From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Stephen Tobin
Can the wretched BBC sink any lower?
Passengers have recounted scenes of “absolute terror” when severe turbulence hit their Singapore Airlines flight, launching people and objects across the cabin.
A 73-year-old British man died from a suspected heart attack, while more than 30 people were injured when the London-Singapore flight suffered a sudden drop as a meal service was under way.
Briton Andrew Davis described “awful screaming and what sounded like a thud” in the first few seconds of the incident.
Turbulence is most commonly caused by aircraft flying through cloud, but there is also “clear air” turbulence which is not visible on a jet’s weather radar.
“Injuries from severe turbulence are relatively rare in the context of millions of flights operated,” aviation expert John Strickland told the BBC.
“However, severe turbulence can be dramatic and lead to severe injuries or sadly in this case a fatality.”
Flight crews are also trained in how to respond to turbulence, he said.
“It is not for nothing that airlines recommend keeping seatbelts loosely fastened throughout a flight, be it long or short,” he added.
Aviation journalist Sally Gethin said wearing a seatbelt could be the “difference between life and death”, explaining that anything not bolted down is at risk during severe turbulence.
Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8889d7x8j4o
You are utter scum, BBC.
How can any organisation try to play politics with a tragic death like this one?
Paul Homewood followed the above story with this explainer.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“You are utter scum, BBC”.
This is a pretty good summary of what the BBC has become.
Too kind
Dr. Who the prime example.
Regrettably, the “new” Dr Who series is the product of Disney+.
They were sliding with Jody, and it’s accelerating beyond all belief. The Doctor passed with Capaldi.
The BBC scum hasn’t touched the truth in a long, long time and has no intentions of ever doing so if it can possibly avoid it so far as climate change reporting goes. To correlate a random (and potentially rare) aviation event with climate change shows just how low the BBC will go to spread their propaganda.
Observers of the use of English language and grammar will note how poor the output of the useless and worthless BBC employees is.
Scum is as scum does.
Why be surprised?
Any lies that progress “The Cause” that Michael Mann described is double-plus good for climate catrophists.
George Orwell, 1984: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.”
Let’s rename schools and military bases and streets so we can eliminate the Civil War from history.
Ah, so that’s where james hansen got his idea of deleting/replacing the entire temperature record when he was head of the GISS. Because there wasn’t enough storage space for the actual record and the altered record.
Funny, I sent a story tip about this very issue just this morning. A journal called Thrillist had published a story citing this incident and blaming it on climate change. They must have based it on the BBC article.
I think several news outlets have included climate change as the cause of the turbulence. I have complained to the BBC about including speculation not based on fact in a report on death and injury.
Did you complain to them last July when they covered the paper about the increase in clear air turbulence?
LOL, the BBC uses the death of a passenger to make the unsupported claim that Climate Change caused it propaganda the obvious that you seemed to have missed how low of you…….
It wasn’t ‘unsupported’, they had previously reported a paper on the subject as I pointed out.
But that paper is ONLY supported by the slithery quicksand of “climate models”
So yes.. it is unsupported. !
Why waste time on stupidity? Since turbulence can’t be “seen” with radar, how did they track it? Don’t tell me “pilot reports”, because that would be ridiculous for a scientific study.
Did they check for cross correlation with the ADO?
At my airline, we have software called ‘skypath’ which takes data from other flights. I pretty much only fly CONUS so it gives pretty good information. However, turbulence comes and goes it’s not a constant.
You mean the one done with the computer games ??
Only to point out how bad the paper was.
A few minutes ago I saw some discussion by some pilots – from what they’re saying, this area is known for severe turbulence. If so, this isn’t necessarily new.
Over the Himalaya’s?
Example as follows, from the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service’s NewsHour, May 21, 2024, “Severe turbulence on Singapore Airlines flight kills passenger, injures dozens more”
I remember the comment from Senator Stabenow mentioned by mkelly below.
I guess this would constitute an amendment to their philosophy – “Never let a crisis OR a tragedy go to waste.”
Just a reminder that Senator Stabenow said she could feel climate change in her butt because of turbulence when flying.
It’s a rather large, shapeless mass. I wonder how she feels anything down there. She is most famous for her husband’s affair as she has never done anything in the Senate.
She probably enjoyed it. 🙂
Just when you think it can’t get more insane, it does. The BBC truly is pathetic.
The BBC lost its way a long time ago. It picked up speed in the 80s
The British “The Times” newspaper (22 May) edition makes similar claim:
There also is big discrepancies on how far the plane “dropped”. BBC TV said 6,000 feet, The Times says “thousands of feet”, WSJ said 400 feet with no mention of “climate change”. I have seen some reports that mention the plane “tipped upwards” prior to drop. Humm.
“Thousands of feet” is accurate. It looks like a fairly normal flight at 37,000′ then in 30 sec it dropped to 36,875′, followed by a drop to 35,725′ and 34,550′. went from 37,000′ to 31,000′ in 3mins!
Hmm, not according to the attached
It is inaccurate. Blancolirio analysed the flight record at flightradar24 which shows that the turbulence event that caused the damage involved descent and ascent of only a few hundred feet. It is the rate of change of altitude that is critical in causing those not strapped in to hit the ceiling as the plane fell – it only takes less than a second, as I know from having experienced turbulence strong enough to send a tea tray to the ceiling while flying to Bermuda from LHR in the late 1960s. The downward acceleration exceeds acceleration due to gravity, so the rate of fall of the aircraft exceeds the effect of gravity on lose items within it. See also vomit comet, which is calibrated to dive in a parabola at an ever faster rate to maintain weightlessness.
There was a subsequent controlled reduction in altitude about 20 minutes later of 6,000ft to descend to 31,000ft, which is a typical manoeuvre when turbulence is encountered and usually requires permission from air traffic control. The rate of descent is not that untypical of normal operations. After a short period of level flight, the aircraft resumed its descent into Bangkok on diversion, little slower than the earlier level change.
Here is a screen capture showing the time of the turbulence event with an instantaneous altitude of 37,275 ft. and the subsequent altitude and airspeed track into Bangkok.
https://youtu.be/0UYNFthOx1o?feature=shared&t=182
Of course ignorant journalists (and you?) don’t understand basic physics, and so thought that the 6,000ft altitude change was significant.
Is that per flight hour or just the total? Seems the number of trans-Atlantic flights has increased a scosche since 1979.
So that’s 55% in 41 years, or 1.34% per year on a linear scale.
But Clear Air Turbulence is, we are told, very difficult to detect until it is encountered. So it must be assumed that the data comes from the reports of Pilots.
According to the FAA, the number of annual operations (flights) in the North Atlantic increased from 547,907 in 2012 to 723,356 in 2017, an increase of 6.4% per annum on a linear scale.
So, with the number of observers increasing at nearly 5 times the rate of observed turbulence, It may be assumed that ‘Climate Change’ is having a very beneficial effect by reducing Clear Air Turbulence.
(yes, I know that my logic and assumptions are wild but are they any more wild than those of the IPCC?)
I have in excess of 5000 hours of flight time flying over the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Indian Ocean and have experienced CAT but cannot say there has been a increase in turbulence.
Here is the money chart from the NTSB report. It shows no trend in accident rate due to turbulence. Because it standardises to per 100,000 flying hours it eliminates the change in traffic levels.
One thought to that claim. Could that minute increase in probability, be a consequence of the Winter Gatekeeper?
I have seen some reports that mention the plane “tipped upwards” prior to drop.
That’s the part I want more info about. A stall could cause something like that.
And the best info I can find indicates about 3,000 feet.
Easily explained. Turbulent vortices produce walls of winds in different directions. The aircraft could have entered a wall of updrafting air that would have tipped the nose up first.
The aircraft could have entered a wall of updrafting air
Ok, I can see how that could happen, thank you!
Given that, would that not be likely, or at least possible, to induce a stall? (In that case it wouldn’t have been the pilot’s doing, but would have the same end result)
Climate has always changed and always will. The BBC line could be accurate but probably hard to prove. And one certainty – reducing fossil fuel consumption is not going to alter thee climate.
The ITCZ moves about and will move further north in coming decades. The Mediterranean is getting close to developing the most powerful convective storms.
Airlines need to be aware of how the climate is changing and assess the risk on their routes.
Convective towers can produce updrafts well above 10km; the typical altitude of modern air travel.
Yet to be resolved the circumstances of the updraft/downdraft but it is a risk of flying.
Easy to prove, if you’re prepared to dig even a little.
The paper Paul Homewood refers to in his follow-up article, which incorrectly describes as “one single study” contains references to at least three other peer-reviewed papers, all of which examine the link between a warming atmosphere and increased incidents of CAT.
It’s open access; read the introduction for yourself (apparently Homewood didn’t).
The BBC was absolutely right and Homewood owes them an apology (good luck with that, though).
I guess you didn’t read it either. The other three “peer reviewed” papers all used modeled data, not real data. That is not science, although it is apparently climate “science”.
They exist, right?
The BBC never mentioned any distinction between papers that use model data and observations.
Do they exist or do they not?
They build one on top of the other.. FROM MODELLED GARBAGE. !
Data from the real world show no increase in air turbulence.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/05/23/real-world-data-proves-that-air-turbulence-is-not-getting-worse/#more-73543
That’s not what the paper says, it says that the number of turbulence related accidents hasn’t increased. It found that most of those accidents occur during descent into convective turbulence not at cruising altitudes like this one, where clear air turbulence is the cause. The accidents during descent can be reduced by warning the pilots, which the paper discusses, not true for CAT.
There are many red flags in the Prosser et al. paper. They open by admitting it is all models:
Clear-air turbulence (CAT) diagnosed from reanalysis data has increased over the satellite era
Then claim
The increases are largest over the USA and North Atlantic, which are both busy flight regions
A claim completely unsupported by NTSB data on CAT incidents from 1979 onward
Next they admit
Furthermore, it is still challenging for aviation meteorologists to forecast CAT, partly because current Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models have grid sizes that are many times larger than the turbulent eddies that affect aircraft.
Then they use ERA5 reanalysis data at 1 hour x 31km x 137 levels up to 1Pa/approx 80km, with a few extra levels at lower altitudes: the average is about 2,000ft. for their study. I would suggest that makes it challenging for them to forecast CAT. I would also seriously doubt that the accuracy and 4D resolution of the data fed into ERA5 analysis at the start of the period is anywhere near as good as later on – although when you look at the ERA5 site you will other periods and areas they mention where they have reduced confidence in their analysis because of dubious or failed satellite readings, or conflicts with ground measurements. The actual reanalysis process may produce interpolated data at the resolution quoted, but the reality is that it is kludged/kriged as described here
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.3803
The BBC was absolutely right
You’ve seen the data from the flight data recorder?
Why would I need data from a flight data recorder to state that the BBC comment is right?
They are clearly tying this incident to the “predictions” – are they correct in doing so? Without the data, any conclusion or even supposition is premature.
No they’re not, they said that such turbulent events were expected to become more likely.
Because you would then understand that the damaging turbulence did not involve a descent of 6,000ft in about 3 minutes. at a steady 2,000ft/min.
How did they detect CAT when it doesn’t show up on radar?
What has this got to do with anything I said?
Everything.
Exactly how this flight did, they fly into it!
poor fungal.. dumb as usual.
How do you “peer-review” a computer game study… and call it either “real” or “science”. !?
UAH is mostly the result of computer model simulations, isn’t it?
Yet you love it.
Until you don’t.
WRONG again.
There is a difference between scientific CALCULATIONS.. and non-scientific computer games.
The fact that you are totally aware of that, shows just how low on the intelligence ladder you really !!.
UAH is not being used to predict vortices with a length scale of the order of 1-300 metres. This study is taking data with a resolution that is 2 orders of magnitude lower horizontally, probably 3 orders of magnitude in time and at least 1 order of magnitude vertically. It fails to calibrate by reference to actual reported incidents – and equally importantly, absence of incident when their model says there should be one.
“Another passenger said those not wearing seatbelts were “launched immediately into the ceiling”.” Surely the people stayed where they were and it was the plane dropping that caused the ceiling to hit the passengers rather than passengers hitting the ceiling.
Don’t call me Shirley.
Remember, it’s relative.
… like a wicked stepmother !!
(:-))
Even worse, a mother-in-law 🤣
Actually all untethered items would start falling under the influence of gravity, while the aircraft and thethered items accelerate downwards at a faster rate.
Prime example of how the media is making EVERYTHING climate change and no wonder folks are burnt out on it all and ignoring it, so then they have to ramp it up yet another notch and the cycle repeats. Where is this all going?
Story tip – Taking Back California – Part Four: Abundant Energy › American Greatness (amgreatness.com)
When it comes to the essentials of civilization, energy is at the top. It is the prerequisite for every other basic essential, from pumping and heating water to powering farm equipment to keeping the lights on. And in California, the state government has declared war on practical, affordable energy. People can’t afford to live here anymore.
Here is the “one single study” referred to. In it’s introduction it discusses at least three previous CAT/climate change studies (Williams and Joshi (2013), Williams (2017) and Storer et al. (2017)). All of these studies examined links between climate change and CAT.
With Prosser et al (2023), that makes at least four different peer-reviewed studies, all of which suggest a link between a warming atmosphere and an increase in incidents of CAT.
So when the BBC says “Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future” where are they wrong?
Perhaps an apology is due.
When the BBC says anything we laugh.
You have to be English to get that.
“Is that true, or did you see it on the BBC ?”
Stick to GB News mate. It’s more your level.
ie,…. about 3 magnitudes ABOVE the BBC on honesty, morality and integrity. !
They make claims that “researching” can predict the future. Its right there published in black and white, and you believe it.
Any time anyone says that the future can be predicted is the time to call BS.
The BBC just pointed out what the research says.
For this, Homewood calls the BBC “scum”, then falsely claims its comment was based on a single study.
I can predict the future to this extent: Homewood will not apologise for his insulting and misleading comments.
I predict you will never notice that most of the climate change papers never use data, just models.
This one uses models build from models build from models in a series of related papers from the same climate group… almost certainly
peerpal-reviewing each other’s work..You are the one who should be apologising to Paul Homewood, who is totally correct.
I can absolutely guarantee you will not apologise for your insulting and totally wrong and gormlessly ignorant statements.
They are not “scum” for reporting turbulence they are “scum” for using the death of that poor man to highlight climate change,
It was one sentence in a lengthy article. And, as we have seen, it was accurate.
The one and only person highlighting that sentence is Homewood, so….?
Using someone’s death to try and point out climate change is the work of scums whether the point was accurate or not.
So you now ADMIT they tried to tie someone’s death from a naturally occurring phenomenon…. and made a despicable attempt to link it to imaginary “climate change”
You have just admitted that they are a pack of low-life scumbags…
… and Paul was totally correct.
We await your apology… or are you just the same as the low-life scum at the BBC !!
He is far from the only person. There was widespread reaction to the claims made at the BBC and elsewhere, reflected in comments on articles. So your claim is “inaccurate”.
They all used models and not real data. Go back down your hole.
They exist, contrary to Homewood’s claim that you all fell for without checking, as per usual. Some ‘skeptiks’ you guys are.
Not all use models (including the one Homewood referenced).
Yes they do.. they are totally based on models and modelled “statistical” garbage.
Again.. your complete inability to read and understand junk science papers is highlighted.
Two of the defining characteristics of genuine scientific “research” are :
1) it always includes error bars / uncertainty intervals, and as a result
2) it never uses terms like “will” when discussing projections into the future of things like weather patterns
Science doesn’t do “proof”. That word is reserved for mathematics (/ logic) and alcohol.
The BBC was definitely “wrong” to use the word “will” in that way.
_ _ _ _ _ _
From the Prosser et al (2023) paper’s “Plain Language Summary” :
NB : They don’t attempt to claim that anything has been “proven beyond a show of a doubt”.
Another basic axiom of (serious) scientific research is that “Correlation does not equal causation”.
Finding that the measured data is “consistent with” your pet conjecture is not the same as saying you have indeed found “the” (singular / unique / one and only) factor influencing the physical phenomenon being discussed.
The BBC was definitely “wrong” to use the word “will” in that way.
The BBC comment was correct. Research shows that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.
That is just a fact. Whether or not that forecast is borne out is a different matter, and irrelevant to the point in question.
Nothing in science is “proven beyond a doubt”; otherwise it wouldn’t be science.
Models are not ever proof of anything
BBC were totally wrong to try to link a known natural event to “climate change
A despicable and scum-like act that you seem to condone.
That’s not what the BBC did, they linked the accident to a natural event, Clear Air Turbulence, they also pointed out that such events were predicted to increase in the future.
I expect if you went to the Forum you could find a soothsayer who would make any prediction you wanted to hear, especially if you crossed their palms with silver.
Woe, woe and thrice woe!
you are talking utter bollox as usual.
“Research shows that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.”
future doesn’t exist – so like all the other crappy prophecies – “our children won’t know what snow is” shows humans are crap at predicting even the weather the next week.
climate change is the latest euphemism = global warming = human induced.
your definition of science is therefore complete rubbish…like your sh..tty little “That is just a fact.”
No, it is not a fact. One of the papers making forecasts is reported to be relying on RCP8.5 scenarios, which are known to be very low probability. I rather suspect the others aren’t far behind. Prosser’s paper refers to data from pilots as not adequate to discern the trend over 1979-2020 – his source is dated 2008, long before the NTSB study which shows no trend. Prosser is saying that his model tells him CAT has increased, but the data suggests it hasn’t. That fundamentally undermines projections of a sudden upward trajectory in CAT.
Quite right. In fact, the Prosser paper itself makes no future projections at all, although it does report on the projections of others using extreme scenarios such as RCP 8.5, which makes the projections of very low likelihood. Certainly a long way off the implied certainty of “will”.
Moreover, since these papers fail the basic Feynman test – theory does not match experiment – all they have proven is that their theories are wrong.
Turbulence is caused by pressure/temperature differentials, not by pure overall (global?) warming. Models do not reflect reality. They produce whatever the modelers desire.
Not the point in question.
The point in question is that Paul Homewood stated a falsehood.
There are a load of peer reviewed scientific papers examining the relationship between CAT and global warming, not just one.
But you all fell for it, being ‘skeptiks’, lol!
Paul DID NOT state a falsehood.
He accused the BBC of trying to use a man’s death from a totally known natural occurrence, and link it to “climate change”…
Do you really DENY this is exactly what the BBC did. !!!
This is a particularly SCUM-like act.. that only real SCUM could condone.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101.pdf
.
The report is clear – there has been no increase in the frequency of such accidents since 1989
You are a complete and utter failure.. as always. !
The papers only deal in MODELLED CAT. The only paper that deals in reported actual CAT is the NTSB one, and that shows no trend in areas where the model claims there has been a sharp increase.
You fell for the modelling.
All data adjusted using “a climatological probability distribution” which were derived using climate models. (Williams 2017)
“ For consistency, we also use the same season (winter), climate model (GFDL-CM2.1), anthropogenic forcing simulations”
so.. not real… another fungal FAIL !!!
This doesn’t address Homewood’s falsehood, does it?
Paul didn’t tell a falsehood.
Just something that your tiny mind can’t accept as reality.
BBC are the ones telling the falsehood, using a known natural event and trying to link it to fake “climate change”
That you condone such crap make you just as much scum as they are.
It shows there is no real evidence, just modelled garbage.
Paul knows that… You are unaware or in DENIAL… as always.
BBC was WRONG and deliberately tried to conflate a person’s death with climate change.
That is a despicable and underhanded piece of scum-like propaganda…
… which you, of course, lapped up and regurgitated.
If you look at Prosser, you will find that they estimate the incidence of CAT has fallen over Myanmar where the incident took place – as Homewood has subsequently pointed out. Here’s their map
and the caption
The change in ERA5’s 197 hPa annual-mean diagnostic-mean moderate-or-greater (MOG) clear-air turbulence (CAT) probability over 1979–2020, showing (a) the absolute change and (b) the relative change. The changes are diagnosed from the linear trend. Stippling indicates statistical significance at the p = 0.05 level, according to a two-sided Wald test (Fahrmeir et al., 2022) applied to the absolute change.
Shouldn’t the BBC be arguing that climate change has made the incident significantly less likely?
Fake news.
The plane flew into a thunderstorm! Never do that. Thunderstorms generate severe turbulence.
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/05/what-caused-severe-turbulence-on.html
Yes, that is a known and well recorded fact.
In more cautious times, airliners flew around gnarly weather systems, gave them a wide berth, whether the radar showed turbulence or not.
Too much reliance on instrument navigation for my liking these days.
He said “I suspect I know what happened. They ran into turbulence associated with thunderstorms”.
My emphasis.
However such turbulence at the altitude they were flying at is usually clear air turbulence not thunderstorms, at that altitude it’s usually due to effects of the jet stream.
Please see the blancolirio report, linked above. He covers exactly what the weather radars were showing, and explains that the pilot probably took a calculated gamble that he could slot between two thunderstorms only to find a third lurking. As he points out, the Singapore authorities are nothing if not thorough, so we will likely get the truth in due course.
The ocean surface is above 30C so very powerful convective storm with convective potential extending well above 14km. Convective potential over the area earlier in the week was 2300J/kg.
Monsoon in the Bay of Bengal will gradually become early as the May sunlight over the Bay increases.
I’m amazed that anyone expects better of the waffen BBC.
I suppose hope springs eternal where Auntie is concerned.
It is a 100% fact that the more i read climate change articles the more climate change experiences i will gather. I am just SO much more aware, thanks to Greta and the BBC. I am simply waiting for the next hit. I am super happy w the turbulance thingy and will add it to the list. At least the BBC is playing its part. On BBC 4 i found the perfect solution to combatting climate anxiety. A psychologist adviced sufferers to become…climate activists. What a brilliant idea!!😄
From what I’ve read so far, it appears more likely the sudden drop may have been due to a stall – at least some reports from passengers that I’ve read say that the plane tilted upward right before the drop.
Until the flight recorders are examined, there won’t be any evidence if this was or was not the case. Either way, ANY conclusions are premature, totally leaving aside their propagandizing off the event.
Flying at steady speed (above stall speed) at constant altitude and suddenly drops at 2000ft/min, implies a sudden change in airspeed likely caused by turbulence, jetstream velocities are around 100kts, a change in speed or direction across the wing could easily dramatically cut lift. That’s why pilots try to avoid such areas, trouble is clear air turbulence is difficult to detect until you’re in it.
Erm. NO. NO, and NO. The turbulence incidents involved much smaller, but much faster changes in altitude, with accelerations exceeding 9.8m/sec/sec downwards, causing loose items to hit the ceiling. The reduction at 2,000ft/min was a controlled change in flight level, at a steady rate bar the initial and final change in direction and speed, as the flight record shows. Jetstreams can easily run to 200-250mph. A loss of lift alone would result in only a partial effect of gravity because some lift remains. The sharp acceleration is caused by a fast downdraft in the air through which the aircraft is flying. Please refer to the plot of altitude and airspeed from flightradar24 discussed by blancolirio instead of inventing your own.
I didn’t invent anything, the first data I saw was from Flightaware I believe from Homewood, unfortunately it showed the descent data. When I found the exact time of the event it showed the same behavior as Juan. The data Juan used was at a higher time resolution (Flightaware has a time interval of 30sec) and showed an increase in altitude at about 1600ft/min followed by a sudden drop at about 1600ft/min. That’s what I referred to above, the instantaneous speed of the drop was likely higher than the measured 1600 because of the limitations of the measurement resolution.
How can …. Well, yes they can.
I was a frequent flyer for 9y and seems to me the airplane crews always encouraged us to wear our seatbelts — because we were in an ocean of air with occasional violent, invisible “bumps.” I’ll bet if all the passengers were belted in, they would have been badly frightened, but uninjured.
One additional factor was that it occurred while serving breakfast, hence lots of things flying around when it occurred.
The pilot should have cancelled breakfast on approaching the storm area.
At 37,000′ the turbulence is usually CAT so likely he had no warning, clouds on satellite maps don’t tell you what is happening at 37,000′.
I vaguely recall, of a similar incident, which must be over 20+ years ago. The desperate climate crisis cohorts will grasp at any straw, to further their cause.
Juan Browne at the Blancolirio aviation safety channel on Youtube has this report of the incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UYNFthOx1o
Browne is a 777 first officer. He notes that an airliner’s forward-looking weather radar cannot see weather which is developing behind the weather immediately in front of the aircraft.
A pilot can take actions to deal with weather which can be seen but can’t prepare for weather which is hidden behind another system.
Sheesh…it’s the tropics. It would be odd to NOT have turbulence.
The strength of wind faults in the upper troposphere. The strength of the jetstream.
BBC Newsnight had a climate scientist for a guest last night claiming repeatedly that the rise in turbulence since the satellite era started was due to climate change.
Kirsty Wark did not challenge the great prophet – he’s a scientist!.
But schoolchildren would be expected to notice that;
A) An increase in turbulence is not caused by climate change, it is climate change.
B) The greatest AGW climate change is expected to be happening at the poles, not the tropics. This is a contradictory signal.
C) How do we know what the turbulence was like prior to the satellite era?
The BBC is biased largely by its lack of technical skill. They are all arts graduates employed by relationships with the previous generation of arts graduates. They don’t understand the scientific method.
Whenever the weather being weather is involved, “It’s Climate Change!”.
(An icy road, a flooded road, a tornado taking down windmills …)
From the paper:
In the rare cases that these fitted exceedances were negative, they were set to zero.
So when your calculations show negative turbulence, just set it to zero, instead of finding out how your calculations come up with “negative” turbulence. Got it.
Exceedances were converted into percentage probabilities of exceedance, by normalizing by the number of three-hour periods in each year. … For example, a 1% increase over one year would be equivalent to around 29 extra exceedances, given the 2,920 three-hour periods in a single year. To calculate the relative changes, the absolute changes were divided by the fitted 1979 values and multiplied by 100, to yield a percentage relative change.
Here’s how they scammed it. Let’s say in 1979, you had a 1% CALCULATED probability of clear air turbulence (CAT). Let’s say in 2020, you had a 2% CALCULATED probability of CAT. Is that a 1% increase in CAT or a 100% increase?
Another scam, the CALCULATION was from weather satellites. Do you think resolution increased or decreased from 1979 to 2020? That’s huge, considering this was a CALCULATED number. A lot of detail was smeared together in 1979 relative to 2020.
Finally, did they check for cross correlation with the ADO and other climate oscillations?
Whatever these guys were doing, it wasn’t actual Science. It did impress resident troll Phil, however.
Still going through the paper. Fig. 2 shows the absolute change of CAT was around 0.35%, or 0.0035. Figure 2 also shows large drops in other areas of the globe.
Also, no change where the jet encountered turbulence.
Why didn’t they mention the root cause of air turbulence on aircraft?
It’s NOT “Climate Change”.
It was the Wright Brothers.