Flights to get twice as bumpy due to climate change: study

Status
Not open for further replies.

tuapekastar

Established Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Posts
4,423
Keep those seat belts fastened!

Flights to get twice as bumpy due to climate change: study | The Age

Flights will become bumpier as global warming destabilises air currents at altitudes used by commercial airliners, climate scientists warn.

Already, atmospheric turbulence injures hundreds of airline passengers each year, sometimes fatally, damaging aircraft and costing the industry an estimated $US150 million ($A145 million), scientists say.
 
Five years ago Tim Flannery (Climate Change Commissioner) predicted that NSW dams would never be full again.
 
Five years ago Tim Flannery (Climate Change Commissioner) predicted that NSW dams would never be full again.

LOL

"Dams no longer fill even when it does rain," claimed Tim Flannery, now Chief Climate Commissioner, in 2007.
The earth was so warm, he said, "that even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems".

LOL
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Arguing semantics about the words. Another of his predictions. This in 2005.


I’M afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly . . . we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment—if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98 the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left . . .
Maxine McKew: But. . . we won’t see a return to more normal patterns?
Flannery: . . . they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don’t think it’s just a cycle. I’d love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction.
McKew: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with—if that’s right—back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
Flannery: That’s right.
 
No, Andrew Bolt said Tim Flannery said that. full quote in context is here: Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again | Under The Milky Way

Seems like an independent and un-biased article :p

The full quote is:

Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.


So he is saying that rain that falls isn't going to fill the dams.. I wonder how people on the east coast of Australia think about that.
 
Five years ago Tim Flannery (Climate Change Commissioner) predicted that NSW dams would never be full again.

Timmy & Garnaut will certainly be feeling something resembling global warming come the 15th Sept.
 
Fortunately all this climate change stuff can be ignored after September 14 because Tony Abbott has said he doesn't believe in it therefore it doesn't exist. We might have to belt up once we leave Australian borders and go to countries where science is preferred over religious dogma.
 
Depending how far the NBN continues to go over budget, we may not be able to afford in internet in a few years :)
 
There is a difference between climate change and the religion that surrounds man induced climate change and the associated snouts in the global trough. Man is pretty arrogant when it thinks it can change what Mother Nature has been in control of for always. We use climatic data for the last 200 years and dare to suggest that this is science of how the earth has been travelling for billions of years.
 
Well to say it will get twice as bumpy (why not 3 times as bumpy or 1.5 times), what are they using as the base line and what are the parameters involved, over all locations or just some, by when... I mean its just a stupid throw away line for the sake of having something else to say on climate change and get another subset (the flying public) peeing in their pants...

And is this more of the Gaia/Mother Earth sh!te giving us a backlash is it??
"Aviation is partly responsible for changing the climate in the first place," added Williams.
"It is ironic that the climate looks set to exact its revenge by creating a more turbulent atmosphere for flying."
 
Seems like an independent and un-biased article :p

The full quote is:

Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.


So he is saying that rain that falls isn't going to fill the dams.. I wonder how people on the east coast of Australia think about that.

In context it is very clear what he's saying. I'm amazed that people pretend to be idiots to argue this stuff.
 
In context it is very clear what he's saying. I'm amazed that people pretend to be idiots to argue this stuff.

Why are you surprised that dogma trumps reason?? It was always thus and always will be.

Anyway ...... the sort of extreme climate change that you see fictionalised in films like The Day After Tomorrow is not backed by most climate scientists, but milder disruptions to standard weather patterns is plausible. We will only know when we get there and the only rational choice surely is to not take that gamble.
 
In context it is very clear what he's saying. I'm amazed that people pretend to be idiots to argue this stuff.

Well what is he saying, that the dams will never fill up again or that we probably need to build at least a few small ones, or something to divert the last 3 summers worth of deluges, so we're not all routinely having to pay some levy to bail out parts of Queensland or NSW???

Its clear his crystal ball is a bit fuzzy...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top