Climate Change Will Boost Plane Turbulence, Suggests Study 184
sciencehabit writes "Get used to a bumpy ride. The strength and frequency of atmospheric turbulence affecting transatlantic flights will increase by midcentury, a new study suggests. During winter months, 16 of the 21 often-used ways in which scientists measure turbulence suggest that the average intensity of the plane-rattling phenomenon will be between 10% and 40% stronger when CO2 concentrations are double their preindustrial value. Accordingly, the frequency of moderate-or-greater turbulence—intensities at which passengers will experience accelerations of 0.5 g or more, which are strong enough to toss items about the cabin—will rise by between 40% and 170%. As a result of pilots needing to dodge strong turbulence, flight paths will become longer, and fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions will increase—possibly leading to even more turbulence."
or, like most of the tens of thousands of models (Score:2, Insightful)
or, alternatively, none of those things will happen. Since the mid 90s billions of dollars and euros and yen have been wasted on climate models, most of which have been utterly useless. Even this year major factors have been discovered that render all previous models void, and the "climatologists" cherry-pick, cook the books, from the pile of models after the fact to try to justify their existence. This pseudo-science should have its plug pulled, it serves no purpose other than pumping "cap and trade" s
Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (Score:5, Insightful)
citation needed
Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (Score:5, Insightful)
1. By now, the studies are telling us what we already know, and aren't convincing policymakers or lobbyists to change because their opposition to curbing carbon dioxide emissions wasn't ever really based on skepticism of the science.
2. When most of the developed world starts feeling the negative consequences, they'll do something to alleviate the problem. And it will be some short-sighted solution that no one really fully investigated. Like iron injection. To deal with the consequences of that will be a chain of other decisions terminating in gorillas freezing to death. The bill will be sent to people who weren't involved in the decision to ignore the early warnings about climate change anyway.
Flatly speaking (Score:5, Funny)
It's plain that the plain the plane is flying above serves as a base for an infinite number of planes; which plane is it that the increased turbulence is in? Can the plane not fly above or below this plane? Can't a fella go off on a tangent around here?
--Geometrically Challenged Guy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or, alternatively, none of those things will happen. Since the mid 90s billions of dollars and euros and yen have been wasted on climate models, most of which have been utterly useless. Even this year major factors have been discovered that render all previous models void, and the "climatologists" cherry-pick, cook the books, from the pile of models after the fact to try to justify their existence. This pseudo-science should have its plug pulled, it serves no purpose other than pumping "cap and trade" scams.
Definiton of bull shit: [wikipedia.org]
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
"Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may a
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
Bullshit. Bullshit is just a non-PC way of saying citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
Bullshit. Bullshit is just a non-PC way of saying citation needed.
It is a derogatory term for a despicable practice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I can remember, the predictions became worse for some time and now get a little less negative, but are still worse than at the begin of the 2000s. It wouldn't call that backpedalling.
Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can remember
So how many kilos of bullshit is your memory worth?
As for me, I find it interesting how much of the most alarmist climate research comes out of two places, the University of East Anglia (this research) or the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NASA (particularly, the James Hansen stuff).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually believe that, or are you just parroting some pseudo-skeptic's nonsense?
Re:or, like most of the tens of thousands of model (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty obvious when there's a sentence like this " Even this year major factors have been discovered that render all previous models void"
ALL? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what is commonly known as a quote mine. Care to put that back in context, with full citations.
My goodness, you deniers are just as bad as Creationists.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure who you're referring to. Me making fun of the GGP, or the GGP who said that all previous models were void.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... The Hockey Stick didn't predict anything. It showed past temperatures. So I guess that shows just how credible your claims are in general, eh?
The problem with people like yourself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Shilling is not a bad existence. You get paid by your masters to argue in favor of their position, and you can ignore whatever other facts may make that position seem harmful over the long term, because you are able to spend their money today.
He doesn't have to be directly in their pockets, of course. Perhaps he believes that by shilling for the Koch Brothers that he'll get cheaper gas or lower taxes. Maybe he prefers their flavor of John Birch racism. Whatever the reason, for him it's "profitable" in the s
Turbulence (Score:1)
How dangerous is turbulence really?
Re:Turbulence (Score:5, Funny)
That depends on how hot the coffee on your lap is.
HSR (Score:4, Interesting)
This is yet another reason to build high speed rail wherever it makes sense, between city pairs at least 100 miles apart where it starts to become too far to drive, and up to 500 miles apart where flying starts to become faster (curb to curb) and more cost-effective.
Re:HSR (Score:4, Informative)
One of the issues with the high speed rail I've seen them try to implement is too many stops, so the train is only traveling at its top speed for a relatively short time before it slows down for the next stop.
Then there's also the fact that a lot of "high speed" trains in the US are in the 40-60mph range... not very fast compared to what other countries have.
Re: (Score:2)
Another issue being utilization. You need to have the shorter trains get out of the way so passengers on long haul trains can keep going, having higher numbers of trains running at a time, spreading the infrastructure cost across more passengers, so the trains will have a cost advantage over planes.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why the good Lord invented limited-stop express service, so that not every train needs to stop at every station, and electric trains that accelerate after a stop much more quickly than diesel trains.
Top speed or average speed? See above.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, the implementations I've seen are poor because they don't do things like limited-stop express service more. And the advertised top speeds are usually 45, 50 or 60mph. I don't think I've seen any with an advertised top speed above 70mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Amtrak owns 730 miles of track, including nearly all of their routes in the Northeast
Which "Lord" is that? UP?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless I'm mistaken, you've got the situation backwards: Amtrak doesn't own any lines; it's the freight companies that "allow" Amtrak to run on their lines.
Re:HSR (Score:4, Informative)
Amtrak owns 730 miles of track, including nearly all of their routes in the Northeast . But most of their routes outside that do run on freight rail tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Amtrak owns 730 miles of track, including nearly all of their routes in the Northeast
What "facts" did this inform you of?
Global warming and rails don't mix (Score:3)
If the high summer temps ever get around to climbing like the AGW folks claim, high speed rail will be pretty tough.
You see, even with those highly-engineered rails, too much heat can cause expansion that warps the metal.
Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.
Odd, that.
(No, it's not because the rails are so much better - HSR uses welded, continuous rail, which is more susceptible to that sort of thing)
Re: (Score:3)
If only the rails had small gaps in them to allow for thermal expansion [wikipedia.org]...it's too bad we don't have such Star Trek technology. Rails could even be installed in places that experience the massive temperature changes between winter and summer! Imagine that!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that those particular joints only work up to a point - at higher temperatures, they expand too far.
With higher heating, you also get deformation in between the joints.
The US has been using continuous-welded rails for decades now - yes, with various "breather" or "slip" fittings - and you still see warped and deformed rails each summer.
Back in the heat wave of 2010, the German ICE system had to cancel some trips because heat warped the tracks...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.
Are you in a position to know if we did? I'm not and I'm doubt the people who are (railway operators) have a compelling reason to publish that data.
Back in the heat wave of 2010, the German ICE system had to cancel some trips because heat warped the tracks...
It seems like your first and second statements may not be based on the same set of facts.
When I looked for information on whether there was an increase, I did find a blog post [ucsusa.org] about speeds being dropped near Washington in March of last year due to unseasonable weather related to an effect of global warming (the blocking pattern in the Arctic). It is an expecte [globalchange.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
At those speeds, aerodynamics are important to the train, right? Can surface winds cause turbulence-like effects?
Re: (Score:2)
Not turbulence like on an aircraft, but it could cause the train to rock back and forth a bit. Trains do have the benefit of a suspension system.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just thinking of the examples of a truck or bus getting blown over on the interstate due to high cross winds. Sure, a train is far more massive than a truck or bus, but a bullet train is also traveling three times faster, meaning a small change could have a much bigger effect.
Re: (Score:2)
This is yet another reason to build high speed rail wherever it makes sense
That's crazy. If we only build high speed rail lines where they made sense, we wouldn't have any.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one bullet train line anywhere in the world that's at least a few years old but still doesn't make a profit. Frequently, profit from the HSR line(s) help subsidize a country's passenger train lines as in Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one bullet train line anywhere in the world that's at least a few years old but still doesn't make a profit.
The Shinkansen trains in Japan which have operated for over three decades. Most of the construction cost was just eaten [wikipedia.org] by the Japanese government and eventually sold for about a third (ignoring inflation) of the original construction costs to a stable of private companies. Googling around, I still see public funds [mlit.go.jp] for development for these trains, meaning that they're being subsidized - as I see it, a sure sign that they aren't running a profit on their own.
Re: (Score:3)
You read the first sentence I wrote. Good! Now read the second.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you stated that the construction cost was "eaten" by the Japanese government, you lumped in the cost of regular passenger rail, which as I said is frequently subsidized by high speed rail. JNR is both conventional and high speed rail. Follow your own link if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
Tend to agree - if we're REALLY talking about HSR.
You need to get rid of all the stops though. I want a system where I catch a moderate-speed commuter train for 25 miles to the nearest city center, and then get on some 200mph train that makes 15 stops from Florida to Maine and covers the distance in 10 hours. Sure, you wouldn't actually ride it for the whole length (well, unless it were much cheaper than flying), but if you could go from Baltimore to Boston in 2.5 hours that would definitely sell (with st
Re: (Score:2)
at least 100 miles apart where it starts to become too far to drive
Uh, what? 100 mi is nothing. I've driven that far each way for lunch. Combined with door-to-door service and no timetables to meet? The personal car is the acme of transportation for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least until we develop essentially free energy). The self-driving personal car will only magnify this effect.
Re: (Score:2)
100 mi is nothing. I've driven that far each way for lunch.
Congratulations, you are officially part of the problem. I hope that there was at least a nooner included.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A(nother) failed attempt at poo-poo from a denialist:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/04/how-humans-cause-earthquakes/ [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the made-up bogeymen on Fox News can be real and common, then something a real live person was videotaped actually saying can sure as hell be popular belief!
But I welcome turbulence! (Score:2)
I, for one, quite enjoy the mid-range turbulence. It helps me sleep better on the plane. By mid-range I mean stuff that's strong enough to move things around on your table, yet not strong enough to accelerate the decline in airframe's fatigue life by a factor of 10. Assuming that a normal non-turbulence flight is affecting the fatigue life at "realtime" rate (no speedup), a flight with turbulence I find unacceptable would be equivalent, in terms of fatigue life use, to 10 normal flights of same duration. So
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
How do researchers know what turbulence was like in the pre-industrial era? Unless Ancient Astronomers took the readings and handed them down to us in carved stone tablets, we are merely GUESSING what the turbulence was like.
Re: (Score:2)
How do researchers know what turbulence was like in the pre-industrial era? Unless Ancient Astronomers took the readings and handed them down to us in carved stone tablets, we are merely GUESSING what the turbulence was like.
Due to the passing of the ice age, I imagine the air was lighter than it is today. Oh, but there was also more pressure equalization due to temperature variations between night and day, so I guess it's turbulent in some areas and not in others, weather systems included. Oh, wait.. that's the same as it is today. /snark ;)
Re: (Score:2)
They're taking a good representation of the current and past atmosphere, using that as a guide for the future atmosphere.
They don't have that yet. You see where we're going with this "guessing" thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. So you're saying a theory can't make predictions?
Care to tell me where you got your education? I want to make sure my kids are educated as far away from the logical black hole that you grew up in as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying a theory can't make predictions?
It can indeed. We would be correct to call those "guesses" in the absence of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we call them guesses? They are predictions. If they are right, then they further support the theory. If they are wrong, then they indicate some issue (small or large) with the theory.
Do you think predictions yet to be confirmed by General Relativity like gravitational waves are just merely guesses?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should we call them guesses?
I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you wanted accurate terms for the process.
Do you think predictions yet to be confirmed by General Relativity like gravitational waves are just merely guesses?
There's a lot more backing up the model of GR than there is for climate models, including many observations of various predicted GR effects.
Re: (Score:2)
The logical fallacy with "predicting" what turbulence was like 300 years ago is that there is no possible method of testing it. You have a hypothesis with no way of confirming. We cannot observe every air current on the planet at any given time today. Our ancestors 300 years ago had no method of taking atmospheric readings, save for what their eyes could see. It is easy to make guesses when there is no possible method of proving me wrong.
I could sit here and guess that the San Francisco 49ers are going
Re: (Score:2)
Did you have something sensible to say, or is aping liars and morons about the best you can do?
I pity you, so fucking stupid, and yet just enough neural hardware to show how contemptibly moronic you are on web forums.
Re: (Score:2)
These same climate/weather models are a guessing science. Last month, the Washington DC area was supposed to be hit with a 12-18 inch snowstorm. The federal government shut down. When I awoke that day, I had 4 inches of snow on the ground. The same people writing this study are the same people that cannot predict how much snow will fall 12 hours before the storm starts. What makes you think they can go back 300 years and predict the weather with any degree of accuracy?
Other effects of climate change (Score:2)
1. Turbulence increase, making air travel uncomfortable
2. Rice fields drying up worldwide, resulting in mass starvation and war for resources, with prime overpopulated countries having access to nuclear arms.
Not sure which one worries me more... nuclear holocaust vs coffee spilled on my crotch... Nah let our children figure out the mess, load up those coal power plants!
FUD, much? (Score:2, Informative)
Climate change will ruin the crops.
Climate change will ruin crabs.
Climate change will kill all the coral.
Climate change will benefit or kill insects (whether they're considered pests or beneficial in that particular article, respectively).
Climate change will cause areas to get wetter (if that would be bad).
Climate change will cause other areas to desertify (if that would be bad).
Climate change will make some places warmer (if that would be bad) or colder (if that would be bad).
Climate change will cause (wh
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change will increase the number of volcanoes and earthquakes.
This one seemed a little too outrageous, so I looked it up. Sure enough, there's a book about it [oup.com], published by Oxford University press. Written by a professor of Geophysical and Climate Hazards. I'm not sure what that kind of professor does.
Here's a summary he wrote of his book [guardian.co.uk], if anyone wants to read it and figure out the connection. I sure can't figure it out.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change will ruin crabs.
Apparently, the following treatment is highly effective in such situations:
Shave one testicle. Now light the other one on fire.
All of the crabs will (of course) retreat to the shaved testicle; simply stab each one to death with an icepick as they appear...
Fear and Dread,.... (Score:2)
Our sodas are going to get more bubbly all because of Climate Change. You see, there will be more CO2 in the air. And therefore less CO2 can be absorbed by the air. And therefore less CO2 will be released into the air by our carbonated beverage. Thus resulting in a measurable, but imperceptible, amount of increased carbonation 30 minutes after a soda can has been opened.
Also, pigeons are going to fart louder because of global warming. (More dense air.)
"Hydrogen Sonata" by Iain M. Banks covers this (Score:4, Insightful)
About page 280 he discusses the problem of modeling the future, given huge computer power.
There are 2 choices of models : either one models the physical reality in careful detail or one has averaging functions. Detailed models necessarily have chaos built in, in which case the results vary wildly and the modeler has to apply averaging or a selection function.
The choice of averaging or selection functions, in both approaches to modeling, determines the actual real-world usefulness of the models. There is no a priori way of knowing what averaging functions are useful.
It seems to me there is little discussion of the effects of different averaging functions in climate model, and not enough history to know which will be useful.
In any case, it is easy to build models, and very difficult to know their relationship to external reality.
No problem (Score:2)
Airships! (Score:3)
Bring back airships! - Perhaps equipped with jet engines... They are not susceptible to air turbulence as far as I know.
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming involves temperature changes on the scale of a couple of degrees over decades... it's not something you'll really notice on a personal scale even over 25 years. It's more likely your beach water is part of a fairly localized change that may or may not be the result of the overall GW picture.
Re: (Score:2)
because it has only been recently that humanity has started releasing millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Millions of tonnes that took millions of years to sequester, all being released in a very short period of time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the climate changes over time naturally. There have been cyclic ice ages and warmings.
But now the amount of change over time is increasing more than the historical records show occurred naturally in the past.
Instead of looking just at your beach thermometer (which is only one set of data points on a very large globe), try reading up on paleoclimatology, and see how the history of planetary weather has been preserved in ice, rocks, and plants, and how researchers use the different forms of evidence to c
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
False Memory Syndrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was studying ecology in the mid-1970s, and the panic then was certainly "the ice age is coming NOW!"
If you're "remembering" the predictions as being 3000-5000 AD, then you're probably recalling the "normal" ice age predictions of the time. The panic-mongers were claiming that the ice age was already starting to happen in the 1970s, and that we'd be well frozen over by 2000 or so.
Re:False Memory Syndrome? (Score:5, Informative)
You were studying ecology and didn't know those predictions were nonsense made by a crackpot? The "Ice Age scare" was about as popular in the scientific community as the 2012 Mayan apocalypse theories.
Re: (Score:2)
"You were studying ecology and didn't know those predictions were nonsense made by a crackpot?"
One of my advisors is one of the current Big Names in AGW - and he was the one who told me about the coming ice age.
So yeah, crackpot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The CIA funded studies on killing goats by staring at them and using psychic powers to spy on the Russians too.
And I'm sure anyone else you've shared your "not getting hotter now" belief with would have corrected you and you just choose to continue ignoring what science has to say, much like the CIA researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post doesn't address mine. You've referenced some general atmospheric effects of CO2 and aerosols, I was talking about the '70s "global cooling" scare:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because I do know how to use Google I know that the study was shot down almost immediately. [wikipedia.org] The people behind it realized their mistakes. Yet you think the fact that this was ever published overturns the majority opinion in the scientific community at the time, suggests that this mistake can never be taken back and can forever ride on the reputations of the publishers, and apparently that all crackpot predictions of an imminent ice age are legitimized by proxy...no wonder your reasoning, and by extension y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed]
There was some concern that we might be entering a natural cooling cycle or that if aerosol emissions continued to increase we could trigger an ice age (they decreased), however, even as far back as 1969 global warming was the more widely published and accepted theory. You might be confusing "scientifically illiterate reporters" with "scientists".
Citation provided [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, global warning is not measured at 'the beach in NYC'
Not that you even have records for that.
Re: (Score:2)
have any of the original predictions come true?
Does it matter? We have little evidence that extra carbon and heat in the atmosphere will make our lives better, and plenty to the contrary. If the original predictions weren't very accurate, well I suppose that must be funny to some people rooting in favor of fossil fuels, but nobody "wins" either way.
Re: (Score:2)
i first read about global warming sometime around 1990. have any of the original predictions come true?
so far i have noticed that the water at the beach in NYC is colder compared to the 80's
Where are mod points where I need 'em? You make a very astute point.
Re: (Score:3)
i first read about global warming sometime around 1990. have any of the original predictions come true?
so far i have noticed that the water at the beach in NYC is colder compared to the 80's
Yes, sea levels have risen due to there being less ice covering the poles of the planet.
Also, a local temperature of water in one place going down does not actually preclude the planets average temperature having gone up as it is quite big.
The real thing to remember about climate change though is that there is only really one certainty and that is that the already extreme weather events you experience will become far more extreme due to there being more energy in the atmosphere (even cold weather events as
Re: (Score:2)
This is a completely different problem than global warming.
Or to put it in words more accessible to you: A warning that you might burn yourself when setting that can of gasoline on fire does in no way offset the validity of the warning that you might freeze to death if you get completely drunk and then decide to walk 25 miles through a dark North Canadian
Re: (Score:2)
What a delightful group of strawmen.
Tell me, do you think the universe gives one flying fuck about liberals versus conservatives. Do you honestly think nature cares one fucking tiny little bit about your political ideology?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This is why the Earth stopped warming nearly twenty years ago, even though the Warmists were telling us the sky was about to fall if we didn't destroy the Western economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Har har you such a smartey man
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You link me to a 100% un-cited article that simply pretends oceanic heating is not a real thing, in response to a well-cited article that points out the very facts you're ignoring?
Get the fuck outta here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good grief. Either you're a liar or a gullible moron.
Re: (Score:2)
The universe doesn't but you are naive if you think that the climate change debate here on Earth, and on both sides, is immune from politics. There is plenty of history of the "environmentalist" lobby, i.e. mostly left groups, using bogus or exaggerated environment related issues to drive their political agenda. See "peak oil" fiasco as an example. I don't know if you are old enough to remember but it was all the rage in the 70s. They are now even publicly lamenting [guardian.co.uk] that there is enough oil after all for "c
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't give a flying fuck about the environmentalist lobby. I'm talking about the overwhelming majority of climatologists and what they say. Trying to assert that climatologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy makes about as much as sense as Creationists claiming biologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
In short, you're picking the low hanging fruit (which is the green movement), and insisting that the actual scientists are somehow part of a large political cabal. I reject that completely, just as I reject Creationists' claims that biologists are part of some atheistic cabal to bring down religion.
Again, I repeat, the universe doesn't give one fucking shit about your political leanings. They are utterly meaningless. If releasing hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon in the space of three centuries of industrial activity is seriously influencing global climate, then that's what is happening, and that's the end of the sentence. How we choose to deal with it is the political aspect, but we are gravely stupid species if we somehow think that any particular economic system is somehow favored by the universe, and that seems to be where your problem lies. The universe will kill a Libertarian just as quickly as it will kill a Conservative, a Liberal, a Socialist or a Communist. It does not fucking care about politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange that in one post you are accusing others of strawman tactics while in the very next post you build couple of your own strawmen by accusing global warming "doubters" of a) asserting that "climatologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy" and b) somehow thinking that political thinking influences behavior of nature (?!).
While the first accusation is somewhat understandable given the wilder claims of the nuttier section of the right wing (which should in fairness be discou
Re: (Score:2)
STRAWMAN ARMY, CHAAAAARGE!!!
Re: (Score:2)
massive increases in Al Gore's bank account
DRINK!
Re: (Score:2)
> As a result of pilots needing to dodge strong turbulence, flight paths will become longer, and fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions will increase—possibly leading to even more turbulence."
To say that the longer flight paths will add enough carbon dioxide to increase the turbulence even more is just plain silly. This is a second order effect.
And I think that clearly labels the article as "stretching AND milking 'it'". ;)
Re: (Score:2)
They just want another excuse to avoid giving in-flight service.
You caught them. You'll never get a frequent flyer mile again, kind sir. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news today, due to increased CO2 values, O2 values will increase by 2% due to more feeding of plant material, increasing animal intelligence and short-term memory by 24%.
Citation? WHAT citation? I said CO2 - that's enough to warrant an immediate applause, right?
This is even weaker than the typical AC rebuttal to this type of story because the story actually does have a citation and critics can access the paper and evaluate it based on its description of the source data, model, and stated assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)