Real World Data Proves That Air Turbulence Is Not Getting Worse
By Paul Homewood
h/t idau
As the saying goes, data trumps theory.
While the media has been having a field day linking air turbulence to global warming, the actual data shows the opposite.
Three years ago the US National Transportation Safety Board published a detailed report into turbulence related accidents:
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101.pdf
.
The report was clear – there has been no increase in the frequency of such accidents since 1989:
.
.
The trend is even clearer when shown as a ratio of flight hours:
.
.
Turbulence accidents are counted when there is either aircraft damage or serious injury, so the data can be regarded as robust, which would not be the case if the definitions were more subjective.
Aviation expert, Juan Browne, has his full analysis of the Singapore Airlines incident here:
.
.
This whole media circus is part of a much wider problem.
Far too often the media’s bases its apocalyptic climate stories on computer models instead of real world, which usually tells a different story.
And there are plenty of grant addicted, grifting scientists out there to provide them with the ammunition.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Like hurricane alarmism, if they can’t win on frequency they move to intensity or any other variable that sounds unpleasant in some way.
I wouldn’t call them “scientists.” Some chancer who manages to write rubbish about “climate change and prostitution” is not a scientist.
Gives a new meaning to the old movie “Fanny by Gaslight” ?
Superb!
Pesky data! We need more control!
You have to be a little careful with this data however. First, aircraft are much better at avoiding turbulence now through better weather radar, reprting, and use of better navigation aids. Second, the SIA accident appears to have been clear air turbulence and it is that that is usually claimed to be increasing (or will increase).
More flights, too. You gotta adjust for mileage.
And where and when in the year, but also passenger numbers/aircraft as short haul low cost carriers significantly increased capacity per flight.
There’s a surprising number of variables to take into account.
But there are an increasing number of flights. Possibly through areas with higher probability of clear air or other turbulence.
Difficult to draw any conclusions without years of research rather than a report the next day.
CAT?
Current, working 777 pilot Juan Brown seems to suggest that the aircraft was threading its way between two thunderstorms which were masking another area of disturbed air from the radar.
Just to let you know that a previous article “What happened to the Electric Car Revolution.”: the link to “comment” leads to nothing
Maybe withdrawn due to copyright issues
Since it reproduced with credit a Spectator article .. which is actually behind the paywall
So, if man-made climate change influences accidents, then climate change has been more good than bad.
Why oh why are intelligent people working hard to spoil the BBC’s latest headline- don’t they realise that Beeb staff spend hours scanning the World looking for facts to prove that Global Warming is Everywhere and can strike without warning; it’s raining-Global Warming, it’s sunny- Global Warning, Grannies fallen over- Global Warming, Sunak called an election- Global Warming. Please remember that when knocking these MSM types, you are putting thousands of jobs at risk- after all, who else would employ these lying leeches?
refer to Media Matters job cuts
I used a slightly different methodology (injuries/billion passenger miles), but saw the same result. A decline in injuries, and probably insignificant. Mine used a few more years of data, through 2021.
https://x.com/LesJohnsonHrvat/status/1793674547155370177
Those of you who complained to the BBC should bookmark this evidence to throw at them when they try to reject your complaint.
Thank you. It was in 1955 that the Solomon Asch experiment showed that spurious lies acquiesced in generate measurable “social pressure” inducing folks to lie to go along with a crowd. One vocal skeptic sufficed to nullify that error-inducing pressure. You are doing exemplary work.
Off topic, but those near grid scale battery storage might be interested.
Battery fire in Otay Mesa smoldering for a sixth day
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2024-05-21/battery-fire-in-otay-mesa-smoldering-for-a-sixth-day
Paul’s earlier post derided the paper by Prosser et al (2023) as not being global. I read through the paper and found that the data used was in fact global. The safety report used to rebuff it, however, only uses data from the U.S. and a few from American airlines flying abroad, so is not comparable. The data used in the safety report covers all turbulence, whereas the Prosser paper refers only to C.A.T., so again no comparison.
One feature that affects CAT is the difference in temperature between the poles and equator, but not at ground level where the difference is lessening. What is important is the difference in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, where the difference is actually increasing. My argument against the Prosser paper would therefore be that neither the effect of ozone on the temperature has been taken into account, nor the effect of changes in the AMO over the period analysed. Both would account for at least part of the rise in wind shear over the period analysed.
An increase in flights over the period used would be applicable to the safety data, but not to the Prosser paper, as it only calculates areas with high CAT, and does not use data from flights.
The cherry picked 55% in the N Atlantic headline is not representative of the world, and many parts of the world have had less turbulence according to the Williams study, incl Burma where this latest accident occurred!
The Williams study also claims that the US is one of the worst affected regions, but the actual data shows this is not true. If CAT accidents really are increasing there, then the other types of turbulence must be decreasing, which seems unlikely. Williams findings do not hold up unless he can reconcile this disparity.
Either way Sky’s headline “Climate change is causing more turbulence on flights” is simply not true as far as the US is concerned.
Real world data always trumps computer models, whether global or not.
Paul, rel world data might well show the shooting DEATHS in London are decreasing
but AFAIK the background is that there are more shootings, but far better medical systems so more victims survive.
So same for flights, less flight damage doesn’t prove there is LESS turbulance
PS Since we just had powerful solar storms would that not partially cause an uptick in planet Earth storms ?
yes, the region of the incident is calculated to have less CAT, and hence it is wrong to only report that globally CAT is increasing. A question that comes to mind is why Williams was approached instead of the main author, Prosser. Or perhaps he was, but did not give the wished for response.
The comment from Stewgreen is very relevant, I would also relate it to the inference that increased flights should mean more incidents. It is also logical that there would also be more information feedback to following aircraft, and hence more avoidance of tricky areas.
The theoretical calculation of CAT as used in the paper actually avoids these issues, and are based on past records as opposed to trying to predict what may happen in the future. I understand your point about computer modelling, but feel that it is not comparable to climate forecasting, where the future is subject to any inaccuracies being compounded with time.
I believe Williams is the main author, as he has published several papers into this sort of thing before.
Prosser is a PhD researcher, so presumably did the leg work!
Please see my post here:
I read through the paper, and I found its claims were of dubious quality. It really is models all the way down, and its models are not really superior to other ones, despite the claim in their summary, because the data just aren’t that good to support the methodology.
The paper makes its estimate of increasing CAT over North America as one of its key outcomes. That is directly refuted by the NTSB evidence.
If theory doesn’t match experiment it’s wrong.
RP Feynman
A recent poll by Monthmouth University showed a SLIGHT reduction in belief in CAGW among Americans: It is now about 73% : 23%. The fact is, however, that for all practical purposes they might as well be unanimous in supporting the madness. As we saw with lockdowns and vaccines, three-quarters is a CRUSHING majority, for when the intolerant get to work on transforming society. Nor is that 23% even in any way rational! They are made up mainly of Republicans (49% of whom do not believe in CAGW) who are accustomed to automatically rejecting anything dear to the hearts of Democrats (94% of whom do believe in CAGW). The “rationals” are the 4% who say that, whatever, nothing can be done. In other words, 96% of Americans are so stupid that they do not understand that China, India etc. are too powerful to be bullied by the West, and that their plans make it totally impossible to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide by even a tiny amount.
O/T Paul didn’t cover the BBC story about the BBC claim that Portugal has a supernewable grid
and achieved 95% renewable in April
.. That cherrypick is probably not actually true
but they do have loads of hydro and it was a super rainy month
Someone pointed me to the official grid stats
They start with yellow coal, it’s phased out
Blue is hydro, in bad years you turn up fossil fuels
But see the price trend DOUBLE
and 2022 coincided with a gas price bubble and low hydro conditions
generally More Wind/solar = bigger prices
Apols for the off topic, but here’s a wee summary of Scottish ferry building ahem ‘capability’. Work it out.
From about a year ago, still determined to attain emissions targets via NZ aspiration
Through A Scottish Prism Midweek Special.Fickle Ferries – BarrheadBoy
Both vessels are six+ years overdue and ongoing four times the contracted cost … Aye, Clyde built in whose factory yards?
The problem with air turbulence is that in reality there are few direct measurements of it and so little data to form the basis of any analysis.
The studies I have seen are based on “reanalysis” and basically apply to things like the flows such as jet streams. “Reanalysis” immediately implies models and is thus departing from reality.
Since the turbulence is actually a small-scale process (and with fractal characteristics at that), very difficult to build into any of the models, the best they can do is to parameterize based on the large-scale flows. How good any parameterization is at modelling reality is anyone’s guess.
Real World Data Proves That Air Turbulence Is Not Getting Worse
So?
This is culture war.
Thank God for science !!! Who knows what stories people would come up with without it ??!!
If the first sign of madness is looking for hairs on the palm of your hand, then looking to see if these absurd climate claims have any justification must be a form of madness.
https://x.com/FaceTheNation/status/1794748977000153310
embed fail… or even…
https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1794748977000153310