Drone bid to shut down Heathrow grounded

From Adelaide Now

Alistair Smout, Reuters

September 13, 2019 8:29pm

Climate-change activists who had hoped to bring Europe’s biggest airport, London Heathrow, to a standstill have found instead that it was their drones that struggled to get off the ground.

Last December, reported drone sightings near London’s Gatwick airport prevented hundreds of flights taking off, and the Heathrow Pause group aimed to cause similar chaos on Friday to put pressure on the government to take tougher steps to reduce carbon emissions.

But Heathrow said it remained “open and fully operational despite attempts to disrupt the airport through the illegal use of drones in protest nearby”.

“We agree with the need for climate change action but illegal protest activity designed with the intention of disrupting thousands of people is not the answer,” a spokeswoman said.

A Reuters photographer saw activist James Brown, a blind Irish former Paralympian, being arrested. He held the drone aloft rather than trying to fly it and handed himself in to police at Terminal 2.

Heathrow Pause said it had completed one flight with a toy drone but other attempts had been less successful. It posted a live stream of its early-morning activities near the airport online, and said its drones had suffered from signal jamming.

“We’ve got a little technical glitch. The drone isn’t flying,” an unidentified campaigner says in the video, as another holds a drone in the air.

Determined to avoid disruption, police invoked extra powers to move people away from the area around the airport until Sunday morning.

“The order has been implemented to prevent criminal activity which poses a significant safety and security risk to the airport,” they said in a statement.

On Friday, they arrested two men at the airport on suspicion of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance, and said seven others had been arrested since Thursday.

Full story here

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “Drone bid to shut down Heathrow grounded

  1. It would be cool for the military to engage tresspassing drones in a dogfight using hotshot operations drones and pilots.

  2. Charge them with “Terrorism”, because that is what it is…What if a plane took off at the same time that one of
    these Eco-Terrorists lost control of their Drone ? 200-300 dead ?

    • Could a small unweaponized drone taking down a large commercial airliner? Possible but not probable.
      Add some explosives to the drone and its a different story.
      Airliners are designed to accept damage from bird strikes during flight. One drone would be shrugged off. A flock of drones being ingested into an one engine or more could cause a loss of flight, but these yahoos aren’t that sophisticated nor coordinated.

      • These “yahoos” are the same caliber of people who flew real aircraft into the WTC and brought down the Twin Towers. If nothing else, their “nuisance” give more-capable terrorists ideas, like those who attacked Saudi Arabia with a swarm of drones over the weekend.

        Flying drones at airports, over airports, and in/over airport approaches should be treated as terrorism and as a felony with serious time, no bail, no parole, and no leniency.

  3. “We agree with the need for climate change action”

    So are they going to shut down? Or replace 747s with electric planes?

    Or are they just virtue-signalling for the media?

    • My thought was everyone who believed that at Heathrow should be fired, to save them from being traumatized from working in an industry that contributes so much to global warming.

      It would be for their own good.

      • I’m doing my part to help the Heathrow staff keep their CO2 emissions down. I will not be visiting England until they get rid of the leftists running most of the country.

    • Replace planes? Certainly. Solar powered dirigibles would do quite nicely.

      All UN officials, politicians, and environmentalists should be banned from airplanes and use solar powered dirigibles.

  4. What a bunch of hypocrites! Every aspect of a drone is possible due to fossil fuels and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    • Also hypocrites because they’re doing exactly what they’re complaining about as the people they’re complaining about are doing. When you want to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere but you’re a completely useless buffoon, i.e. demonstrator or politician, the formula is quite simple – avoid calculators and demand that someone else does it.

      …. and they wonder why nothing happens, but that’s OK, even more reason to make nothing happen stridently. Doing nothing about a problem that doesn’t exist is big business these days. How did we as a species get here?

      I landed at Heathrow at 10:40 am Friday. No one seemed to even know about it.

  5. “We agree with the need for climate change action…” Silly thing to say. That will be used against Heathrow from now on. I wonder if Heathrow management has actually formally agreed that this is their position.

    • An airplane load of innocent people will just be their start.
      They won’t be happy until 7+ billion people are gone from the Earth.
      The funny thing is… they see themselves as part of the 5% survivors.
      Liberals clearly don’t understand statistics.

    • So, putting a drone in the flight path of an approaching 747 full of people is a nuisance?

      Surely they could have said “conspiracy to commit mass homicide”?

      Or since 911 was a terrorist act, surely this was a conspiracy to commit terrorism.

      • I think to avoid the very serious consequences of such a charge, their lawyers told them to announce they would fly the drones in the exclusion zone and not in the flight paths, thus presenting themselves as protesters, not terrorists creating a public danger.

        If they had actually succeeded in flying in front of a aircraft that caveat would be nullified and they would indeed be charged with terrorism. Taking a functioning drone into the airport and announcing one’s intention to fly it is sufficient to be charged with intent.

  6. Screwing around with low-and-slow jet planes full of people will someday end in tragedy.

    All because some wooly-headed loon thinks CO2 is going to kill him/her/it.

  7. The drone is made of plastic, with plastic covering all the wires, the remote is plastic, and the batteries are made by mining materials from the ground, which is done so by the use of FOSSIL FUELS… A few questions: Are they Vegan? Do they wear vegan friendly clothes, do they have solar panels, do they drive to work? Do they drive or use fossil powered vehicles at work? Do they have a gas boiler at home? Do they refuse to buy anything with a plastic cover? Do they use public transport (fossil fuel powered) Finally, what proof do they have that its only Co2 causing climate change (al gore and his friends do not count as proof) I have so many other questions Lol

    • Don’t you realize they have a sacred dispensation to be above normal environmental criteria that the rest of the people are judged by. Just think of the nazi ss who believed they are above any judgment.

    • Sunny, these are all good, rational questions, but they miss the point – these loons are either not rational, in which case it is useless to ask them such questions expecting a rational answer, or they do not care about facts or their hypocrisy, because they are politically motivated by a ‘higher cause’. You and I are rational, but we can make the mistake of assuming that rationality is an effective strategy in these kinds of situations, with these kinds of people. I appreciate your otherwise constructive comments, but in this case I beg you to think again.

      • these loons are” …… in dire need of a “WHAP” ….. right side their head, …. to get their attention.

        One at a time, …… “WHAP” ….. “WHAP” ….. “WHAP” ….. cause iffen they won’t listen,

        they will just hafta feel.

  8. What’s more of a problem, human-caused Climate Change, or the shutting down of a major international airport?

    Answer: Shutting down an airport is the bigger problem, because there is no evidence human-caused Climate Change even exists, much less is a problem, big or small.

    The authorities shouldn’t put up with any of this. If they do, then they can expect more of it. The thing to do is for the authorities to demonstrate right out of the gate that they are not going to put up with such disruptions. In plain English, that means putting people in jail.

    • If anyone read the entire story that was linked, they would have discovered this was a splinter group from the Extinction Rebellion. They never intended to fly the drones above shoulder height. These guys should be treated like any other protester who interferes with the right of others to conduct their business in an orderly manner. Describing them as terrorists or other hyperbole does not advance the discussion. Skeptics need to be better and more reasonable than alarmists on every level.

      • “They never intended….”, what a tripe you are spinning. The media is full of quotes from these guys whose aim is to disrupt air operations by making it too dangerous. It was only a few months ago someone shut down gatwick flying their drone in the airspace.

        They are using fear of a major disaster to force authorities to stop flying.

        The discussion can only be advanced when all parties pull their heads out and speak the truth. These are not just any other protester, they are bloody terrorists willing to risk everyone’s life. They should be hunted down and locked up for life.

      • When people who say there are too many other people living om the planet then take action to threaten the lives of hundreds of other people…

        Take them at their word. Their actions back it up.
        This was attempted mass murder.

      • they would have discovered this was a splinter group from the Extinction Rebellion.

        Jim Veenbaas, …… were/are you per chance a member or part of that “splinter group”?

        Sure as ell sounds like your are, …… offering excuses for such dastardly actions.

      • They were, by their own admission, neither trained nor experienced in drone flying, or guiding any radio controlled object. They were therefore not competent to fly these machines, and unable to provide any assurance that they could deliver their aim of flying them safely at head height away from operating aircraft. On the day they got one in the air but failed to get the other one working.

        They do not appear to have had the terrorist intention of killing someone, but they were certainly not responsible protesters making a careful and deliberate point.

        I believe that the best description of them is immature humans with an obsession. This fixation has caused them to lose all sense of proportion and act in a manner which could have been dangerous if they had been more competent.

      • Never above shoulder height? So they were attempting to commit mayhem against the pedestrians?
        A radio controlled drone can do serious harm to a persons head, which is about shoulder height from the ground.
        On the upside, drones flying at that height could be brought down with a tennis racket.

  9. The war on fossil fuels and the CO2 that is produced by using them is a mistake.

    The observation is that, at least since it has been accurately measured worldwide, WV has been increasing about TWICE that expected from temperature increase. Therefore, for periods of a few years or more, WV increase has been driving temperature increase, not the other way around. Calculations are provided in Section 8 of my blog/analysis (click my name).

    Typical relative IR absorbing ability of the greenhouse gasses water vapor and CO2 at zero altitude are shown in this graph calculated by Spectracalc/Hitran using Quantum Mechanics: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECWhyyDUYAA1P89?format=jpg&name=medium
    http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php . At zero altitude, on average, there are about 10,000/410 ≈ 24 H2O molecules for each CO2 molecule. The relative absorb/emit of H2O vs CO2 can be determined by the ratio of sum of the line lengths for each on the Hitran graph. The ratio of the line-length sums divided by 24 calculates that each H2O molecule is about 5 times as effective at absorb/emit of thermal (LWIR) radiation as a CO2 molecule.

    The tiny % increase in ground level absorbers from increased CO2 is countered by the large % increase in emitters to space above the tropopause with the end result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Climate sensitivity is not significantly different from zero.

    Any climate model which assumes CO2 affects temperature and does not include an independent input for water vapor is fundamentally wrong.

    • Dan Pangburn
      September 15, 2019 at 3:05 pm

      Interesting comment…what do you think has been driving the increased water vapour content you refer to.

      • Alastair:

        6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).

        Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
        _______________________

        CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
        by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

        All the evidence is included in the Excel spreadsheet.

        The key question is:
        What drives Nino34 SST’s, in addition to the Sun, and how is it modulated – i.e. what drives El Nino and La Nina events?

        • ALLAN MACRAE
          September 15, 2019 at 9:46 pm

          Thanks Allan…I had missed your excellent June 15 piece on WUWT.

        • 6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases

          As a matter of fact, with every April to September “warming” of the SH ocean water, …. atmospheric CO2 increases …. as is explicitly defined by the Keeling Curve Graph and the Mauna Loa Record.

          Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.

          Those “other factors” may also cause ….. pigs to fly, ….. but no one has witnessed that, …. either.

          • SCC,
            It appears your thinking is a bit confused. April-Sept is SH winter with cooling and NH growing season with attendant decline in CO2 as it is consumed by photosynthesis. A quick look at the Mauna Loa data shows high in April/May, low in Sept/Oct.

          • Dan Pangburn,
            You are simply mimicking the “junk science” claims of the CAGW whacko “warminists”.

            Shur nuff, its easy and simple for you to believe the “claim” that Spring and Summer (May-Sep) photosynthesis by the “green” biomass activities in the Northern Hemisphere is sucking an average of 6 ppm CO2 out of the atmosphere.

            But, Dan Pangburn, you have to LITERALLY be lying to yourself by claiming that the “cold” in/of your refrigerator-freezer PREVENTS you dead biomass “foods” from rotting and decomposing, …… while at the same time, ……. you, Dan Pangburn, are claiming that the “cold/freezing” in the Northern Hemisphere’s Fall and Winter season (Sept-May) actually CAUSES and EXACERBATES the rotting and decomposing of dead biomass causing the outgassing of an average of 8 ppm CO2 into the atmosphere.

            So Dan, explain why you believe your refrigerator prevents/retards dead biomass from spoiling (decomposition)…… and that nature’s refrigerator exacerbates/increases dead biomass spoiling (decomposition).

          • SCC,
            Apparently you are unaware of my on-line research or you would know that I not only fully refute the “junk science claims of the CAGW whacko warminists” but have discovered how humanity actually has contributed to the average global warming that has taken place since the depths of the LIA. The ‘warminists’ got it wrong at the outset by the mistake of guessing that CO2 increase causes global warming.

            When you state things like “April to September “warming” of the SH ocean” it just ruins your credibility. April to September is SH fall & winter. Do you really want to claim the SH oceans get warmer while SH is getting colder?

            SH oceans getting colder, increases their absorbing CO2 actually augmenting the decline in atmospheric CO2 from increased photosynthesis in the NH.

            The people who write papers on climate are starting to support the ‘skeptical position’. Pierre Gosselin found these in 2018: https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm
            And these in the first part of 2019: https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/17/consensus-200-new-2019-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarmism

            Click my name to learn more about what I have discovered which includes:

            Multiple compelling examples that demonstrate that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

            The water vapor molecule population decline with altitude. It results in upward directed radiation from WV molecules getting more and more directly to space with increasing altitude.

            Thermalization which goes on continuously throughout the atmosphere and allows radiation energy absorbed by CO2 to be shared with, i.e. redirected to, WV molecules where part of it gets emitted to space.

            That most of the radiation from molecules above the tropopause is from CO2 molecules and more CO2 molecules means more CO2 molecules above the tropopause radiating to space which produces cooling above the tropopause. The increased cooling by CO2 molecules above the tropopause apparently compensates for the tiny amount of increased warming of more CO2 molecules at ground level. The result is that CO2 does not, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate.

            That the human contribution to warming is from increased water vapor which is intrinsically self-limiting; therefore GW is self-limiting. The increasing WV has been countering the temperature downtrend from quiet sun that would otherwise be occurring.

          • Dan Pangburn – September 17, 2019 at 8:33 pm

            When you state things like “April to September “warming” of the SH ocean” it just ruins your credibility.

            OOPS, … MY BAD, …… musta “copied & pasted” wrong phrase … and proofreading didn’t catch it.

            But Dan P, … that was an un-intentional mistake on my part which I know better than to do, ….. whereas you have made two (2) un-intentional mistakes simply because of your ignorance of the biology of the natural world.

            The 1st one being, to wit:

            Dan Pangburn – September 16, 2019 at 3:26 pm “…… and NH growing season with attendant decline in CO2 as it is consumed by photosynthesis.

            The 2ndt one being, to wit:

            Dan Pangburn – September 17, 2019 at 8:33 pm “SH oceans getting colder, increases their absorbing CO2 actually augmenting the decline in atmospheric CO2 from increased photosynthesis in the NH.

            Pangburn, ….. photosynthesis by the “green” growing biomass in the Northern Hemisphere (mid-April thru mid-September) contributes little to nothing to the per se, summertime decrease in atmospheric CO2, ……. SIMPLY BECAUSE, ……. the microbial decomposition (rotting) of the dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere (mid-March thru late-September), ……. begins before and lasts longer than the photosynthesis activity …….. and therefore outgasses as much or more CO2 into the atmosphere than the photosynthesis ingassing removes from the atmosphere.

            And don’t forget, Pangburn, the aforenoted summertime biomass “ingassing/outgassing” of CO2 actually begins in mid-January in the southern latitudes of the US ….. and progresses northward toward Alaska/Canada by late-May to mid-June. Then, about Sept 1st, as wintertime sets in, the aforenoted ingassing in the northern latitudes ceases and outgassing slows to a trickle, and that progresses slowly southward to the southern latitudes as wintertime takes hold.

            And Pangburn, it is biological impossible for there to be enough NH “wintertime” microbial decomposition of dead biomass to cause the outgassing of an average 8 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2.

            Please note this Keeling Curve Graph w/annual or bi-yearly (seasonal) cycling graph
            https://image.pbs.org/poster_images/assets/141482456.jpg.resize.710×399.jpg

            Atmospheric CO2 decreases an average 6 ppm from mid-May thru Sept of each calendar year, ….. and then CO2 increases an average 8 ppm (6 ppm + 2 pm) from end of Sept to mid-May of the nest calendar year, ….. and it has been doing that “steadily & consistently” for the past 62 years, according to the ML Record. The ocean waters have been warming ….. which accounts for the average 2 ppm yearly increase in CO2.

            And Pangburn, iffen you had been reading my postings on various Forums during the past 20+- years, …. I would not have to be repeating things for the benefit of your “natural world” education.

            Cheers, …… Sam C, ….. AB, Biological and Physical Science, GSC 1963.

          • SCC,
            All you had to do was click my name to discover that my “natural education” has been substantially augmented.

            Although biology is not my main field of interest, I grew up as an Iowa farm boy who managed to pick up a lot about it. I am aware that CO2 consumption and production have been pretty much in balance since the last coal seam was laid down about 75 million years ago.

            As to the annual cycle in the Mauna Loa data, I really don’t care what causes it. The fact that most of the land area is in the northern hemisphere supports the hypothesis that photosynthesis is driving the annual CO2 cycle. Perhaps you have some data to support your hypothesis. I only responded to your post to point out your obvious mistake which you have now recognized.

          • Dan Pangburn September 18, 2019 at 12:01 pm

            The fact that most of the land area is in the northern hemisphere supports the hypothesis that photosynthesis is driving the annual CO2 cycle. Perhaps you have some data to support your hypothesis.

            GEEEZE WHIZ, ……. Dan Pan, I am utterly astonished that you would make such a request given the fact that I had assumed you were both mature (old) enough and sufficiently learned/educated to understand the need and value of “refrigeration” in present day society. Of course, your problem could be an early mis-nurtured one involving the lack of a mental attribute, namely, “association-recall”.

            Anyway Dan, ….. you want supportive data and/or expertly offered “expert” opinion to support my scientifically factual opinion, …. which is not only attested to, agreed with and recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture as well as 99% of all Public Health Organizations world wide, …. here ya go, …… to wit:

            United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety

            Excerpted from: Refrigeration and Food Safety

            Refrigeration slows bacterial growth. They are in the soil, air, water, and the foods we eat. When they have nutrients (food), moisture, and favorable temperatures, they grow rapidly, …..

            Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures between 40 and 140 °F, the “Danger Zone,” …..

            A refrigerator set at 40 °F or below will protect most foods.

            GETTA CLUE, …… Dan Pan, …… wintertime in the NH is Mother Nature’s “refrigerator/freezer”.

            Now, …. Dan Pan, …. you can avert your eyes and your mind to my above commentary, …. but all that will do is maintain your current reputation and “good standing” in the “league of junk science believers”.

            And ps, Dan, ….. the verbiage that you post hereon is what I’ll consider as your “natural education”.

          • SCC,
            It is getting annoying that you keep harping on what just about everyone in the developed world is fully aware of. I assumed you would get the message by my ignoring your snarky, insulting comments. Apparently that was too much to expect.

            It is disappointing that you have no data to support your hypothesis that the cooler SH oceans are why the CO2 level declines. That means it is just your opinion.

            At https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/18/hemispheric-ocean-temperature-sensitivity/ Willis states that the temperature change, peak to peak in the southern oceans is 4.7 K (8.46 F°). I doubt that is enough to account for all of the CO2 annual change.

            Your opinion would also mean that the global CO2 would increase when the NH oceans warm during the NH summer. Of course there is less ocean in the NH but the temperature range in NH oceans is about twice the temperature range in SH oceans.

            Since decay goes on spring, summer and fall while active photosynthesis goes on for only about half that time, CO2 consumption rate by photosynthesis has to be about twice CO2 production rate from decay to balance out.

          • Since decay goes on spring, summer and fall while active photosynthesis goes on for only about half that time, CO2 consumption rate by photosynthesis has to be about twice CO2 production rate from decay to balance out.

            DP, very little decay in the fall (Sept-Oct) because the dead biomass is too dry and nighttime temperatures are too cool or cold.

            And ps, DP, sorry bout that but, the Spring and Summer CO2 consumption rate is LESS THAN one third (1/3) that of CO2 production rate.

            Only on good days, does an average 8 hours of photosynthesis occur (Sunshine hours), thus only 8 hours of ingassing of CO2 occurs.

            But on every day, 24 hours of each day, microbial decay outgasses CO2, ….. plus the fact, DP, the “green” growing biomass, as a result of respiration, also outgasses CO2 24 hours of each day.

            DP, you can believe it ….. or not, …. to wit:

            Professor Atkin said plants were previously thought to respire five to eight times the carbon that is produced by human activity.

            However, the new findings suggested that number could be much higher.

            “Each year the burning of fossil fuels releases around 5 to 8 billion tons of carbon … so the respiration by plants is somewhere approaching 11 times that in our new estimate,” he said.
            Read more here

            And here, DP, see iffen you can correlate these CO2 numbers with NH photosynthesis activity.

            Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
            @ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

            CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May

            year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
            1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
            1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
            1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
            1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
            1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
            1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
            1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
            1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
            1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
            1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
            1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
            1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
            1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
            1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
            1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
            1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
            1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
            1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
            1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
            1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
            1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
            2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
            2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
            2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
            2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
            2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
            2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
            2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
            2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
            2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
            2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
            2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
            2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
            2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
            2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
            2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
            2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
            2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
            2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38 (lowest CO2 ppm in 2017)

            2018 5 411.24
            2019 5 414.66

      • AB,
        I did extensive research into where the extra WV comes from. It is documented in Section 9 (click my name). Of the sources I considered, the WV increase results mostly (about 86%) from irrigation increase. I also looked at comparing WV and temperature with results shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2TdkhoVYAAd_g4.jpg which corroborates Allen Macrae’s work showing el Nino as the initial driver. My conclusion is that the short term fluctuations are driven by el Nino and long term trend has been driven mostly by irrigation. In any event, WV increase and therefore GW are self-limiting.

        Some have argued against irrigation, pointing out that 71% of the planet is covered by water. Counters to this are: that is what made the planet warm enough for life to evolve and we are addressing only the increase from there, most of the natural WV comes from the tropics, and irrigation adds WV at locations where WV was low. Also, the WV increase correlates with irrigation increase with both showing a substantial upturn around 1960.

        • Dan Pangburn
          September 16, 2019 at 4:16 pm

          Thanks Dan.
          Let’s assume that life really started to evolve about 600 million years ago. I think that warming and cooling oceans (for whatever reason; possibly orbital cycles) controlled ocean temperatures and probably thus WV since then and up until recent times. However, I do accept that irrigation has increased since the 1960’s but surely the total area of the globe covered by irrigated fields and dams is still pretty small. I just find it a bit hard to accept that this small increase in water use and storage can have caused global WV to increase so much. But maybe/probably I’m missing something?

          • Alastair Brickell – September 17, 2019 at 5:48 am

            I just find it a bit hard to accept that this small increase in water use and storage can have caused global WV to increase so much. But maybe/probably I’m missing something?

            Alastair, …… I really don’t think you are missing much, especially iffen you have a good understanding of this, to wit:

            The influence of – clouds, fog and mists are all forms of water vapor which have collected into larger “droplets” of water and are visible to the naked eye, …. and are the same as humidity which cannot be seen with the naked eye. And that is because of the density of the larger “droplets” of water and the fact that any source of visible light that strikes them will be absorbed more readily and/or reflected away from them more easily.

            But now the effects of clouds, fogs and mists relative to incoming solar energy and re-emitted energy from the earth’s surface ….. are quite different (extremely more pronounced) than the effects of humidity. Again, this is because of their density (mass).

            Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface. And the best way to explain this is by examples.

            Night time cloud cover or fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from cooling off as fast because they per say buffer the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface.

            Day time cloud cover or morning fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from warming up as fast because they per say buffer the incoming solar energy.

            And this conundrum is what confuses the ell out of scientists who are trying to calculate “average surface air temperatures” ….. and which wrecks havoc with their Climate Modeling Programs ….. because it is such an important but indeterminate variable.

            And thus, because they cannot accurately calculate the effect of the aforesaid radiated energy transfers, …… nor can they accurately calculate the effect of the bidirectional molecule-to-molecule conduction of thermal energy between the surface and the atmosphere, ……they completely ignore and omit said from any of their calculations …… and attempt to CTA by blaming everything on atmospheric CO2.

            Cheers, Sam C

        • Dan Pangburn – September 16, 2019 at 4:16 pm

          Of the sources I considered, the WV increase results mostly (about 86%) from irrigation increase.

          My conclusion is that the short term fluctuations are driven by el Nino and long term trend has been driven mostly by irrigation.

          …….. most of the natural WV comes from the tropics, and irrigation adds WV at locations where WV was low. Also, the WV increase correlates with irrigation increase with both showing a substantial upturn around 1960.

          Dan Pangburn, and just how did you determine the difference between the total volume of water loss due to the evaporation from irrigation or irrigated farmland …….. and the total volume of water loss due to the transpiration from all the non-farmland “green” growing biomass.

          To wit:

          Process of How Trees Absorb and Evaporate Water via Roots and Leaves

          That beneficial loss of water from plants is called transpiration.

          All “green” growing plants transpire water into the atmosphere.

          Ninety percent of the tree’s water is eventually dispersed and released from leaf stomata.

          A fully grown tree may lose several hundred gallons of water through its leaves on a hot, dry day.

          Evaporation of water from the upper parts of trees especially leaves but also stems, flowers and roots can add to a tree’s water loss.

          A single acre of forest land, during the course of a growing season, can add 4 tons of biomass but uses 4,000 tons of water to do so.

          Read more @ https://www.thoughtco.com/process-of-using-water-by-trees-1343505

          Pangburn, is the water evaporation from the irrigated farmland ….. that much greater than ….. what the water transpiration was from the original field/forest land?

  10. Why is it illegal to fly a drone in commercial airspace? So you don’t scare passengers or flight crew, or damage or even crash a plane. They are deliberately using that threat for a political purpose. I’m sure there is a word for that action, but the police have forgotten to apply it. (Hint: It’s not mean tweeting.)

    If they were really serious about making a bloody statement, they’d walk around the aircraft and try to become FODs. Pun intended.

  11. They could have just glued themselves to the drones, then run around with their arms open, making drone noises.

  12. This seems like an unimaginably stupid tactic, even for “climate-change activists,” given the recent drone attack in Saudi Arabia.

    • this was PRE saudi event
      but it may well have given them the idea
      though drones for warfare use is all ussa darpa mil led really.
      you guys started it..and monkey see, monkey do

      • Not even close! The first use of controllable flight hardware used for military purposes were kites circa 500 AD.

  13. The data link between commercial drones and the controller are not encrypted. Thus the drone/UAV makerss are also selling government Law enforcement and military agencies the data link detection and collection equipment to use to find and identify drones operating anywhere they can receive the signal.

    For example here from DJI:

    “Drone Detection Platform –
    Rapidly identify UAV communication links, gathering telemetry data such as flight status, paths, and other information in real-time. This monitoring data stream helps users make an informed response as soon as possible.
    https://enterprise.dji.com/government?site=brandsite&from=nav

    The Detection platform is about the size of a carry-on bag, self-contained, and battery powered. The operator simply opens it up, deploys the antennas, turns it on like a tablet computer and then it collects and analyzes any UAV datalinks it detects in the common 2.4 Ghz and 5 GHz bands. Stores all the data for later use for prosecution. It shows where any all drones are (becasue the drones are constantly sending GPS telemetry back to the controller) and it the controller is reporting its location to UAV, the software is recording that too.

    These modern drones/UAVs are all GPS/GLONASS enabled, and they are constantly reporting their exact position to the controller along with video. The detection platforms record it all: where the drone takes off from, where it lands, where it is flying/flew, and any and all video and photos it took. THe operator then simply sends a law enforcement team exactly to the controllers location if you are stupid enough to be operating it in restricted or prohibited airspace.

    Even that is getting almost impossible unless you are very tech savvy about by-passing or over-writing the restricted and prohibited airspace data base in the controller. All the modern UAVs today download databases being the operator can enable their newly bought drone. Then the controller will let the operator fly the drone in restricted and prohibited airspace. Their are special provisions where special users can work with the manufacturers and provide FAA and other government agency clearances to fly in certain airspace, and then the manufacturer will provide a specail unlock code or database update to allow the drone to operate in just that airspace where it couldn’t before.

    Jamming options are also available to government law enforcement and military.
    There are also a number of companies making high powered, highly directional UAV jammers about the size of rifle and the operator actually has a high powered rifle scope or illuminated reticle scope to aim the jammer directly at the drone. The operator selects by buttons/switches on the jammer which frequency bands jam to cut off its command link to the controller and GNSS signals too (info would come from the operator of drone detection kit/equipment mentioned above). The jammer operator can can select any of the known command link (WiFi 2.4 and 5 GHz, and 900 Mhz) bands for jamming. Most jammers also have the option to include noise jamming both the GPS, Galileo, and GLONASS L1 C/A freqs (if they are authorized to do so) so the drone loses it position-navigation information.

    All modern drones today if the lose their command signal (jammed) from the controller they will either Return to Home (RTH mode, the go back to the launch point if GPS is still available) or if GPS is also jammed they will go into a hover. Then it the loss of GPS/command link continues for 30 seconds or so most will simply start a slow descent until they detect the ground below and land.

    Most drone hand controllers are transmitting 26 dBm (400 milliwatts) FCC (in US/Canada) or 20 dBm (100 milliwatts) CE/MIC (Euro, Pacific) on a simple omni-directional 3Db gain dipole (stub) antenna. The jammers are capable of transmitting up to 5 watts EIRP (~37 dBm) in the WiFi bands and use high gain yaggi antennas (adds another 14 dBm to 18 dBm gain). Anyone who understands jam to signal ratios will immediately realize that unless the drone is right next to the controller, the jammer like that can cut the drone’s command link and from several miles away. The GNSS (GPS) signal will be blocked from much further.

    The bottom line is law enforcement around the all big airports are now onto this game and the drones makers themselves are selling them the equipment needed to track their owns drones and those of other manufacturers. And other manufacturers are selling them the easy-to-operate portable high power jammers to bring down the drone from several miles or more away.

    So unless your are a technically sophisticated drone/UAV operator able to make acquire and put together your own RF parts (to use other parts of the RF spectrum) and then program it all, you’re stuck with using what is commercially available. And the drone manufacturers are not going to give you their proprietary source codes to make your own changes.

    I doubt any of the XR and GreenPeace idiots have that kind of technical knowledge. They are probably lucky they can tie their own shoelaces. (Greta probably uses velcro straps on her shoes).

    • From the article: “… and said its drones had suffered from signal jamming.”

      Thank you for the information on counter-drone equipments.

      I certainly hope that no one is intentionally jamming GPS signals.

      • The Russians and Syrian militarywere doing lots of GPS jamming on L1,L2,L5 freqa during much of the Syrian civil war. Between the stuff that is happening between Saudis and Iranian-supplied Houthi rebels in Yemen using drones to attack each other and with the ongoing crap with Iranians in the PGulf, I have no doubt there is lots of GPS and GLONASS jamming going on there. You just don’t read about unti some civilian airliner or ship reports it.

  14. I think that bit of community service is order – like providing janitorial services at the airport. The regular janitors would supervise them to make sure the job is done right. Say 5,000 hours? Oh yes if the task’s standard
    is only one hour but they take three, they only get to claim the one hour toward their C.S. requirement.

    michael

  15. As a long retired Police Officer the basic problem in dealing with any
    offence against Society is the method of punishment. .

    Prisons have become far too expensive, hence all of the excuses for reducing
    the length of the sentence.

    A extreme example is of course Murder, initially following a gross miscarriage of justice, the Christie case, resulted in the removal of the death penalty, but it
    was sold to the public on two factors. First it was pointed out that if carried
    out, and then evidence was found that showed that he the hanged person was
    not guilty, but now it was too late.

    The second selling point was that the convicted would get “”Life”” . Now
    many people including myself said that to be in prison for the rest of one’s
    life was worse than the death sentence, but wait, what about the fact that
    many perrons who commit murder are young, so that means they will be a
    responsibility of the prison system, i.e. the taxpayers money, for possibly
    70 years, so what about the cost.

    Now in a 1st World country we are expected to treat prisoners in a humani
    way, and that means costs such as in excess of $ 100,0000 per prisoner are
    common. So we soon had politicians saying things like, “”We must give
    them light at the end of the tunnel””.

    So very soon we see things like Judges setting out how many years before
    parole. Now that used to be determined by how they behave themselves
    while in prison.

    Result is that Murder can come down from Term of the prisoners life to as
    low as in some cases 8 years. The prison system has retained some of the
    Good Behaviour reductions. so that is added to the already set parole.

    As Murder is the number one offence, then all of the other offences must
    come down too.

    The matter of the drones is simple, either ban them 100 %, impossible for
    commercial reasons, or make a automatic penalty if flown near a airport.
    And don’t allow the Court case to turn into a Green exercise as is occurring
    right now.

    Perhaps a new law, “”That you did create a public nuisance by flying a drown”””
    but politicians are a cowardly bunch, so they would be oh so reluctant to
    do that.

    So just as we will have to wit till the lights to go out, we will have to wait till
    a aircraft crashes as a result of a drone strike.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • Unless you can make that offence a strong revenue stream, politicians won’t act on it as I am sure you know.

  16. What happened in Saudi Arabia just days ago at an oil facility? A drone attacked and caused an explosion! This is what these people desire. They are criminally, hypocritically, insane. No, no no! Not that because they can claim mental instability and would be unable to be prosecuted. They should be treated as criminals and sent to jail along with a suitably large fine. Authorities fine people for driving 5mph above the speed limit. Let them fine people for flying a drone in commercial airspace. Reminds me of the people who put half a tonne of concrete in the middle of tracks to stop a coal train here in Australia (Which IIRC was actually empty).

    • Youtube has some pretty wild videos of rebel groups in Syria using drones to drop 70mm mortar shells on each ofher.. Pretty darn effective to cut down a group of people standing around in courtyard.

        • the modern hexacopter UAVs with their video feeds back to operator are a lot more accurate than a WW1 biplane pilot trying to toss out a grenade or mortar flying 70-80 mph.

          On the videos, the terrorists/rebel’s drone just come to hover about 500ft (150 meters) above group of hapless jihaddis standing around probably smoking and joking in a walled courtyard where they think they are safe. They obviously can’t hear the drone or they’d run. Then the drone releases the mortar. About 6 seconds later… boom!! Most just fall dead from the mortar blast/shrapnel and those they don’t run.

          Pretty f-in’ effective for just a USD $2,000 platform and a blackmarket $20 60mm mortar.

  17. If the jammers can locate the drone from its transmission signal, then they
    must also be able to pick up the signal from the controller to hi or her
    drone , thus making a arrest possible.

    MJE VK5 ELL

    • Joel wrote a detailed comment on that subject.
      To locate the controller, you would probably need the controller to have a build-in GPS/GLONASS receiver, which is not likely the case for small toy drone controllers.
      Then there are the small racing drones, which normally do have GPS/GLONASS. Then again, those drones are not likely to be any threat, as the operator will not be able to see or control it at distances much more than a few hundred meters. That is also why there are generally very few restrictions on drones under 250 or 500g, depending on the country.

      • Until one gets sucked in to an engine. Birds are a bigger risk obviously but have you seen the size of some of these “toy” drones many “jerry” fitted with a GoPro?

      • Most controllers have no GPS. But most controllers are much easier to use while attached to a smart phone or tablet running an application provided by the drone maker. The smartphone will have GPS, which is often used by the app as it communicates with the drone. In this scenario, the location of the controller is communicated to the drone and such communications are thus subject to intercept

  18. My understanding was that the Drone which hit the Saudi oil facilities was a
    big one, used by the military. Its a part of the proxy war between Saudi Arabia, of
    a Sunni faith, and Iran who follow the Sheet form of Islam.

    MJE VK5ELL

  19. If those that did this are a splinter group from Extinction Rebellion, isn’t there a case for prosecuting Michael Gove and Theresa May under the Terrorism Act for kow-towing to Extinction Rebellion’s demands?

    Not a chance, though. The political class always protects its own.

  20. At least there is some consistency now. Warmist environmentalists that I know are huge polluters taking hunreds of airline flights.

    • Incarceration until he’s shown us his math(s) would be a good punishment, i.e. life with no parole.

  21. As the eco-warriors get more and more terroristic, more and more people will turn on them. In the eye of the masses, they are losing the moral high ground. In reality, they never had it…

  22. Hmm, maybe anti-drone measures are working.

    Though the interference might be just the noisy radio and power atmosphere at the airport affecting a cheap drone.

    Note the ‘Rise’ slogan in California, at least some of those people are quite violent, their goal is at best revolution to force Marxist principles on you, some may be anarchists like Islamic Totalitarians.

Comments are closed.