https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL56/history/202507...
Track log https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL56/history/202507...
Looks like something happened around 19:20
I would have thought the main reason the issue is more common is simply there are far more flights.
For instance, wildfires. It's definitely climate change because something bad happened. Not classical phenomena about wind currents drying out vegetation. Or increased human development into wild areas, or a century of PUTTING OUT smaller fires, or environmental regulations against harvesting lumber. No, the only way to think is the way that leads to more regulations, taxes and grants and government waste, criminal charges for the unlucky SOB who starts the fire, higher prices (in energy, cars, buildings, and insurance), and more human suffering that they can sell you their next solution for. For this reason, I don't believe a single thing they say anymore.
It shows a shocking lack of familiarity with the effects of deforestation, carbon capture, logging rules for sustainability, land ownership for building the houses or even what the bottlenecks for housing currently are.
All to blame the intellectually bereft bogeyman of “leftism” when forests exist in many right wing states, and the right wing currently runs the government and yet even they don’t do what you’re suggesting…
>[T]he extent to which this trend is due to weather pattern changes dominated by natural variability versus anthropogenic warming has been unclear... Our results show that for the period 1979 to 2020, variation in the atmospheric circulation explains, on average, only 32% of the observed VPD [vapor pressure deficit] trend of 0.48 ± 0.25 hPa/decade (95% CI) over the WUS during the warm season (May to September). The remaining 68% of the upward VPD trend is likely due to anthropogenic warming.[0]
[0]https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111875118#executive-s...
Even so, the paper says there's been a 0.2-0.3% change in CAT:
> The largest increases in both absolute and relative MOG CAT were found over the North Atlantic and continental United States, with statistically significant absolute increases of 0.3% (26 hr) and 0.22% (19 hr), respectively, over the total reanalysis period.
I think it may have that effect on the seatbelt sign, but is it greater or less than when the no smoking sign was actually worth checking?
Climate change causing turbulence increase is well acknowledged https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240524-severe-turbulenc...
> Turbulence is unpleasant to fly through in an aircraft. Strong turbulence can even injure air passengers and flight attendants. An invisible form called clear-air turbulence
But in the incident in question, the plane flew directly through a convective storm.
[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL10...
> Climate models consistently project environmental changes that would support an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe thunderstorms that combine tornadoes, hail, and winds (high confidence), but there is low confidence in the details of the projected increase.
The models project it, but there is currently low confidence in the increase.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101....
Page 34. They have a graph. "After normalizing the data by annual flight hours, there was no obvious trend over time for turbulence-related Part 121 accidents during this [30 year] period."
BBC article is citing some academics doing a modeling exercise. They never learn. Academics can prove the sky is green if they're allowed to play with R for long enough. That paper isn't measuring actual turbulence, they try to derive it from physical models, but their models must suck because they draw a totally different conclusion to the real world experience of accident investigators. Evidence > academic theories.
it does not mean "crash", although a crash would be included. Specifically, bouncing off the ceiling and fracturing your arm or whatever would count as an accident per the definition.
it's completely valid as a refutation of the bbc article.
it's a fresh "model" and if you've used an LLM you know how useful models are; and the sorts of models used in these studies are about 1 billionth the size.
Further, their own dataset shows massive areas with decreased turbulence. I guess the sun and CO2 don't work there?
ya, HN, i know.
lol
cjrp•6mo ago
Aloha•6mo ago
nielsbot•6mo ago
She was once flung to the ceiling (and then back to the floor) while trying to get back to her seat.
noir_lord•6mo ago
cjrp•6mo ago
https://avherald.com/h?article=52b0a50c&opt=0
amatecha•6mo ago