the first that comes to mind. Like it or not(to quote a world leader) money drives this world. Many of the 3rd world nations live off of the largess of the 1st world nations. We can debate the pros and cons of the situation, but that’s reality today. If the 1st world nations suffer a setback monetarily, the so does the rest of the world, be it in the form of money or food. This doesn’t even address the temporarily homeless people. If the flights stayed grounded for a month, do you think there would be a problem? What about the people that budgeted for a week in Europe only to find they had to fend for themselves for 2 weeks? There are a myriad of other RL scenarios that I haven’t touched. Suffice it to say, the world needs the transports up and moving and the sooner, the better.
“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?”
Given the predominant subject of this site, I’m surprised you asked.
“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………”
Well, if you don’t see the urgency, then, yes, that’s the solution. I really doubt the science would be any better than the models if it were completed in less than a month or two.
“Your application of PNS in this case is hence falsified. ……….”
I guess, it’s how you perceive it. You mentioned later about process, I think that’s his goal. OTOH, I’m not one that believes a person can apply a “one size fits all” in the “scientific” process. Just my 2 cents.
Dan (11:51:10) :
“ScientistForTruth (08:05:13) :
A quick read through the ICAO document reveals what ICAO means by detectable: Visible to the eye or visible on a satellite picture.
With volcanoes more or less active all the time, there is probably some traces of ash present most of the time. Invisible to the eye and the satellites.”
That doesn’t solve the problem. Any day someone might come ourt with a sensor that can detect (via satellite or wherever) much lower ash concentrations. You can’t set safety on the limit of detectability, otherwise, with progress, you are raising the bar forever – and you could arrive at a situation where you can operate nothing. You have to set safety based on an acceptable risk.
it’s reported in the last hour, at 11:32pm, in the UK, Monday April 19, 2010, that’s 3:30 pm, Monday, California time, that eruption went off again, an increase of ash now
report with video
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Volcanic-Ash-Air-Passengers-Warned-Of-Further-Delays-As-New-Ash-Cloud-Spreads-Towards-UK/Article/201004315608774?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15608774_Volcanic_Ash%3A_Air_Passengers_Warned_Of_Further_Delays_As_New_Ash_Cloud_Spreads_Towards_UK
photo from today 4/19/10 of ash in Porvaldseyri, Iceland
http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/01Se8hgc9pbmx/610x.jpg
At this rate sun going to sleep again?
http://www.solarcycle24.com/ prediction for April? maybe mean of SSN 12?
Regarding Professor Jerom Ravetz’s apparent comparison of this incident to parallel the case for CAGW, I must make a few comments.
First I must say “apparent” because the good Prof is not (to me anyway) clear in either current brevity or previous long winded comments. Does the man ever say clearly what he is thinking, or are statements of clarity to close to the willo-the-wisp of ever evasive truth?
Secondly I must say that I find his refusal to respond to comments directly (as Willis and Mr. Goddard successful and repeatedly do) somewhat irking, perhaps elitist.
And finally to the substance, the two; CAGW and this volcanic eruption are not remotely parallel for several reasons. In the volcanic situation people are unconvinced for a few weeks verses the possible loss of hundreds of lives. In the CAGW situation we do not know if we are driving in to a cliff, (terrible warming) or over the edge into an ice age, or neither. The consequences of worldwide action could be worse then the disease that may not exist.
Also there are KNOW benefits to CO2. There are no known benefits to flying into an ash cloud.
Finally the effectiveness of the precautionary action is known with the volcano. You will not crash if you do not fly. However with CAGW we have to fly, world economies have to keep going, and trying to backtrack the world to the 1940s would create world wide disaster and such stress could easily lead to world wide war.
This is the barest beginning of what is wrong with this comparison, and as previous comments stated, this is an engineering question and such decisions have been made for centuries, no need for “post normal anything.
Ravetz:
The old fashion idea is that science informs policy. This dispute is in the realm of policy, which perhaps involves the science but where decisions are made differently. I’m late to the discussion again, but as someone who has analysed PNS academic papers, some clarification and implications of Ravetz’s bit of fun are in order.
When the first head of the EPA banned DDT against the evidence of the science, he justified the decision by saying that the EPA decisions are not scientific but political, indeed science…has a role to play but the ultimate judgement remains political. Like it or lump it, the EPA was founded as a political organisation. Not so the Royal Society, not so, Nature, the AIP etc.
PNS analysis serves to encourage that the modes of political decision-making (in a democracy) invade the normal processes of sciences. So, in such situations (Vocanic Ash, FMD, AGW), instead of encouraging efforts to separate the science from the politics, PNS encourages politics to invade the science.
The PNS analysis argues that if a science is assessed as Post-Normal then the ‘Extended Peer Community’ should be mobalised in the processes of science – not just in the (policy) review of the science. This community includes all stakeholders, which include activist organisations.
We should be asking Ravetz how he feels about the IPCC citing non-scientific papers including activist propaganda. In such situations (Ash cloud, FMD, AGW) PNS analysis encourages the dismissal of scientific debate over the evidence-based of the science so as to focus on the value debate of vested-interest groups (according to their interests about safety, risk-taking etc). Whereas with this Ash Cloud, as with AGW, I would rather encourage the science to be as separate as possible from the politics — from the stake-holders — so as to make the answer to the question What are the Facts? What does the science tell us? easier to distingish from the stake-holders to make their decisions.
Scientific processes and institutions have long been established in order to guard against politicisation, with varying success. What we have seen at WUWT is good evidence of extensive corruption of these processes with AGW alarmism, corruption defended and supported by the ancient institutions of science. And corrupted in ways that PNS would encourages.
It is Mike Hulme, more than anyone else, who realised the value of PNS in this sort of corruption, and it is his use of PNS to eschew evidence-based debate that we should be asking Ravetz about. I am not sure he would find this so much fun. See more at Post-normal science and the corruption of climate science
Maybe I got it wrong and they didn’t bother to use the Met Office Volcanic Ash detection Satellites
source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/vaac/ash_detection.html
The excerpt has now been picked-up by the Telegraph; Tuesday 20 April 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html
“The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud that made Europe a no-fly zone and ruined the plans of more than 2.5 million travellers in and out of Britain.”
“A senior European official said there was no clear scientific evidence behind the model, which air traffic control services used to justify the unprecedented shutdown.”
…
“The International Air Transport Association (Iata), the airline industry trade body, also criticised the decision to close airspace based on theoretical modelling of the ash cloud.”
The UK Met needs to be disbanded and started over from scratch.
Their reliance on modeling is unprecedentedly bad.
They are the living breathing example, to some extent along with NOAA, and NASA, of what Science becomes when it abandons direct observations and relies upon computer extrapolations.
Sound familiar??
I sincerely hope some class-action lawsuits proceed from this overreaction!
Chris
Norfolk Virginia USA
Jeremy (14:29:30) : wrote
“In the West, we live in a modern ‘climate’ of fear and doom. It sure looks like a power grab by politician’s so that they can regulate everything – even the air we breathe. If it all sounds like a fundamentalist priest’s sermon about a “fiery hell” then do not be surprised because the aim of our politicians is the same: control through fear.”
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
It is pretty clear that we sheeple are being manipulated for profit and power.”
We are all laboratory guinea pigs for the global elite and every other social group construct out there that wields power, manipulated in every way imaginable. If you don’t think so, you have cognitive dissonance.
Another poster wrote;
It’s better to be safe than sorry. NO IT IS NOT! That saying only applies when common sense is applied. When common sense is not applied in the name of keeping us safe, it is called Tyranny.
stevengoddard (08:25:20) :
“The density of ash various tremendously spatially and temporally, with eruption parameters and wind changing constantly. The fact that a few cherry picked test flights made it though safely isn’t particularly interesting.
Challenger O-Rings worked fine, until they didn’t. The computer simulations are the best tool available.”
Steven. I might be a bit late to the party, but not sure of the relationship with O-Rings and computer models that you are implying. I understood that the Nasa and Morton Thiokol engineers new exactly what the temperature limitations of the O-Rings were and recommended not to launch because the OAT was well below the range that the O-Rings were designed and tested for. This was a case where a management decision overruled an engineers decision with obvious results. Not sure where computer models come into this story.
The problem with any computer software is knowing when not to believe it. The aviation industry in particular trains pilots not to trust instrumentation or onboard computers and to cross check with their own calculations and observations.
Apparently European travel insurance policies do not cover these ‘acts of god’ (or whatever they may call them), so there are shed loads of European tourists hanging about here in Oz, and I assume everywhere else, with no recourse to any funds from insurance to cover expenses or other losses. Poor buggers.
Luckily policies here in Oz do cover natural events. Probably because there are so many natural things down here that can stuff up any holiday, is my son’s theory.
With the quiet sun, volcanic activity, and ocean currents, more specifically El Nino ending and possible La Nina beginning, how much cooling will the earth see by the end of this year?
Joe Bastardi calls reversal of ocean cycles, low sun spot activity and an increase in volcanic activity the ‘triple crown of cooling’.
article with 4:33 video:
http://www.outloudopinion.com/2009/12/11/accuweather-forecaster-on-climate-change-it%E2%80%99s-ice-not-fire-you%E2%80%99re-going-to-be-worried-about-down-the-road/
An good post for WUWT might be Joe Bastardi giving his thoughts on potential cooling.
James Sexton;
Well, if you don’t see the urgency, then, yes, that’s the solution. I really doubt the science would be any better than the models if it were completed in less than a month or two>>
A month or two? Seriously? I thought this was “urgent”. Not an inconvenience, but an economic disaster. To be extended no doubt by the volcano going off repeatedly. If it is that urgent, that costly, and the science hasn’t been done yet, then by all means let’s take this opportunity to do the science.
Put half a dozen military aircraft right into the ash cloud. Over the ocean so if they crash they don’t land on anyone. Pilots can eject and they signed up for danger in the first place. Fly in the ash for hours. If the planes don’t crash they land and get disassembled. All moving parts get sent to labs for microscopic inspection for abnormal wear. Should be done by Friday. OK, counting all the paperwork January of 2023. Declare a state of emergency (you said it was urgent) so that the normal paperwork can be bypassed. Now its done by Friday. And it is science, not PNS.
PNS – I’ve thought about it. For what it’s worth, I think it is a mistake to introduce some “post” fangled framework to the study of climate. The scientific methods espoused in (most) science textbooks, and in at least what I was taught in school, serve pretty well. I’ve often found it strange that natural science historians (paleoclimatologists), when speculating about the future, throw away basic principles because they believe anthropogenic influences (specifically rapid, geologically speaking, increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide) are unprecedented. I think we know, or at least will find out for sure someday through observation, that plate tectonics isn’t always that slow to change “stable” climatic conditions (for example, what volcanoes can do).
As far as the ash plumes and air travel goes, seems like emergency response 101. First, do all you can to protect life and property. 2nd, assess the situation, and move on from there. No need for PNS.
As someone pointed out above, those in charge of the safety of air transit will be SUED if lives are lost due to an accident tied to the volcanism. So, they restricted air travel to protect lives (and their agencies’ arses). Next step, assess the situation. OF COURSE economics are impacted. We’ll see lawsuits regardless of real lives lost.
From an administrator of a professional pilot’s web site…
In the early morning hours of February 28, 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) DC-8 Airborne Sciences research airplane inadvertently flew through a diffuse plume of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hekla volcano.
There were no indications to the flight crew, but sensitive onboard instruments detected the 35-hr-old ash plume. Upon landing there was no visible damage to the airplane or engine first-stage fan blades; later borescope inspection of the engines revealed clogged turbine cooling air passages. The engines were removed and overhauled at a cost of $3.2 million.
Satellite data analysis of the volcanic ash plume trajectory indicated the ash plume had been transported further north than predicted by atmospheric effects. Analysis of the ash particles collected in cabin air heat exchanger filters showed strong evidence of volcanic ash, most of which may have been ice-coated (and therefore less damaging to the airplane) at the time of the encounter. Engine operating temperatures at the time of the encounter were sufficiently high to cause melting and fusing of ash on and inside high-pressure turbine blade cooling passages.
There was no evidence of engine damage in the engine trending results, but some of the turbine blades had been operating partially uncooled and may have had a remaining lifetime of as little as 100 hr.
There are currently no fully reliable methods available to flight crews to detect the presence of a diffuse, yet potentially damaging volcanic ash cloud.
Having sailed through volcanic dust, I can vouch that air intakes and sensors become blocked and become ineffective, but my reading of this current situation is that turbofan aircraft can be flown in this environment but component life is shortened.
RajKapoor
That is too funny.
Folks that fell for it…. You know who you are! It is still April.
As some of you noticed the names etc. were to far out.
Very nice, very funny.
The insurance companies are the ones making money. They are the ones with the no tolerance issue. You fly in ash, we no pay. Which is why we need to really think about climate change insurance. These money grabbing insurance businesses could shut the entire planet down so they don’t have to shell out their precious coinage.
Insurance companies basically own the house rules and the rest of us put money into their pot on a gamble. The stock holders know this is a good bet and so invest in insurance stocks (which are not a small portion of today’s stock market), which also means that as long as governments support such businesses, the stock market stays healthy. Take them off line as bad guys and the market could crash. The world however, gets fleeced. Unless of course you own insurance stock. Then you make money.
You can even look like a clown on Arctic Ice. It don’t matter. Being an insurance agency is like owning a gambling casino. There is no way you can lose, even if you look like a stupid idiot for sponsoring other stupid idiots to explore how thin the ice is. It will be a money maker for you.
I predict that one of these days, the only businesses that will be making money are insurance agencies, while the rest of us are too scared to take responsibility for our own mess on the floor.
Computer Model Consistency (?):
http://i.imgur.com/flMMU.gif
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/island_vulcano6000.gif
http://images.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2010/04/17/nube.gif
hmmm….
/dr.bill
davidmhoffer (17:16:04) :
James Sexton;
Well, if you don’t see the urgency, then, yes, that’s the solution. I really doubt the science would be any better than the models if it were completed in less than a month or two>>
“A month or two? Seriously? I thought this was “urgent”. Not an inconvenience, but an economic disaster. To be extended no doubt by the volcano going off repeatedly. If it is that urgent, that costly, and the science hasn’t been done yet, then by all means let’s take this opportunity to do the science.
Put half a dozen military aircraft right into the ash cloud. Over the ocean so if they crash they don’t land on anyone. Pilots can eject and they signed up for danger in the first place. Fly in the ash for hours. If the planes don’t crash they land and get disassembled. All moving parts get sent to labs for microscopic inspection for abnormal wear. Should be done by Friday. OK, counting all the paperwork January of 2023. Declare a state of emergency (you said it was urgent) so that the normal paperwork can be bypassed. Now its done by Friday. And it is science, not PNS.”
lol, again, far be it from me to try and defend Dr. Ravetz or the PNS assertion. I’m just sayin……
Anyway, yes, your scenario works for the immediate. But, what of moving into the future? Here’s mine, state of emergency is declared, paperwork and extraneous bs bypassed. All things seem a go. And they do. Later, only to find, the flaps work as effective as Toyota breaks for one reason or the other. Suddenly, we’ve got what??? I’ll restate, even given a month or two(regardless of the urgency), the science wouldn’t be anymore reliable than the models. They could give us probablys, and shoulds, but that’s all.
Maybe I’m looking at it differently than many, but Dr. Ravetz is attempting to give science a different, but needed, way of looking at things. “Scientists”, have given us a mess that we are dealing with regarding the CAGW theory. Charitably, one could say the “scientists” didn’t realize the consequences of their pontificating and the effect it had on society. Or, if one is less charitable, one could say there are a bunch of ideologues grouped into a strain of “science” that is manipulating decision makers of this world. Either way, the societal impact of the CAGW alarmist group is unmistakable and needs to be considered when a scientist states unequivocally something or another(it happened before PNS). Such as the icecaps holding the earth in or clean air is accelerating global warming.
In the end, nothing replaces ethics, but in the absence of such an antiquated notion, some guidelines or paths must be in place for our less ethical friends.
Aside from the Met Office coming under even more scutiny for
willfully swapping speculative computer modeling for direct
parts per million (ppm) particulate observations, the BBC provides:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8621779.stm
and points out the first level of “who pays for it”, and why.
50 F here in North East Texas this morning.
Cold, wet, foggy.
Wheat crop looks huge, go CO2.
We make the earth some good breakfast food, hot or cold.
Nothing like a little volcanic dust to help crops grow, thanks iceland.