Really Susan? Why not say what YOU think the problem is. If there IS a problem, I been around this old planet for 76 some odd years and I'm sill waiting for something extreme life threatening events to happen. So tell me someone, just how many deaths are RECORD AS having died from Climate Change?
Cat got your tongue?
Cat got your tongue?
6
As a long time commercial airman and large aircraft instructor, I should like to point out that each manufacturer of commercial aircraft sets "normal limits" for the certification and performance parameters, and generates computer datato reflect same. for example if a B737 were limited to X weight on a Y temperature day on a given wind/runway/temperature, any of those parameters were exceeded, then takeoff is not possible-assuming that data was all that was available. If an operator were to contact the manufacturer, said manufacturer could recalculate, and/or re-certify said aircraft with new data reflecting the temperature and/or runway weight combination. This might occur with just a (expensive) phone call, or even a new set of flight test data being generated. The plane could then operate, albeit with certainly less payload. A much simpler, relatively short term solution- for the airlines, the airports, and the Air Traffic system, would be to simply reschedule flights to cooler times of days and nights, which would have the added advantage of easing the overload on our ATC system, and airport capacities. Certainly the climate is changing-without getting into the "why/fault" debate. Airlines/manufacturers will gradually reflect this with larger performance parameters and data. Generally speaking, especially in PHX, runways are already plenty long enough, it is the data that needs renewing, AND, the willingness of operators to put smaller loads on these aircraft
14
As a member of the flying public, I should like to point out that 120 degree temperatures are outrageous and probably a taste of the disruption sure to effect transportation, agriculture, health, the economy and our nation's security. How about we do get into the why/fault debate. Why should we allow the oil companies and republicans to kill off life on this planet and escape fault? Why not place the blame where it belongs and then hold them to account for their rapacious and reckless behavior with our planet's health and life?
34
It seems like the only way we will end up taking real action against climate change is when major corporations begin losing money.
28
There it is, the link to the evil corporations and if they lose money everything will be just fine. Where are you people learning this dribble? Oh Los Angeles CA? No wonder!
2
McCarran airport in Las Vegas, because of a hot climate had a very long runway built, plus it was built with a slight tilt downward thus taking care of the issue of planes getting lift in extremely hot weather. Those airports in the middle east have the long runways as well. Early airplanes were designed with larger engines and larger wings, which of course weight more, and require more fuel. Airlines now fly lots of small aircraft as a money saver. The longest runway in the world is in Tibet at 3.4 miles long. High elevation, heat, and large airplanes require long runways.
16
This is fake news. It's a "hot" 72 degrees in Phoenix. Enuf already.
4
If you're at all interested in a more detailed description of why these planes were not allowed to attempt take off, see the Blancolirio channel on YouTube - written and filmed by a current Boeing777 pilot and former Air Force pilot.
I'm probably gonna get in trouble for providing a link, but here goes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDcCPGgwDgI (start at time marker 12:30)
I'm probably gonna get in trouble for providing a link, but here goes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDcCPGgwDgI (start at time marker 12:30)
4
Must be natures way it doesn't like all those airplanes and what their exhaust is doing. Seems the problem is being taken care of for us. How thoughtful.
10
Climate change only affects flights carrying Democrats. Republicans know better - just a lot of hot air.
16
Airlines should not be flying 737s across country anyway. Just another of so many examples of their unfriendliness to their consumers.
15
Climate change is horrible.
But if you buy ANYTHING from China, India, or Mexico, you're part of the problem because those countries have zero enforced environmental laws.
But if you buy ANYTHING from China, India, or Mexico, you're part of the problem because those countries have zero enforced environmental laws.
6
Yup, more turbulence already. Get out the Rescue Remedy!
4
Nature bats last. Always.
23
The commerce demons of the air are fueled by manmade climate change and have devoured airlines' schedules as well as their customers' weak occidental souls.
3
What's ironic is most of Phoenix voted for Mr. "Global Warming is a Chinese Hoax". Phoenix is the poster child for Climate Change--that's what they're trying to accomplish, the colonization of a desert that looks like the surface of the moon, planting grass to make it look habitable, then paving everything in sight. Phoenix is a horrific place that shouldn't exist. Phoenicians are all about climate change. They don't care one iota.
17
I wonder if people in CT drive SUVs, live in 4000 + square foot homes that are heated and cooled depending on the season, use gas powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers. Did you know gas powered leaf blowers put out more emissions than a car traveling 100 miles. A leaf blower causes as much air pollution as 17 cars. Oh, and did you know it takes more energy to heat something up than to cool it down? And did you know more CT drivers commute alone than the national average? Congratulations on not voting against Global Warming. But maybe with every mile driven, every blade of grass sheared, every maple or oak leaf blown... just maybe you actually voted for it too?!
18
It's ironically appropriate that climate change might be grounding some airplanes, because the greenhouse gases spewed directly into the upper atmosphere by all these jets are a significant contributor to climate change. So they are reaping what they are sowing.
20
Conservatives will argue that the market will provide solutions to this problem. For example, constructing planes with higher heat tolerances, better stabilizers. It's just an engineering problem to be solved and an opportunity to make money. You know what? They are right, the market will provide. And this will just become the new normal. Increases in coastal flooding will open up new real estate opportunities, decreases in arctic sea ice will open up new shipping lanes. The climate will continue to change and the capitalists will make money off the rejiggering of civilization. Aren't humans wonderful?
14
Ever thought about ground crew working in these temps? Of course you haven't. It would feel uncomfortable. Most airlines have subcontractors handling that, which means airlines are off the hook. Think about it.
24
In somewhat related #fake news, Trump, never insensitive to an opportunity, is rumoured to be ordering plans to convert his soon-to-be-useless Boeing 757 to the BIGGEST PROM LIMO EVER. Make High School Graduation Great Again!
9
It can't be climate warming because that doesn't exist. POTUS says so.
37
When I fly, I generally keep my seatbelt on for the entire flight. I have no fear of flying and get no motion sickness from any vehicle. Usually, I sleep during flights, but I understand many folks don't sleep easily on planes. Obviously, I remove my seatbelt to use the restroom, but I avoid using airplane toilets if I can. Yuk!
I understand that turbulance is unpredictable, but seatbelts don't need to be uncomfortable. Even if you stay in your seat, bouncing around can be painful. If you choose not to wear your seatbelt, that's fine. Children and seniors (possible osteoporosis) should wear seatbelts for the whole flight.
Relax and don't worry. The pilots want to arrive safely.
Global warming? It's real and we have to deal with it. It's not a conspiracy. It's happening and we must face it.
I understand that turbulance is unpredictable, but seatbelts don't need to be uncomfortable. Even if you stay in your seat, bouncing around can be painful. If you choose not to wear your seatbelt, that's fine. Children and seniors (possible osteoporosis) should wear seatbelts for the whole flight.
Relax and don't worry. The pilots want to arrive safely.
Global warming? It's real and we have to deal with it. It's not a conspiracy. It's happening and we must face it.
9
I had always wondered why (heavy) international flights in some very hot countries - India is one example - tend to leave after 1AM but before dawn. This article explains it well. Perhaps 2AM flights are in our future
15
before everyone gets hot and bothered, you should take into account the Urban Heat Island effect. Way back yonder in 1900, Phoenix had about 5000 inhabitants. Today, the metro area is over 4 million people.
So you take that 800 fold increase in the local population. Add on that phoenix back in the old days was a western town, today it has skyscrapers, concrete roads. Instead of having your ranch house or a room over the saloon, now everybody's gotta have their own dang house, cars, and a nice office building to go to, stores, restaurants.
So the population has grown at massively, the density is up hugely, and al the things that make an urban heat island tick (roads, houses, office buildings, etc.) have all been put up since the temp record started for AZ.
And this is an airport, which tend to be really hot places. And this is a desert folks, the historic highs have been at the 120 level. So -- I'm not sure this is climate change related. Flagstaff, which is near the mountains, has had nothing like the growth Phoenix has had and their avg temp hasn't gone up. It's varied, but avg temps for phoenix now are lower than in 1980.
Maybe the journalists at the Times should do some research before put pen to paper.
So you take that 800 fold increase in the local population. Add on that phoenix back in the old days was a western town, today it has skyscrapers, concrete roads. Instead of having your ranch house or a room over the saloon, now everybody's gotta have their own dang house, cars, and a nice office building to go to, stores, restaurants.
So the population has grown at massively, the density is up hugely, and al the things that make an urban heat island tick (roads, houses, office buildings, etc.) have all been put up since the temp record started for AZ.
And this is an airport, which tend to be really hot places. And this is a desert folks, the historic highs have been at the 120 level. So -- I'm not sure this is climate change related. Flagstaff, which is near the mountains, has had nothing like the growth Phoenix has had and their avg temp hasn't gone up. It's varied, but avg temps for phoenix now are lower than in 1980.
Maybe the journalists at the Times should do some research before put pen to paper.
5
I agree completely. I wrote a similar comment. Most journalists don't take the time to research heat island effects and other explanations for hot temperatures. Much of the rise in global temperatures attributed to climate change can be explained away by this, since temperature readings over the past century taken in the same spots are in much more urban settings today.
1
John Dal Pino,
Most of the rise in global temperatures attributed to climate change can *not* be explained by "urban heat islands". If you need to come up to speed, see the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project at berkeleyearth.org.
Most of the rise in global temperatures attributed to climate change can *not* be explained by "urban heat islands". If you need to come up to speed, see the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project at berkeleyearth.org.
14
Mal -- you might want to look at your data more closely. Almost all of the contiguous US --- where there is warming -- is in areas where there has been extensive urbanization. Moreover, the global population has grown by 5x since 1900 -- and much has been in urban areas that cover large portions of land. The alarmists keep saying that the urban areas account for only a small portion of land -- BUT -- that's not true. There are so many middle American towns that have grown dramatically in the last 100 years -- even if their current population is maybe 100k -- it was 1k back then. The entire country -- and much of the globe has undergone so much urbanization in the last 100 years that if that hasn't been carefully accounted for (which it hasn't) then much of all the climate change we see may simply be the result of population growth -- and a shift from an agrarian lifestyle to urban.
1
Yesssssssss. We know how good the airplane consumption of fossil fuel is for the environment. Time for all those entitled humans who "just love to travel" to rein it in.
5
My cousin in Phoenix loved it. AC inside the home, swimming pool in the back yard, and less airplane noise. Also it is just a quick drive to San Diego where they have airplanes and decent weather.
5
Interesting...
So - it's then obviously settled science that the worst place to site an airline and hub would be someplace like Dubai or the Emirates...
So - it's then obviously settled science that the worst place to site an airline and hub would be someplace like Dubai or the Emirates...
4
Interesting. Just don't task violent government to do anything in response, which will only make matters worse. Government's ability to positively impact the climate is squat, zilch, zero, but it ability to destroy the environment is real and dangerous. Recall Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc., etc., etc. Asking government to fix the climate is akin to asking foxy loxey to guard the hen house and not eat the hens. Fat chance, that.
1
Maybe we can put the GOP on one of those planes and see if crashing will change their view about climate change. Let Trump sit in the cockpit so the fool can see what is coming.
8
So it hot in Phoenix on the Summer Solstice? Who knew? Stop the presses!! It is hot there a lot, and it has nothing to do with global warming. Phoenix is in the desert and the more that the city gets developed and paved over, the hotter it seems to get.
3
John Dal Pino, why are you so confident this has nothing to do with global warming? Are you aware there are trained and disciplined scientists who study climate? How is it you feel qualified to tell them they're wrong?
12
He doesn't believe in science.
4
The description of Phoenix temperatures is not accurate. The increase in heat here has resulted in more days above 110. But we are not regularly getting new all-time high temperatures. The hottest day here occurred almost 30 years ago. We generally have temperatures between 115 and 120 once a year, because many factors have to coincide to get there. If we get another super hot week, that would be unusual. But nobody is expecting temperatures of 125 any time soon in light of the pattern of temperature changes to date. Our annual temperatures have set record highs the last few years, but always because we have more days above 110. 120 has been the ceiling for a long time. And Tuesday, barely missed it. The high on Tuesday was 119. Of course, this may all change. But the coincidence of factors needed to get above 120 make it unlikely.
2
When climate change starts to interfere w/ the airlines' bottom line, then they (and other corporations) will want to do something about it. Let's hope that happens before it's too late.
9
Global warming is going to force water wasting Western U.S. cities like Phoenix to make some hard choices about their future. You can envision a day when desert cities completely dry up and residents are forced to relocate, businesses close and the fiscal impact to the global economy is immeasurable. That is what our future looks like if we continue down this wasteful path of destruction to our planet.
10
My husband and I happened to be out in the Phoenix area from September 16-20, 2010, and it happened to be 106-108 each day but they said that it was even higher. Having lived there in the winter for 7 years, I can tell you that we have had it cold in December and January each of those years. I have asked people who have lived in southern Arizona for many years if the weather has changed much, and everyone I talked to about it said no. In Minnesota, we used to have really hot and humid weather in June from 1970 until about 1985, and that is not the case anymore. We will have one hot year, and then summers that are below normal. This spring in southern Minnesota has been below normal so far except for a few above normal days.
5
While these anecdotes are interesting, and can be helpful as part of a larger dataset, it would be wrong to draw too many conclusions from them, especially since they don't quote measured temperatures, except to try to disagree with them. A little research shows that Minnesota climate is changing and that it is associated with global warming.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/02/climate-change-primer
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/doc...
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/02/climate-change-primer
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/doc...
5
Dream on, Mary Kay. And what is your point about Phx. being cold in the winter? Do your research, you who apparently have two homes.
4
My cousin lived in Mesa for years and saw snow flurries one day. Most locals had never seen snow, so they didn't recognuze what they were seeing.
Please understand the difference between "weather" and "climate." No matter where we live, we've seen warm or hot days when the season is winter and chilly days during summer. Those days are the result of the normal oddities of weather.
Global warming is the result of serious changes to the earth's climate. We must understand it and try to prevent damage to our planet.
Please understand the difference between "weather" and "climate." No matter where we live, we've seen warm or hot days when the season is winter and chilly days during summer. Those days are the result of the normal oddities of weather.
Global warming is the result of serious changes to the earth's climate. We must understand it and try to prevent damage to our planet.
12
The Polar Ice Caps, which act as a sunblock for the earth if you will, have been steadily shrinking due to warmer temps. The result of this ice cap reduction has been a less consistant west to east jet stream flow, but rather north and south air flow troughs that tend to linger longer in one place. Theese troughs create a situation whereby bad weather does not blow out quickly, but instead lingers for days, or weeks over a geographical area. Hence days on end of heavy snow (108 inches in Boston 2015), or long days of drought in Southern California. Unfortunately our once trusty jet stream is no a longer reliable aid to air travel or preventing adverse weather troubles.
10
The melting ice caps will change Amer and Europe. Once the Gulf Stream changes, England, Scotland, Ireland, and the North East are in big trouble.
3
The polar ice cap is further jeopardized by black carbon, which decreases the "albedo effect", making the snow/ice black so it absorbs more heat, instead of reflecting it. The ice then melts further -- and hence exasperates global warming/climate change in the rest of the world. This black carbon comes from where? Jet exhaust and diesel fumes (ships).
We need to divert flight paths from over the Arctic, and we need to reduce flying. We also need to take climate change seriously at a personal level, change our behaviours, and brace ourselves for what's coming (disease, mass migration, species die-out etc).
We need to divert flight paths from over the Arctic, and we need to reduce flying. We also need to take climate change seriously at a personal level, change our behaviours, and brace ourselves for what's coming (disease, mass migration, species die-out etc).
3
Changing plane design can solve many of these problems. For example, greater wing surface area would increase lift. Our current planes were designed for past weather conditions, and future plane designs can take climate change into account.
2
Lift isn't the only issue. Many jet engines have operating temperatures between 1500 and 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. They rely on atmospheric air of a certain temperature for cooling. If the atmospheric air is too warm, the engine won't be able to cool properly and could begin to risk the integrity of some of the internal parts. Additionally, regulations require (for good reason) certain margins of safety for failure considerations. So even if an engine is perfectly sound under normal operating conditions at 120 or 130 deg Fahrenheit, FAA regulations require that the aircraft would still be able to operate with one engine failure, meaning the remaining operational engine would be severely overloaded. Add extreme heat to that and you could fail the one remaining engine.
7
The plane could take off but with a lighter load of fewer passengers.
Also, the air density in Phoenix at these hot temperatures is roughly the same as the air density in Denver, Colorado(elevation 4500 ft) at normal temperatures... how do these planes fly to Denver, or do they?
Wh
Also, the air density in Phoenix at these hot temperatures is roughly the same as the air density in Denver, Colorado(elevation 4500 ft) at normal temperatures... how do these planes fly to Denver, or do they?
Wh
3
Denver's airport has the longest commercial runway in North America to enable planes to take off in those conditions.
10
Newsflash: Domestic westbound flights have always taken longer than the same flight going eastbound. The jet stream is nothing new, and can vary quite a bit. Captain announcements about tailwinds or headwinds have been routine since commercial flight began.
7
Observer, why do you think that's a news flash? Why do you imagine you know anything about climate that thousands of trained, disciplined, working climate scientists don't?
What about the upside of global warming? Wouldn't fewer plans need de-icing? Fewer iced-wing crashes? Isn't that a "good" to be counted?
2
A humorous talking point, to be sure, but hardly a rigorous cost benefit analysis. While such things are extremely difficult, it is difficult to escape the fact that, overall, our societies and nature itself are suited to the current climatic conditions and that changes from that are likely to be expensive and stressful (in the technical sense).
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-5-3-3.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-5-3-3.html
1
Breaking breaking news! Phoenix is in the desert. Deserts are generally very hot places, particularly in the summer. It is now summer...
6
"Places like Phoenix, already known for summer heat, are measurably warming up. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information show that every year since 1976 has been hotter than the city’s historical average. Seven of the 10 hottest years on record there have been in the past decade."
16
Wrong. Global warming is real. I live in Arizona and will swear to that. Do your research.
5
From the article:
"Places like Phoenix, already known for summer heat, are measurably warming up. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information show that every year since 1976 has been hotter than the city’s historical average. Seven of the 10 hottest years on record there have been in the past decade."
"Places like Phoenix, already known for summer heat, are measurably warming up. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information show that every year since 1976 has been hotter than the city’s historical average. Seven of the 10 hottest years on record there have been in the past decade."
1
Does this article's assertion that temperature was the proximate cause of these cancellations permit closer examination? Or would that not be worthy of discussion?
No need to simply wonder. A quick search will turn up plenty of supporting evidence.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/06/20/the-science-of-...
Not only that, but the science is quite simple (as is, coincidentally, the basic fact that increasing CO2 raises global temperatures). Hot air is less dense and rarer air provides less lift.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/06/20/the-science-of-...
Not only that, but the science is quite simple (as is, coincidentally, the basic fact that increasing CO2 raises global temperatures). Hot air is less dense and rarer air provides less lift.
1
Maybe the hot air that makes airplane flight difficult in Arizona will kill the runaway mosquito population that was mentioned in another doom-predicting NYT article as a nefarious result of climate change... by the way, I'm totally shocked to hear that air temperature in Arizona can get very hot... it's as if there would be a dessert down there !
3
"Places like Phoenix, already known for summer heat, are measurably warming up. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information show that every year since 1976 has been hotter than the city’s historical average. Seven of the 10 hottest years on record there have been in the past decade." Quotation from the article. Did you read it?
3
A dessert (sic)? You mean like baked Alaska? If so, how appropriate.
But seriously now folks.... we are not talking about hot or cold, but hotter or cooler. Look at the evidence. Stick with the scientific sites such as NOAA and EPA and stay away from the fake news outlets like Wattsup, Alex Jones etc. NYT does fact-checking and corrections when wrong. When have you seen any of those truly fake news outlets done that?
But seriously now folks.... we are not talking about hot or cold, but hotter or cooler. Look at the evidence. Stick with the scientific sites such as NOAA and EPA and stay away from the fake news outlets like Wattsup, Alex Jones etc. NYT does fact-checking and corrections when wrong. When have you seen any of those truly fake news outlets done that?
2
Did anybody say that the weather is not getting hotter in the Arizona desert in the last decades ? To relate that directly to global warming (global, as in work-wide) is non-scientific. Not every local situation is related to global trends. As I've written in another posting, the Sahara desert used to be a savannah just a couple thousand years ago. I'm sure that the change was due to fossil fuel use by Neolithic people.
Flying in planes, high speed rail, driverless cars. We're missing the point: our lifestyle is unsustainable and we need to consume less. Overconsumption of the world's resources is what got us into this mess. New Technofixes won't solve the unsustainability problem.
18
"To address this, airlines could reduce airplane weight (by loading fewer passengers and less fuel or cargo)..."
Wouldn't it be wonderful if airlines, while they seek better technology to fly through hotter atmosphere, would "load fewer passengers"?! Yes, prices might/will rise, which would lead to less demand and fewer CO2 emissions. Let's fly less, teleconference more, and act to mitigate/lessen climate change in everything we do. It's not going to get any easier...
Wouldn't it be wonderful if airlines, while they seek better technology to fly through hotter atmosphere, would "load fewer passengers"?! Yes, prices might/will rise, which would lead to less demand and fewer CO2 emissions. Let's fly less, teleconference more, and act to mitigate/lessen climate change in everything we do. It's not going to get any easier...
8
Nirvana. AA HAS 102 seat Airbus 321 from JFK to LAX and SFO. It is awesome. Beds, Lobster, cappuccino machine, open bar, duvets, and frequent service. Guess what? It costs thousands of dollars. The only way our airlines in the US will improve is if the market demands it or regulations drive it. Airlines were much more pleasant, profitable, and palatable when deregulation existed. That will not happen again.
What you will see soon are foreign owned airlines going point to point with in our country. I am not sure that is such a great idea.
What you will see soon are foreign owned airlines going point to point with in our country. I am not sure that is such a great idea.
We've heard of this before, it used to be called "the hockey stick". Climate is "normal", all steady and optimal, and then human influence messes it up and the climate becomes "terrible" - nothing but hurricanes, droughts and all kinds of assorted catastrophes. Except that climate changes perpetually, and it does not go from "good" to "bad". Negative aspects of climate migrate from one area to another, and so do positive ones. The Sahara dessert used to be a savannah a few thousand years ago; the change was locally very negative but not the entire world turned into a fiery dessert. This kind of scare tactics on climate change are what drives people away and make reasonable discussions impossible.
3
Andy, it isn't climate scientists using "this kind of scare tactics". If you got your information about climate science from working climate scientists, rather than from bloggers, Trumpist politicians and fake 'news', you'd have a much clearer picture of reality.
2
I believe it's the prospect of climate _change_ that should have reasonable people worried. Put in simple terms we're risking the status quo for an unknown future. The U.S. has a significant amount of land under agriculture. Shall we 'roll the dice' on that just so we can all calm down?
I've provided a very specific example of short-term, local and extreme climate change obviously not related to human activity. The counter-argument are accusations of getting my information from "alt-right" channels ? So independent thinking equates to right wing extremism ? My Ph.D. is in Geology (Sequence Stratigraphy), and I assure you not from the Trump University. How about you ?
Two very important things left out. First, hot air IS thinner than cold air. Better said is that it has LESS MASS. In order to achieve enough airspeed to fly, there must be enough thrust from the engines to accelerate the airplane. Thrust comes from moving a large MASS of air at high speeds. Thus thrust and airspeed, are degraded with higher ambient air temp. Pure and simple, Its not just lift from the wings.
Second is the fact that CO2 is NOT causing the hot day. Its summer people, and it gets hot in Arizona. The greenhouse gases and their contribution: Water Vapor leads at 95%. CO2 is close to being last at 3.5% and of that, MAN-MADE CO2 contributes a measly 0.117%. Sorry but you people who are in the business of scaring little kids and the older gullible people about "Climate Change", you should know these basic facts and prepare an explanation of how something as minuscule as 0.117% can actually take credit for a hot day in the summer in AZ.
Second is the fact that CO2 is NOT causing the hot day. Its summer people, and it gets hot in Arizona. The greenhouse gases and their contribution: Water Vapor leads at 95%. CO2 is close to being last at 3.5% and of that, MAN-MADE CO2 contributes a measly 0.117%. Sorry but you people who are in the business of scaring little kids and the older gullible people about "Climate Change", you should know these basic facts and prepare an explanation of how something as minuscule as 0.117% can actually take credit for a hot day in the summer in AZ.
2
Lots of "facts", few citations.
A rat, I smell.
Oops, there are 5 of them...
A rat, I smell.
Oops, there are 5 of them...
1
Thank you for your point on air density, which is helpful. However, your reasoning on forcing effects is less so, since you are not rigorous enough. It is wise at this point to remember Mr Micawber who (thanks to Charles Dickens) pointed out that the level of your salary is not so important as whether, at the end of the day, you incomings match your outgoings such that you are left in debt or with savings. Water vapour flows in and then out of our atmospheric account, without leaving any debt of its own account. Added CO2, however, despite its smaller forcing, is pure debt, leading to a net gain in heat. This consistent debt is accumulating, and is of major concern. How is it that we can see this with national debt, but not with climate? We need to balance our books. We cannot do anything about volcanic eruptions etc, but we can take responsibility for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and making the oceans more acidic.
There is a good technical presentation of this effect here which includes links to authoritative technical references
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
There is a good technical presentation of this effect here which includes links to authoritative technical references
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
1
William Roberts, your 'facts' about CO2 are false. Whomever it is you think 'you people' are, they aren't climate scientists. You'd do well to ignore 'you people' and get your information about climate science from the primary sources.
When it comes to esoteric Sci. : Theoretical Math,Theoretical Physics.like String or Quantum Theory. it is very hard to get across the theory, let alone to the public, even to highly educated Non-Math or Non-Physics types.But, the climate Sci is explainable and can be made accessible , even to the general public.It is very sad that those who seem to have more access to the current leader of the most advanced Nation, tend to be deliberately closed minded to what nature glaringly is conveying to us through what we witness and experience daily : it is not just Phoenix, here in this country June in my close to 60 yrs existence, was a reliably 3rd wettest month with a lovely and comfortable Temp, but this June has already matched the warmest month of the yr.Shorts + Ts r more fitting than the common June's out fits (Sweater topped by rain jacket).But, what is most disturbing is that, even though using irrigation is more and more practiced, more farmers r seasonal growers and rely solely on the rain. No wonder, drought have remained stubborn and it is 2 weeks, since the Gov here has made aware of the World Com that its reserve stock that was meant to mitigate Drought's extreme effect will run out.The situation, in Somalia,S.Sudan, and many other counties affected by,in a very tangible way, by the World Clim that got skewed in the Adverse direction, is not better.Burying ones head in the sand 2 deny Human Activities' alteration of the Weather's normalcy may cost Mills of lives +.TMD
1
Good. Serves them, and the collective primitive populations of Humankind justice, one flight at a time. Wake Up!!!
3
Regarding the increased wind speed of the jet stream as it travels from west to east, I wonder what effect this factor will have on the number and strength of hurricanes striking the East coast of the US? Since hurricanes move from east to west, the strengthening of the jet stream, which moves from west to east, may actually work to reduce the frequency and strength of these storms striking the US East coast.
Also, how is this increased jet stream wind speed related to the general effects of "el nino" weather patterns? Do warmer regions in the Pacific, concomitant with "el nino" weather conditions, actually strengthen the jet stream as this warm air rises and reinforces the jet stream, and ultimately decreases the strength of East coast hurricanes? And, would the cooler Pacific weather patterns of "la nina" climatic conditions cause these cooler weather conditions to suck air into these Pacific regions, which could possibly act antagonistic to the jet stream's wind speed and ultimately increase the strength of East coast hurricanes that make land?
Is this causality logical and accurate, or an instance of casuistry?
[JJL; Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 2:38 p.m.; Greenville NC]
Also, how is this increased jet stream wind speed related to the general effects of "el nino" weather patterns? Do warmer regions in the Pacific, concomitant with "el nino" weather conditions, actually strengthen the jet stream as this warm air rises and reinforces the jet stream, and ultimately decreases the strength of East coast hurricanes? And, would the cooler Pacific weather patterns of "la nina" climatic conditions cause these cooler weather conditions to suck air into these Pacific regions, which could possibly act antagonistic to the jet stream's wind speed and ultimately increase the strength of East coast hurricanes that make land?
Is this causality logical and accurate, or an instance of casuistry?
[JJL; Wednesday, June 21, 2017, 2:38 p.m.; Greenville NC]
When I read the statement second paragraph ..." as climate change .......... these events will be more frequent....." i was immediately turned off to read any further. Already judged, already processed, we are condemned not to travel in the future as climate change, of course mainly due to the ignorance of The Donald, will put us in our place.
I remember 1986 in Phoenix @ 114 F. Nothing's changed.
I remember 1986 in Phoenix @ 114 F. Nothing's changed.
2
You stopped reading before you got to this part: "Places like Phoenix, already known for summer heat, are measurably warming up. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information show that every year since 1976 has been hotter than the city’s historical average. Seven of the 10 hottest years on record there have been in the past decade."
6
And the answer of the "great and all powerful" Oz -- aka the USA -- to these problems? High-speed rail projects, solar and wind power, conservation projects...?
Nope! ... It's more cars and (dilapidated for want of maintenance) roads, more private limos (Uber, etc) clogging streets, more coal plants, more 'allowances' for coal and big polluters...
Wait until the rivers, streams, and lakes dry up and the water starts running out...
Nope! ... It's more cars and (dilapidated for want of maintenance) roads, more private limos (Uber, etc) clogging streets, more coal plants, more 'allowances' for coal and big polluters...
Wait until the rivers, streams, and lakes dry up and the water starts running out...
13
All the more reasons to stay home, clinging to our pillows and awaiting the inevitable end to the Trump era. I believe in terra firma. The more firma, the less terror.
5
This reminds me of the AZ governor Janet Brewer's confronting of Obama at Phoenix airport, perhaps she was yelling -- you are in hell !
She is right.
She is right.
4
For those worried about the potential risk of running out of runway without lifting off on extremely hot days, it should be added that the required runway distance is based on the length needed to accelerate to nearly the takeoff speed and then reject the takeoff and brake to a complete stop, which is far greater than the actual runway length needed to take off. So the only real safety risk here involves take off attempts rejected at very high speed—a very rare event—where the risk is of overrunning the runway surface on the ground.
Also, winds are another considerable factor. A good headwind can shave a couple thousand feet off the required runway distance even on a very hot day.
Also, winds are another considerable factor. A good headwind can shave a couple thousand feet off the required runway distance even on a very hot day.
3
Oh please. Everything's about climate change... as if they never had to suspend flights before at Phoenix Sky Harbor because of the heat. Put it in perspective. How often has it happened in the past and how often is it happening now -- not often in either case.
3
keep putting your head in the sand sir-it's happening despite what Trump and Pence think. Look at data and what the scientists say and not what the fake news republicans think!
Would it be practical to pump a series of streams of water 100 or more feet up into the air, on either side of the runway, for the last several hundred feet of runway and then several hundred feet beyond?
The water stream would be angled to go 50 feet or so up and down the runway, thus producing a water fan 100 feet wide and 100 feet high parallel to the runway, from each pumped stream.
These streams would be needed only for a few minutes when a plane was taking off (and possibly for landing). The streams would cool the air by evaporation, allowing aircraft to operate on hot days. The cool zone would not need to extend beyond the point where the aircraft has attained enough speed and altitude to fly safely.
The water stream would be angled to go 50 feet or so up and down the runway, thus producing a water fan 100 feet wide and 100 feet high parallel to the runway, from each pumped stream.
These streams would be needed only for a few minutes when a plane was taking off (and possibly for landing). The streams would cool the air by evaporation, allowing aircraft to operate on hot days. The cool zone would not need to extend beyond the point where the aircraft has attained enough speed and altitude to fly safely.
1
No. It would be far more practical to not put a city in the middle of a desert... But there's no do over on that... Besides, I like Phoenix...
2
It is not counter intuitive except to the maths challenged that round trip
flight times always increase with a headwind.
if a headwind slowed a flight by the same amount that it sped it up,
the round trip time would still be greater than without a headwind.
In fact if the plane sped up more than it slowed down on a round trip
within a certain factor the round trip time would still be longer.
I was in the Palo Duro Canyon (Texas) this past Friday, where the temperature was 118 degrees marked by a large thermometer, mounted by the state park workers. They had warning signs all over to advise of the severe heat. About that time our phones went dark and our camera refused to work while we were outside over an hour during the hottest part of the day. Everything just got too hot to work.
Thankfully, we did not need to rely on our phones to survive but I can imagine what is happening to the planes, in the hot heat, sitting roasting on the tarmacs.
It is so hot in the south, I read that baby turtles were being cooked in their eggs before they could hatch.
Yes, global warming will affect so many things that we haven't even thought of them all. We will all have to adjust. I am going to create large mylar heat reflectors that cover homes, planes, car, etc. Does anyone want to join me?
Thankfully, we did not need to rely on our phones to survive but I can imagine what is happening to the planes, in the hot heat, sitting roasting on the tarmacs.
It is so hot in the south, I read that baby turtles were being cooked in their eggs before they could hatch.
Yes, global warming will affect so many things that we haven't even thought of them all. We will all have to adjust. I am going to create large mylar heat reflectors that cover homes, planes, car, etc. Does anyone want to join me?
4
Keep in mind that takeoff performance is a factor of both density altitude AND wind. The commentary seems to focus only on the former. Engine performance is constantly improving, and there is no reason to believe that the next generation of aircraft can't be designed to be more reliable at high density altitudes. Finally, this particular incident happened to the cheaper, less reliable regional jets (compared to traditional mainline aircraft). I'm trying to decide what here is newsworthy.
3
I'm an Airline pilot and this article is incredibly frustrating, is rubbish, directed to readership that has no technical knowledge of aviation.
The fuss with the RJs that are mentioned is that their performance manuals have been written to a maximum of 120F, just as Boeing's used to be until America West was unable to fly out of PHX 20 years ago when the temps exceeded 120F and they didn't have performance charts above that temperature. It didn't mean that the aircraft couldn't fly, it just meant that under Part 121 operating rules if they don't have approved data then they can't operate.
But the reference to "researchers say" - that's a load of rubbish! That's a vague reference to a nebulous data source, probably invented by the author (fake news?) and is irrelevant. Besides, it's wrong anyway.
Throwing stories like headwinds due to a stronger jet stream slowing aircraft and requiring they make a fuel stop is designed to alarm readers - after all, why would a reader read this drivel unless they are alarmed? An aircraft (under FAA Part 121 regulations) has a maximum takeoff weight and with freight, fuel, full pax load, the usual compromise is to load less fuel. To carry more fuel with a headwind means offloading freight or people, so they make a fuel stop along the way, and that is standard practice. To discuss that here in the guise of global warming causing an air carrier to make a fuel stop is just so preposterous it defies logic or accurate comprehension.
The fuss with the RJs that are mentioned is that their performance manuals have been written to a maximum of 120F, just as Boeing's used to be until America West was unable to fly out of PHX 20 years ago when the temps exceeded 120F and they didn't have performance charts above that temperature. It didn't mean that the aircraft couldn't fly, it just meant that under Part 121 operating rules if they don't have approved data then they can't operate.
But the reference to "researchers say" - that's a load of rubbish! That's a vague reference to a nebulous data source, probably invented by the author (fake news?) and is irrelevant. Besides, it's wrong anyway.
Throwing stories like headwinds due to a stronger jet stream slowing aircraft and requiring they make a fuel stop is designed to alarm readers - after all, why would a reader read this drivel unless they are alarmed? An aircraft (under FAA Part 121 regulations) has a maximum takeoff weight and with freight, fuel, full pax load, the usual compromise is to load less fuel. To carry more fuel with a headwind means offloading freight or people, so they make a fuel stop along the way, and that is standard practice. To discuss that here in the guise of global warming causing an air carrier to make a fuel stop is just so preposterous it defies logic or accurate comprehension.
8
Sounds like another global warming denier. And 1+1=2? Fake news!
2
@PB
Your comment is fact-based and informative, which is probably the reason it's not an NYT Pick...
Your comment is fact-based and informative, which is probably the reason it's not an NYT Pick...
2
Yes, everything about the less dense air at both higher altitudes and temperatures is true. But the reason most of these flights are being cancelled or delayed for cooler temperatures. have to do with the engines themselves. Many engine manufacturers only certify their engines to a certain Outside Air Temperature. Above that temperature, their is no reliable way to judge the engines' performance. That makes the aircraft's performance unpredictable, and thus, unsafe. If it's unsafe, they aircraft can't operate. THAT is the major culprit.
9
Those 40 cancelled flights will keep 8,000,000 lbs. of CO2 out of our atmosphere. The math:
A four-hour commercial flight will emit 1,000 lbs. of CO2 per passenger.
ca. 200 passengers per flight = 200,000 lbs.
200,000 lbs. x 40 flights = 8,000,000 lbs.
Air travel is simply not compatible with a healthy planet.
An inconvenient truth to us first-world folks...
A four-hour commercial flight will emit 1,000 lbs. of CO2 per passenger.
ca. 200 passengers per flight = 200,000 lbs.
200,000 lbs. x 40 flights = 8,000,000 lbs.
Air travel is simply not compatible with a healthy planet.
An inconvenient truth to us first-world folks...
20
While I am certain that the climate is changing, this kind of article doesn't help. It falls into the "we're having extreme weather, so let's freak out about climate change" category of journalism. Which turns off more people than it motivates.
The reality is that airports like Phoenix have always had this issue. I had a flight canceled there due to high temps back in the late 60's. Happens most years, and is especially notable now because the CRJ airliner, which has poor high-temperature performance, is a very commonly used airliner in that market.
All the other references in the article are to things that have been a challenge for turbine airliners since the 50's (jet streams, etc). The article assumes a static aircraft technology combined with a changing climate. The reality is that the aircraft flying during the last half of this century (not the one's flying today) will be engineered for the climate.
This kind of article is guaranteed in the liberal media every time it gets hot, blaming everything on "climate change". The opposite problem, which is very real, regarding the problems of low-temperature operation in extreme cold and snowy conditions, gets blamed merely on "weather".
It would be amusing if it wasn't such a tired song.
The reality is that airports like Phoenix have always had this issue. I had a flight canceled there due to high temps back in the late 60's. Happens most years, and is especially notable now because the CRJ airliner, which has poor high-temperature performance, is a very commonly used airliner in that market.
All the other references in the article are to things that have been a challenge for turbine airliners since the 50's (jet streams, etc). The article assumes a static aircraft technology combined with a changing climate. The reality is that the aircraft flying during the last half of this century (not the one's flying today) will be engineered for the climate.
This kind of article is guaranteed in the liberal media every time it gets hot, blaming everything on "climate change". The opposite problem, which is very real, regarding the problems of low-temperature operation in extreme cold and snowy conditions, gets blamed merely on "weather".
It would be amusing if it wasn't such a tired song.
10
Jeremiah's warnings were a tired song... until they were fulfilled. All you seem to be able to come up with are vague questions. Read the science. Listen to the experts on this topic, not to people who are full of resentment and aggression like Alex Jones and the like.
1
Shadar, climate change is real, and it's caused by humans. It may be a tired song, but it's still true. If it had been heard clearly 30 years ago, it wouldn't still need to be sung. Humans could have capped the warming below 1 degree C by acting then. Now the signs of the warming we've already caused are all around us; all we can do is try to avert greater, more destructive warming, but too many people still won't listen to the song.
To what extent will increasing the thrust of the jet engines help?
This is all very cynical. Until a few years ago, NYT articles would clearly state that "scientist caution against connecting any individual weather event with larger trends". After Katrina, Al Gore pointed the way: such a high impact event must be used to "mobilize" (scare) the public opinion, regardless of the amount of truth in such predictions of increased hurricane activity. Now, it's very simple: any nasty weather event is automatically stamped as "climate-change related or enhanced". Pure propaganda.
6
"Places like Phoenix, already known for summer heat, are measurably warming up. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information show that every year since 1976 has been hotter than the city’s historical average. Seven of the 10 hottest years on record there have been in the past decade." Propaganda?
1
Yes it is propaganda, Hottest years on record could mean there were warmer winters than average. Or you can have a series of heat waves with exceptionally cold winters and it all balances out to normal temperatures. Remember why they call it average temperature.
Recently in Houston a concert was canceled because of rain. Was that because of Global Warming? NPR Thought so.
Recently in Houston a concert was canceled because of rain. Was that because of Global Warming? NPR Thought so.
Not cynical at all. Confidence in correlations rise with increasing data. Sadly we are now there. Check with the scientific journals.
This article merely deals with clear observations and reasonable conclusions. The consequences due to general global warming may not be so clear in other areas, but changes overall will be costly to deal with.
It is in our nature to resist warnings. The Bible is full of this. Take heed now. Please read your Bible and then read some science with a proper perspective.
This article merely deals with clear observations and reasonable conclusions. The consequences due to general global warming may not be so clear in other areas, but changes overall will be costly to deal with.
It is in our nature to resist warnings. The Bible is full of this. Take heed now. Please read your Bible and then read some science with a proper perspective.
Here at Barcelona airport, the effects of climate change are also felt. Not because it's too hot for planes to take off, but because the air conditioning has been shut off to conserve power. The same applies to every other public building I've been to today.
I bet Phoenix airport is keeping their passengers nice and cool while they wait for the temperature to drop. I wonder who's better off, the people in Phoenix or me.
I bet Phoenix airport is keeping their passengers nice and cool while they wait for the temperature to drop. I wonder who's better off, the people in Phoenix or me.
5
Because of the stratospheric heights into which airliners deposit their carbon, air travel has an outsized role in warming the planet. The fact that these very aircraft are struggling to lift off in the hotter temperatures they help create is an interesting bellwether for mankind's relationship with the planet.
8
Thirty years ago the scaremongers were promoting that jet aircraft would cause global COOLING because their contrails would reflect sunlight back out of the atmosphere and cause global cooling. Now you claim that jet aircraft cause global warming? Incorrect!
The aircraft are not struggling to lift off - for that they only need a longer runway. There is less lift and thrust as the air expands with heat, The plane stays the same size - if the plane, engines etc expanded with the air expansion as it heats none of this would matter, but it doesn't so the engines produce less thrust due to thinner air. Global warming has nothing to do with the issue, and the story today is based on falsehood (fake news!).
The aircraft are not struggling to lift off - for that they only need a longer runway. There is less lift and thrust as the air expands with heat, The plane stays the same size - if the plane, engines etc expanded with the air expansion as it heats none of this would matter, but it doesn't so the engines produce less thrust due to thinner air. Global warming has nothing to do with the issue, and the story today is based on falsehood (fake news!).
3
Your flight being cancelled is a first world problem. The water disappearing and taking your food supply with it - that's what much of the world will be facing.
184
I guess CA and NY billionaires cannot buy an election.
1
True, but the Koch Brothers can.
7
The United States is almost 3000 miles north to south and 3000 miles east to west. That is a very big piece of real estate covered by multiple weather systems. Right now in my area our weather is pretty close to normal. Would the Times extrapolate the weather conditions of the country from my area and say the weather for the entire US is good. I think not.
This post is NOT saying there is no climate change. There is, but not every weather related event in the country requires an article saying "the end is near." As my friend says, "what would we do if we didn't have something to panic about."
This post is NOT saying there is no climate change. There is, but not every weather related event in the country requires an article saying "the end is near." As my friend says, "what would we do if we didn't have something to panic about."
6
Any mention of climate CHANGE, without a good historic analysis of the climate a few decades ago to show WHAT exactly changed is a contradiction in terms and scientifically speaking a scam. As the warming 1900-1960 is the same as the warming 1960-2017, that warming in itself is not a change.
Politically the voters have matured and don't fall for such things any more. Now THAT is a verifiable change indeed...
Politically the voters have matured and don't fall for such things any more. Now THAT is a verifiable change indeed...
2
Same thinking that prevailed for eons that the earth was flat.
12
Exactly, 34 C in London in June is normal, hardly any snow in the Alps is not man made and you must have graduated from the Trump university to claim such utter nonsense !
1
What?! The Earth is not flat?
How much of the global climate change is directly related to air travel?
3
At least 50 billion gallons of aviation gas is used for flights annually.
Could be more today, this number was from a few years ago.
Could be more today, this number was from a few years ago.
6
I remember my first takeoff in high density altitude at Grand Junction CO. I fire-walled the throttle and it seemed like nothing happened! Sure, it was just a Cessna 172, but the same principles apply to commercial airliners: Engine performance is degraded; propeller (or the fan in jet engines) efficiency suffers; indicated airspeed - the speed that produces lift - and groundspeed diverge, so the plane has to roll faster on the runway to produce the same amount of lift as it would at lower temperatures; and, climb performance declines resulting in obstacle clearance issues after takeoff.
After operating out of airports near sea level in the usually cooler Puget Sound region, it was disconcerting to watch the runway ahead getting eaten up with the markedly slower acceleration and higher groundspeed at rotation at GJT.
After operating out of airports near sea level in the usually cooler Puget Sound region, it was disconcerting to watch the runway ahead getting eaten up with the markedly slower acceleration and higher groundspeed at rotation at GJT.
11
Another day, another impending catastrophe from the Climate Change Industrial Complex and their willing accomplices in the liberal media. BTW. still waiting for the endless series of Gulf hurricanes the Times predicted when Katrina struck. The past decade has seen a record low, a fact the Times has conveniently left out of its coverage.
6
As someone who lives by the shore in the Northeast I am wondering how you missed Sandy and the devastation that had not been seen before.
20
Only a fossil fuel apologist would read this as the NYT portraying a catastrophe. Indeed, they mention several ways that the airline industry is and can adapt to warmer temperatures. It may be inconvenient at times, as well as costly, but altering schedules and loads, as well as aircraft and airport configurations, are probably some of the easiest fixes available for a changing climate. Much simpler than relocating entire populations due to rising seas, for example.
11
"devastation not been seen before"? One may debate - to some extent - the effect of climate change on weather and the like, but why is it we always think that everything that happens to us is the worst ever?
First off, if you are going by dollar damage estimates that is meaningless, as comparing costs to today to 50 or 100 years ago is pretty meaningless. Secondly, our penchant for building right up to the shoreline and on the beach - something our forebearers apparently were smart enough to avoid - is often the proximate cause of more damage from a large storm; it's not Mother Nature, its our own folly. Thirdly, are storms today REALLY worse than in prior decades in terms of wind/force levels? Hard to tell in some cases as precise data from the past can perhaps only be estimated, but current evidence does not seem to prove that todays storms are the biggest ever. Indeed, the numerous predictions after Katrina, Sandy, etc. about "this is the new norm" have simply not panned out.
First off, if you are going by dollar damage estimates that is meaningless, as comparing costs to today to 50 or 100 years ago is pretty meaningless. Secondly, our penchant for building right up to the shoreline and on the beach - something our forebearers apparently were smart enough to avoid - is often the proximate cause of more damage from a large storm; it's not Mother Nature, its our own folly. Thirdly, are storms today REALLY worse than in prior decades in terms of wind/force levels? Hard to tell in some cases as precise data from the past can perhaps only be estimated, but current evidence does not seem to prove that todays storms are the biggest ever. Indeed, the numerous predictions after Katrina, Sandy, etc. about "this is the new norm" have simply not panned out.
4
There seems to be alot of heat island deniers here. What can't be denied is smaller mordern aircraft with more efficient wings have a greater difficulty taking off and landing than older small modern aircraft with less effect entry wings. What wasn't descussed in the piece was if heat waves like this common in th past?
5
There are many other problems with high temperature besides lift. temperature limits the maximum takeoff weight, but keeping the cabin at a reasonable temperature for the passsengers and the fuel temperature within limits is also a big concern.
6
I just want to note Timothy Fadek's picture. That's a work of art.
11
The headline photo is attributed to Patrick T. Fallon and Bloomberg.
Gee...could the NYT forward this article to the White House, the EPA and all of the climate change deniers that inhabit seats in Congress and the Senate?
Well done and disturbing. Real data,real documentation, real science...imagine that!
Well done and disturbing. Real data,real documentation, real science...imagine that!
26
Science and the truth do not matter if one doesn't believe those things. In our current age our "leaders" have taken George Orwell's wisdom to heart. "Ignorance is strength".
7
"Real data, real documentation, real science..."
Real data about climate change would be a comparison with the history, to see how much it really changed, and with the previous trend, to see that that trend is not new. To have the EPA or the UN act, you would also need to show how that action would change the trend, if that trend is not new.
All of that is missing now.
Real data about climate change would be a comparison with the history, to see how much it really changed, and with the previous trend, to see that that trend is not new. To have the EPA or the UN act, you would also need to show how that action would change the trend, if that trend is not new.
All of that is missing now.
1
Nothing in this article proves that humans are the cause of global climate change to a meaningful degree. That's an important issue. Don't smugly dismiss people as 'deniers' and then suggest they read something irrelevant.
I bet after a few bad flight delays some GOP congresspeople will suddenly care about global warming.
14
Nope. They got theirs. They do not care one whit.
1
Interesting how things we never even think of are being affected by climates and climate changes. Thank you for this interesting article.
15
I got to keep reading but what about the A380s the huge one
When I look up at clouds I want to know if they are real or manmade.
But I do not know anymore. Which cloud is which.
The sky has become a witches brew.
A heaven made by man.
As usual.
But I do not know anymore. Which cloud is which.
The sky has become a witches brew.
A heaven made by man.
As usual.
1
Little knowledge is always dangerous.. a lot more dangerous than the so-called climate change that 2% of man made aviation carbon emissions can generate. Without the need to prefix a bunkum article with fancy "Dr." titles, there are better & higher standards of journalism available. For example check out this Guardian article ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-mad... ) which clearly lists 90 companies (50 of which are investor owned) which between them produced 66% of all man made GHG emissions!!
As for flight cancellations, remember there are service limitations that are imposed by engine/airframe manufacturers on airline operators. This makes for a combination of temperature, runway length and slope, atmospheric pressure, airport elevation, flap & slat settings, aircraft weight, bleed air required for airconditioning packs etc. etc. Airlines would take these precautions regardless- just as they would on wet runways or indeed on cold days too when the runway is slushy or snowed-in. 2% of aviation emissions? Beware of flying pigs!!
As for flight cancellations, remember there are service limitations that are imposed by engine/airframe manufacturers on airline operators. This makes for a combination of temperature, runway length and slope, atmospheric pressure, airport elevation, flap & slat settings, aircraft weight, bleed air required for airconditioning packs etc. etc. Airlines would take these precautions regardless- just as they would on wet runways or indeed on cold days too when the runway is slushy or snowed-in. 2% of aviation emissions? Beware of flying pigs!!
1
When the New York Times gets on an activist grind, the unintentional hilarity is worth the price of an online subscription.
Hurricane Katrina? "Climate Change will result in an endless series of vicious Gulf storms." Then a decade with fewer hurricanes than any time in recorded history.
Superstorm Sandy? "Climate Change will make this a yearly occurence." Or not.
Firestorms out west? (which scientists have recorded back in the pre-Columbian era)? Ditto on the Climate Change.
A rise in Lyme disease brought on by a pestilent deer population (the result of ill-conceived hunting bans among other things.) That, too, is caused by Climate Change. Now some grounded flights in Arizona. Has Zach Wichter ever even been to Phoenix? It's been getting pretty hot there for quite some time. Likely since the end of the last Ice Age.
I'll put this piece in the same category as the recent howler from Tasmania about the convict's cemetery threatened by rising waters (which, as locals pointed out in the letters column, has been happening since the first days after the cemetery was built.) If the worst impact of climate change is a threat to convict graves in Tasmania and heat-generated flight delays in Phoenix in summer, then I'm not willing to spend trillions of dollars to abate it.
Hurricane Katrina? "Climate Change will result in an endless series of vicious Gulf storms." Then a decade with fewer hurricanes than any time in recorded history.
Superstorm Sandy? "Climate Change will make this a yearly occurence." Or not.
Firestorms out west? (which scientists have recorded back in the pre-Columbian era)? Ditto on the Climate Change.
A rise in Lyme disease brought on by a pestilent deer population (the result of ill-conceived hunting bans among other things.) That, too, is caused by Climate Change. Now some grounded flights in Arizona. Has Zach Wichter ever even been to Phoenix? It's been getting pretty hot there for quite some time. Likely since the end of the last Ice Age.
I'll put this piece in the same category as the recent howler from Tasmania about the convict's cemetery threatened by rising waters (which, as locals pointed out in the letters column, has been happening since the first days after the cemetery was built.) If the worst impact of climate change is a threat to convict graves in Tasmania and heat-generated flight delays in Phoenix in summer, then I'm not willing to spend trillions of dollars to abate it.
12
I can understand your limited understanding. It's hard to dig down to the actual science in this age of "whatever I want to say".
But take every one of those NYT headlines and understand that they describe a trend over time. Give climate change the chance to go unmitigated, and these headlines will be the least of our worries. That's the science. Across the board. But you d have to read it.
But take every one of those NYT headlines and understand that they describe a trend over time. Give climate change the chance to go unmitigated, and these headlines will be the least of our worries. That's the science. Across the board. But you d have to read it.
13
The headlines don't describe a "trend over time." They describe smug, self-satisfied forecasts by the 'settled science' crowd that never came to pass, along with an overreach to link every natural effect to 'climate change' to justify the hysteria of the alarmists.
I've been hearing the Cassandras predicting doom from climate change since I was in college. That's more than 35 years ago. If I live out a generous lifespan, and my kids do as well, it'll be in a world much, much better than the one I was born into, in terms of alleviated hunger, third world poverty, and general pollution. But keep buying into the secular religion of man's destructive nature and the inevitable roasting of the planet. After all, a few puddle jumper flights were grounded in Phoenix and some graveyard in Tasmania is damp. The end must be near. But ask yourself this: If a fully committed New York Times, embedded with the most radical climate extremists on earth, can't come up with more to scare you with, is it really worth worrying about?
I've been hearing the Cassandras predicting doom from climate change since I was in college. That's more than 35 years ago. If I live out a generous lifespan, and my kids do as well, it'll be in a world much, much better than the one I was born into, in terms of alleviated hunger, third world poverty, and general pollution. But keep buying into the secular religion of man's destructive nature and the inevitable roasting of the planet. After all, a few puddle jumper flights were grounded in Phoenix and some graveyard in Tasmania is damp. The end must be near. But ask yourself this: If a fully committed New York Times, embedded with the most radical climate extremists on earth, can't come up with more to scare you with, is it really worth worrying about?
4
Bigger planes may have a higher threshold of temperature in which they can fly, but a threshold they do have. If it can get to 120, is it unreasonable to think it might get to 126? How hot did it get in India last year?
9
Why does the NYT keep conflating weather with climate?
As regards climate (the operation of weather over a significant period of time, as opposed to a week), let's see. Records for highest temps in June have been set over a hundred year period from 1896 (June 17, 114 degrees) to 2006 (June 2, 110 degrees). The record high for all of June is 122 degrees set in 1990. No record highs have been set for 2017 as yet.
If you look at climate then the current high temperatures are squarely within the range of temperature as shown by climate records.
As regards climate (the operation of weather over a significant period of time, as opposed to a week), let's see. Records for highest temps in June have been set over a hundred year period from 1896 (June 17, 114 degrees) to 2006 (June 2, 110 degrees). The record high for all of June is 122 degrees set in 1990. No record highs have been set for 2017 as yet.
If you look at climate then the current high temperatures are squarely within the range of temperature as shown by climate records.
5
No record highs have been set for 2017 yet? Really? There have been TWO heat waves recorded in the North East before the start of summer.
This in itself has never happened in recorded history.
I don't know where you live but it's been a little toasty in the South West lately.
This in itself has never happened in recorded history.
I don't know where you live but it's been a little toasty in the South West lately.
2
At the tippy-top of "sqarely in the range", you mean. This is June, after all, not August.
June 20 headline from Arizona Republic "Phoenix weather: Tuesday hit a record high of 119 degrees" So they broke an all-time record for June 19, and tied for the fourth-hottest day there.
June 20 headline from ABCNews from the AP "The Latest: Las Vegas ties record high of 117 degrees"
"Las Vegas has tied its record high temperature of 117 degrees (47.2 degrees Celsius) as a weather system continues to bring scorching heat to the Southwest U.S.
The National Weather Service in Las Vegas says the record was tied at 4:07 p.m. Tuesday. "
And here from Wunderground on June 13.
Record highs for Monday, June 12, 2017
Atlantic City, New Jersey, 94°
Allentown, Pennsylvania, 92° (tied)
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 92° (tied)
Lansing, Michigan, 95° (tied)
Worcester, Massachusetts, 90° (tied)
Providence, Rhode Island, 95°
New York City, 93° (tied)
Newark, New Jersey, 97°
Cleveland, Ohio, 93°, (tied)
Albany, New York, 95°
Washington D.C., 95° (tied)
Bridgeport, Connecticut, 93°
And again, this is June, one days before the technical start of summer here.
Internationally, the records are stacking up, too. Here from 2015.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/sixteen-nationalterritoria...
June 20 headline from Arizona Republic "Phoenix weather: Tuesday hit a record high of 119 degrees" So they broke an all-time record for June 19, and tied for the fourth-hottest day there.
June 20 headline from ABCNews from the AP "The Latest: Las Vegas ties record high of 117 degrees"
"Las Vegas has tied its record high temperature of 117 degrees (47.2 degrees Celsius) as a weather system continues to bring scorching heat to the Southwest U.S.
The National Weather Service in Las Vegas says the record was tied at 4:07 p.m. Tuesday. "
And here from Wunderground on June 13.
Record highs for Monday, June 12, 2017
Atlantic City, New Jersey, 94°
Allentown, Pennsylvania, 92° (tied)
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 92° (tied)
Lansing, Michigan, 95° (tied)
Worcester, Massachusetts, 90° (tied)
Providence, Rhode Island, 95°
New York City, 93° (tied)
Newark, New Jersey, 97°
Cleveland, Ohio, 93°, (tied)
Albany, New York, 95°
Washington D.C., 95° (tied)
Bridgeport, Connecticut, 93°
And again, this is June, one days before the technical start of summer here.
Internationally, the records are stacking up, too. Here from 2015.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/sixteen-nationalterritoria...
1
The article was about Phoenix, Arizona.
The notion American Airlines will allow passengers to change travel plans or not is mute. What will change will be Airlines who already dictate when they depart and arrive will have to change. Perhaps as temperatures arise passengers will have to schedule their departures late in the evening or early morning as by example, Saudi Arabia where temperatures are slightly hot.
2
Rescheduling flights is not within a vacuum particularly when some airports act as hub. Thus what ever American Airlines may reschedule will impact other airports American serves, and of course passengers. Naturally we will witness airlines landing and taking off at unusual hours. Are we to assume flight departures from the east coast will depart to Arizona for example at 12:00 pm allowing the carrier to arrive, load and depart with weather permitting?
I'd fly less, if it were legal to drive faster. My German car can comfortably cruise at 140mph (I've done so on a track). I trust myself to drive safely at high speeds. From what I read, the current speed limit was instituted for fuel efficiency rather than safety. Granted, higher speeds burn more fuel, but maybe less than airplanes. I myself love to drive and have a car I daydream about driving. I live in NYC and would happily drive to Colorado to ski, if I could shorten the trip by driving faster (not considering weather conditions). I fly in the USA mainly to save time. I do NYC to Boston in under 4 hrs during the day. Flying (including travel to and from the airport) would take about three hours, I think.
3
YOU may be the world's best driver, but you share the road with others who are not as talented.
4
That's true, but I anticipate things VERY well. Never had an accident. You don't know me. Just trust me when I say I have mutant reflexes. Still, I try not to drive Sunday afternoon/evening during football season, because, on those Sundays, I see a lot of drunk/distracted drivers. I don't commute by car. I just drive for pleasure. Therefor, I can pick the times I drive.
What is your hurry?
Good grief, get hold of yourself and take the bus! Thin air has been an issue since the Wright brothers.
3
Since global warming is a hoax, maybe the Repubs could please explain to us why it's getting warmer?
11
Global Warming is a fact. The Little Ice Age ended around 1815. Ice Age ending = average temperature rising. The issue is cause. If the temperature rising because of human activity or are there natural drivers.
The earth has gone three many warming cooling cycles long before there were human on the planet.
The earth has gone three many warming cooling cycles long before there were human on the planet.
3
Gene -- this is exactly the issue with Perry's "CO2 is not the main issue" ... so Rick, what is the main issue? How can you claim it isn't the "main issue" unless you can clearly identifvy something else that is provably a larger issue?
It ia worth noting however how pathetic and vague the denials have become, as fact after fact has become obvious to the public.
A decade ago Republicans were still claiming "CO2 isn't increasing." Then they shifted to "it's increasing, but mankind isn't the cause of increasi9ng CO2." Then they shifted to "CO2 is increasing but the temperatures aren't going up." And now like Rick Perry "something else that we have no idea of is really the major cause ... really!"
It ia worth noting however how pathetic and vague the denials have become, as fact after fact has become obvious to the public.
A decade ago Republicans were still claiming "CO2 isn't increasing." Then they shifted to "it's increasing, but mankind isn't the cause of increasi9ng CO2." Then they shifted to "CO2 is increasing but the temperatures aren't going up." And now like Rick Perry "something else that we have no idea of is really the major cause ... really!"
1
Is pollution a hoax?
1
Global warming is the problem. Climate change includes irrelevant subjects and political and journalistic cowardice and dishonesty. Leave them out.
1
oakoak1044, the term "climate change' itself is not irrelevant. It is a valid description of the larger problem associated with increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. Global warming is just one effect. Ocean acidification, greater weather extremes, sea level rise, etc. are all effects of climate change. Including politics into the discussion is problematic regardless of what you call it.
14
Pollution is the problem. Climate Change and Global Warming are symptoms of the problem.
A fevered reaction to the disease, if you will.
People will generally not argue about pollution.
But, as we well know, we will argue about climate change/global warming forever and ever and ever...
A fevered reaction to the disease, if you will.
People will generally not argue about pollution.
But, as we well know, we will argue about climate change/global warming forever and ever and ever...
1
If we could all take a moment in prayer. That'll help, right?
7
Arizona is a red state. Maybe they will wake up.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it is a huge population in Arizona.
Nature bats last, regardless of who is in Washington.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it is a huge population in Arizona.
Nature bats last, regardless of who is in Washington.
16
Why doesn't the word 'safety' appear even once in this, otherwise, well-researched article? Will pilots be under pressure by the airlines to keep to their schedules and put themselves and others at risk, for profit? Is the word safety absent out of concern for the reaction of the airlines' advertising revenues for the NYT?
2
Let me imagine Trump's response to this... Thinner air is a hoax concocted by the Chinese! No need to cancel flights. Fly as usual. Temperatures are terrific!
11
In April or May 1974 a friend and I volunteered to stay in Khajuraho another day when the Indian Airlines 737 we were booked on couldn't take off in the 47°C heat. That was only 117°F. This is not a new phenomenon.
28
But how common was it/is it in America? A phenomenon can be found in a new place, which makes it new to the people there.
6
It's not new. The hysterical coverage is what's new. It was the same temperature there last year, but it didn't make the news...because it's not news.
3
Look at the list here at Maximiliano Herrera's climate extremes site. This particular link is for new record highs and lows from 2011 through 2016. There are some record lows set, but as expected, the number of record highs is much higher. In this case "new national record" turns up 53. 45 of them are new record high, vs 8 new record lows.
http://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
Iraq, Iran, China and other places setting new national record highs well over 50°C. Just so you know, the 53.9°C in Iraq is 129°F
Dehloran (Iran) max. 53 New national record high for Iran
Basra Airport (Iraq) max. 53.9 New national record high for Iraq
Aydingkol Lake (China) max. 50.3 New national record high for China (official)
Phalodi (India) max. 51 New national record high for India
Also remember, when climatologists talk about a global average increase of 2°C, that includes cooler air over the 75% of the world covered by oceans. Land areas, particularly mid-continent, will be warmer.
http://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm
Iraq, Iran, China and other places setting new national record highs well over 50°C. Just so you know, the 53.9°C in Iraq is 129°F
Dehloran (Iran) max. 53 New national record high for Iran
Basra Airport (Iraq) max. 53.9 New national record high for Iraq
Aydingkol Lake (China) max. 50.3 New national record high for China (official)
Phalodi (India) max. 51 New national record high for India
Also remember, when climatologists talk about a global average increase of 2°C, that includes cooler air over the 75% of the world covered by oceans. Land areas, particularly mid-continent, will be warmer.
3
Phoenix. Hells antechamber. No thanks.
6
Good new, bad news I suppose. The good news is that maybe this will impact the private jets of Trump's billionaire cabinet members. The bad news is that they are all wealthy enough to afford bigger planes.
4
What is this all going to mean for the drone economy?
1
Oh no Mr. Bill!
Drones are super light compared to airplanes. At the $700+ price point in practice I imagine they most you may have to deal with would be decreased battery life. My drone is rated to fly up to 19,500' before the air it too thin. Legally I can't fly it anywhere near that high unless I happen to be on top of a very high mountain. With warmer air maybe that ceiling drops a several hundred feet.
Flying on an airplane is pretty much the worst thing a person can do for global warming. Global warming is making flying airplanes harder. Therefore, this problem may solve itself someday--but of course it will be too late by then. Travel regionally.
6
It's the length of the trip that's damaging, not the mode of travel. Modern jets and cars consume about the same amount of fuel (and emit about the same about of CO-2) per passenger mile.
So yes, a long airplane flight probably has the same environmental impact as several months of daily car commuting. But taking the same trip in a car would be just as bad, or worse if you drive alone!
So yes, a long airplane flight probably has the same environmental impact as several months of daily car commuting. But taking the same trip in a car would be just as bad, or worse if you drive alone!
3
don't take the trip period. People can vacation close to home. They can teleconference for biz. You don't have to fly to the Galapagos or to the South Pacific to reward yourself with a supposedly well earned vacation. If you live on the east coast, visit cape cod, Acadia, DC, Pennsylvania countryside, upper new york state, civil war battlefields. Limt yourself to about 500 miles driving distance one way. You don't have to fly to San Francisco to have a good time. You don't have to vacation 3 or 4 times a year. Etc., etcl,
2
I have driven to all the places within your 500 mile range dozens of times. I wanted to see Europe. It was great. Lot of assumptions in your comment.
1
Let's see - the temperature is high due to the Chinese hoax of global warming. And the planes are too heavy to take off in this circumstance because of aircraft gross weight - hmm, maybe the airline packed too many cattle (oops, I meant passengers) in the plane. I think it is time for the airlines to charge a premium based on weight. Or, perhaps airlines should just sell a seat based on how many pounds the passenger is. But that might make the passengers feel more like beef - they might start referring to first class as the tenderloin district, while the worst seats in coach are 60% lean ground beef.
9
Makes me wonder why business travelers still fly so often instead of using widely available video conferencing for meetings. Reduce costs and CO emissions.
19
Tyson,
Extramarital affairs.
Extramarital affairs.
Planes do not simply quit functioning at higher temperatures, they just become less efficient. Manufacturers somewhat arbitrarily choose the maximum temperature they certify their planes to operate and they could just as easily choose higher temperatures by providing performance data at those higher temperatures. The consequence is merely less payload or fuel load. So to infer that global warming is going to disrupt air travel is a gross exaggeration. As a believer in climate change, I wish the promoters of this issue wouldn't resort to such sensationalism in making their point, because as we know the public at large has doubts about the legitimacy of the science as do I when I see such misinformation.
6
@G. Allen--I agree that it's a matter of degree, but air travel is already frequently disrupted, if only by events that have always been with us--storms, equipment failures, and so on. Part of the problem with disruptions in air traffic is that local events quickly propagate nationally and even internationally. A highway closure in Los Angeles won't even be noticed in San Francisco but a runway closure at LAX will be felt directly in New York. Changing climate will only increase the number of local service disruptions that will affect travel across the country. Air travel is already such a miserable experience for most passengers and climate change is only going to make it worse.
1
I don't think the point of the article was that planes can't fly, but that because of weight restrictions due to warmer, thinner air the airlines will choose to cancel flights if they can't make a profit (e.g., reducing a Boeing 737 flight to a dozen people isn't going to be profitable, is it?).
2
I'm sorry, did we read the same article? "Less efficient" in these circumstances can mean "crash on takeoff." The article carefully explains numerous climate-change–related factors other than high temps that are now, today, affecting air travel. I don't think omitting facts so low-information flyers will remain comfortable in their oceanfront homes is warranted.
4
Not new.
Bumped in Hong Kong, circa 1982, when Pan Am 747 had to reduce weight/passengers to take off.
Caught same flight next day. The flight was still under weight restrictions, but then I was further up in the list.
Bumped in Hong Kong, circa 1982, when Pan Am 747 had to reduce weight/passengers to take off.
Caught same flight next day. The flight was still under weight restrictions, but then I was further up in the list.
3
Right, not new, but the article did not say it was. It simply said such cases have become more frequent since the 1980's and will continue to become more frequent in the future.
6
The clamor for high speed rail has been going on for decades. Given the inability of politicians in Washington to get behind any large scale projects it will pobably never happen in the US unless tstates decide to by pass the Federal government. It is possible for the Northeastern states to get together and find the funding for a high speed train from Boston to Washington servicing New York City and Philadelphia. When it comes to the West, extreme heat in Arizona presents serious technical challenges to trains given the large length variation of the rails.
15
"Climate Change May Take a Toll on Air Travel" : Could we please alter this to "Air Travel Takes a Toll on Climate"?
The inconvenience of not having a flight is far less than the destruction of the planet due to us taking all these frivolous flights.
The inconvenience of not having a flight is far less than the destruction of the planet due to us taking all these frivolous flights.
39
Thank you!
The level of denial about commercial flying's CO2 emissions by so-called "Eco Warriors" is just so sad to me.
It is easy to be a "warrior" when it requires no actual sacrifice, perceived or otherwise.
So, the leadership on this will not come from those who sit and point and cast blame. It will come from grown ups who are not scared of assessing the situation, making actual sacrifices, and talking about the real issues.
If I had a nickel for every self-proclaimed "defender of the environment" who thinks nothing of hopping in a commercial flight several times a year, I would have a nice wad of nickels.
The level of denial about commercial flying's CO2 emissions by so-called "Eco Warriors" is just so sad to me.
It is easy to be a "warrior" when it requires no actual sacrifice, perceived or otherwise.
So, the leadership on this will not come from those who sit and point and cast blame. It will come from grown ups who are not scared of assessing the situation, making actual sacrifices, and talking about the real issues.
If I had a nickel for every self-proclaimed "defender of the environment" who thinks nothing of hopping in a commercial flight several times a year, I would have a nice wad of nickels.
"On a calm-weather day, a nonstop flight from New York to Los Angeles already approaches the maximum range of a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320, common aircraft on that route and others like it." This ha bless to do with climate change than the fact that the airlines choose to use what were designed as medium range planes on routes that were once the province of planes designed specifically for long range travel, 747, 757, 767, etc. Airlines even starting to use these planes for certain trans-Atlantic hops as they have lower operating costs and require fewer crew members. Of course we blame everything on climate, but it is essential to use the proper equipment - and the carriers are very focused on parring pennies from costs while cramming people into smaller planes.
23
Well, if by 'blaming it on climate', you mean having to redesign or deploy aircraft resulting in higher operating expenses, in response to operating limitations imposed by climate, then agreed. But it is hard to take 'climate' out of the decision tree.
4
Not necessarily true. An AA A321 with 102 seats is never weight restricted going westbound JFK-SFO. An Spirit A321 with 230 seats will be weight restricted every time. One reason why they will never offer a non stop. It has to do with how it is used. If you can afford to go on an AA transcontinental flight you will not be weight restricted. If you go on Spirit you will not have an option to go non stop. No knock on Spirit. I happen to like them. Just facts.
4
True perhaps DA, but an A321 is not an A320 or B737 - the point I was trying to make is that the carriers are trying to use a lot of planes in roles they aren't well suited for in order to lower their own staffing and operating costs. That is a discussion for another thread perhaps, but blaming the inability of just any 737 to do a transcon on climate change is just more, if you will, hot air.
3
And were high speed rail schedules affected by the high temperatures? Oh, I forgot, we don't have high speed rail in 21st Century America.
51
The only good thing here is if it is smaller planes that are affected, that may include private jets. And if the wealthy are inconvenienced, political action will follow shortly.
74
Their lobbyists have already proposed a sure fire solution - more tax cuts for the wealthy. The miracle cure that solves all problems.
6
We live in the First World and take commercial flights. We are the wealthy which you refer to in the third person.
WE must be inconvenienced (by vastly reducing our commercial flights), before we cast blame on "the wealthy".
See how easy it is to simply blame "the wealthy"? See how good that feels sitting on that moral high ground? See how that then allows us to take zero responsibility for our personal CO2 emissions?
WE must be inconvenienced (by vastly reducing our commercial flights), before we cast blame on "the wealthy".
See how easy it is to simply blame "the wealthy"? See how good that feels sitting on that moral high ground? See how that then allows us to take zero responsibility for our personal CO2 emissions?
1
The effects of global warming and climate confuse many. Yes heat island intensity referred to by Prof. Mass below is real and the article loses its focus by mentioning increased jet stream wind velocity , which is disputed. The more important factoid is that air travel consumes 2% of the fossil fuel consumption and should be minimized. We should be building bullet trains to serve travelers on the continent and use jets for transcontinental travel only.
26
or scratch air travel except for extreme emergencies. Business trips can be conducted via teleconference. That may require getting used to for some, but it is generally no big deal. People can take vacations closer to home -- something within a reasonable driving radiance.
8
My dad recalls getting bumped off flights from LaGuardia and Phoenix in the sixties and seventies (when global cooling was the concern) on hot summer days as the needed to reduce weight. He was frequent delayed in New York, Chicago and Minnesota due to ice and snow. Weather delays when flying are system engineering problems that are routine, not front page news worthy of this hysteria. Cooling air brings thunderstorm related delays. The article said it well:
"Because there is so little data available and so many factors at play ... it can be hard to attribute any one service disruption to global warming."
"Because there is so little data available and so many factors at play ... it can be hard to attribute any one service disruption to global warming."
6
Keep denying climate change, it let's us know who the enemy of truth is:
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 100°F or higher 1896-2010: 92
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 100°F or higher 1981-2010: 110
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 110°F or higher 1896-2010: 11
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 110°F or higher 1981-2010: 19
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 100°F or higher 1896-2010: 92
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 100°F or higher 1981-2010: 110
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 110°F or higher 1896-2010: 11
Average annual number of days with maximum temperatures of 110°F or higher 1981-2010: 19
13
Enjoying, not denying climate change as I am sitting in a beautiful rocky valley in central New Jersey that was formed by a glacier a scant 10,000 years ago.
How do we know pre-industrial age climate was the exact perfect one for the world and worth trillions trying to preserve without any guarantee of success. (Do we want glaciers back in the North East? Or is the money better invested elsewhere?
How do we know pre-industrial age climate was the exact perfect one for the world and worth trillions trying to preserve without any guarantee of success. (Do we want glaciers back in the North East? Or is the money better invested elsewhere?
2
Safety should be part of this issue. Take-offs and landings are said to be the most risky part of flying and here we read that trans-US non-stops may need to have midway stops. More of concern are trans-ocean flights mentioned that sometimes require an early landing. Now that's a tad scary.
2
This is an ill-informed article and fear-mongering just makes the environmentalists look bad.
If lift is harder to generate, guess what? It doesn't mean they can't fly. There are easy solutions. Pack less people and luggage into planes. Increase the wing size to generate more lift. Increase the size of engines. Add more engines. Yes, these may increase costs incrementally but the issue is no big deal.
If lift is harder to generate, guess what? It doesn't mean they can't fly. There are easy solutions. Pack less people and luggage into planes. Increase the wing size to generate more lift. Increase the size of engines. Add more engines. Yes, these may increase costs incrementally but the issue is no big deal.
17
How is talking about what's happening, "fear mongering"? Should we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing's wrong? And bigger wings and engines require years of design and testing not to mention redesign of the rest of the plane. You can't just go to the parts store and bolt on aftermarket parts. Also, if you had read carefully you would know that putting fewer people and less cargo on a plane is already being done. As it becomes more common it will more than "incrementally" cut into profits.
17
I believe I've read the article carefully, and I don't agree that putting fewer people and less cargo on commercial planes is "being done already". Unless you are referring to the practice of 'dumping payload', meaning cargo and/or passengers, only when weather conditions demand it. Not the same thing. I think poster Jay Lincoln meant - and I agree - airlines should not operate planes stuffed with double the number of passengers the plane should carry, squeezed in twice as many seats as they used to have., both for safety and comfort - alas, notvas much orofit
3
Completely redesigning aircraft with longer wingspans and additional engines because of human-cased climate change isn't a big deal?
4
Much of this article is demonstrably not true. The best peer-reviewed research (e.g., http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_Polvani_2013_... does NOT show that the Northern Hemisphere jet will increase in strength. Thus, there is no reason to expect an increase in turbulence or changes in flight time. Much of the heating at airports such as Phoenix is not due global warming, but due to urban heat island effects as the area around the airport becomes more urban with concrete and buildings. Surprised there was no fact checking on this article...cliff mass, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Washington
15
"Urban heat island" explains why an urban center is hotter than in rural areas. It does not explain why an urban center might grow warmer from one year to the next. An expanding urban center would explain that; so would global warming.
Your comment reminds me of the weatherman who said that record warmth was not due to global warming; it was due to a strong el nino. And what was the explanation for an el nino that was warmer than any previous el nino? None offered.
Your comment reminds me of the weatherman who said that record warmth was not due to global warming; it was due to a strong el nino. And what was the explanation for an el nino that was warmer than any previous el nino? None offered.
54
Observation made by Professor Mass, "Much of the heating at airports such as Phoenix is not due (to) global warming, but due to urban heat island effects as the area around the airport becomes more urban with concrete and buildings".
Okay. Now I understand why it reached 127 degrees in Death Valley at the same time. Must be all that urban concrete and buildings. Professor Mass certainly deserves the Koch Industries Award for Advanced Insight in Environmental Science. Would Professor Mass care to offer additional thoughts on the Paris Agreement? By the way, it was almost 100 degrees in Paris yesterday. Must be all that urban concrete and buildings.
Okay. Now I understand why it reached 127 degrees in Death Valley at the same time. Must be all that urban concrete and buildings. Professor Mass certainly deserves the Koch Industries Award for Advanced Insight in Environmental Science. Would Professor Mass care to offer additional thoughts on the Paris Agreement? By the way, it was almost 100 degrees in Paris yesterday. Must be all that urban concrete and buildings.
55
Please note that the removal of the final ")" is required to make the link referred to above work.
Further, do you honestly expect a reporter to understand something so deep as this? That is why they interview experts.
Further, do you honestly expect a reporter to understand something so deep as this? That is why they interview experts.
1
I would like to read an article about the toll of air travel on climate change. Flying is horrendous for the environment. The sooner we wake up to that fact, the more chance we have of human survival in the next couple of centuries.
32
A single four-hour commercial flight will emit about 200,000 lbs. of CO2.
This is about 1,000 lbs per passenger.
An all-solar 3 bedroom/2 bath home will keep 1,000 lbs. of CO2 out of the atmosphere every year.
In other words, if you are a family of four and travel Phoenix-New York and back, you have just emitted eight times the CO2 than would have been kept out of the atmosphere in an all-solar-powered house for a year.
Eight years' worth of solar panel CO2 savings in that single flight...for just that family.
Or, a single four-hour commercial flight negates 200 all-solar homes for a year.
We aren't even close to being where we need to be.
Perhaps it is simply best to just try and relax and enjoy the ride...
Pass it along :)
This is about 1,000 lbs per passenger.
An all-solar 3 bedroom/2 bath home will keep 1,000 lbs. of CO2 out of the atmosphere every year.
In other words, if you are a family of four and travel Phoenix-New York and back, you have just emitted eight times the CO2 than would have been kept out of the atmosphere in an all-solar-powered house for a year.
Eight years' worth of solar panel CO2 savings in that single flight...for just that family.
Or, a single four-hour commercial flight negates 200 all-solar homes for a year.
We aren't even close to being where we need to be.
Perhaps it is simply best to just try and relax and enjoy the ride...
Pass it along :)
3
Unless, of course, its done by cool people like Leo going to another resort or by a Hilllary or Barrack off to make a $400K speech. But you going to Disneyland? How dare you!
hey, don't planes spew a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere? Shouldn't we just ban all but critical flights / passengers. Use Video conferences. Watch a slide show about places you'd like to visit. That kind of thing.
The irony emitted by climate alarmists wanting to fly everywhere is no longer absorbed the the layer of good humor the rest of us once had about their hysteria which has been eroded by the ridiculous claims and predictions of alarmists as well as their ad hominem attacks on skeptics. Now the irony may stay in the atmosphere for decades and who knows how its presence will affect the climate. I doubt if the super accurate (or is it inaccurate) climate models have incorporated this factor -- atmospheric irony -- into their projections nor is the science settled re its ultimate effect.
The irony emitted by climate alarmists wanting to fly everywhere is no longer absorbed the the layer of good humor the rest of us once had about their hysteria which has been eroded by the ridiculous claims and predictions of alarmists as well as their ad hominem attacks on skeptics. Now the irony may stay in the atmosphere for decades and who knows how its presence will affect the climate. I doubt if the super accurate (or is it inaccurate) climate models have incorporated this factor -- atmospheric irony -- into their projections nor is the science settled re its ultimate effect.
5
The science is well settled for everyone in the world except for a few ignorant loudmouths in the United States. And the rest of the world is figuring out how to build a new economy around clean energy sources and energy efficiency.
Two decades ago the rest of the world set ambitious energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. In the United States, we just cried about government overreach. We could have devoted our efforts to designing and manufacturing the best, most efficient, lowest cost light bulbs. But instead we turned the industry over to other nations and guess what, they got all the jobs that go with it.
Global warming is real. Eventually everyone will realize it. The question is whether the United States will be the leader in creating the jobs, industries, and products that mitigate the problem, or will we keep our heads in the sand and surrender the economic opportunities to others.
Two decades ago the rest of the world set ambitious energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. In the United States, we just cried about government overreach. We could have devoted our efforts to designing and manufacturing the best, most efficient, lowest cost light bulbs. But instead we turned the industry over to other nations and guess what, they got all the jobs that go with it.
Global warming is real. Eventually everyone will realize it. The question is whether the United States will be the leader in creating the jobs, industries, and products that mitigate the problem, or will we keep our heads in the sand and surrender the economic opportunities to others.
25
Preferential or preferable?
1
LGA is a nightmare. Hot or not it needs more room. Extending runways into the bay would help. Maximum landing weights are limited due to touching down on runway piers. Maximum taxi speeds limited to reduce wear and tear on taxiways. Landing after midnight is not permitted during the summer months due to pier maintenance. Takeoff is not permitted before 6 am because nearby people are sleeping. Takeoff on runway 22 is so severely weight restricted that it rarely happens. Landing on runway 13 really screws up surrounding airports that it rarely happens. Takeoff on runway 13 is fun to do but if you notice a hard right turn immediately after takeoff it is standard procedure because affluent people live off the end and don't want to here the planes. I could go on and on but you get the idea.
If you think being a passenger going in and out of LGA is tough. Try being a pilot. Challenging every flight but also rewarding when you get the job done safely every time.
If you think being a passenger going in and out of LGA is tough. Try being a pilot. Challenging every flight but also rewarding when you get the job done safely every time.
41
One of Bill DeBlasio's "ideas" was to close LGA, so the city could take the land to have developers build "affordable" housing. This was laughed out of the room right away, as it should have been. Aside from the obvious, Flushing has prevented all attempts to extend subway service to LGA, and the idea of a new high-density housing area with no subway service is ridiculous.
The Greater New York City area has three major airports: Newark, LaGuardia, JFK. Each is rated "worst in class" for customer satisfaction for its category of airport in the USA. Transit to/from each of these airports is a major problem; the "AirTrain" to JFK starts/ends in a special station in Jamaica forcing another transfer, and often user confusion about ticketing, etc.
The current "plan" fior LGA is to rebuild the terminals to allow more shopping, but not deal with any of the fundamental problems. An AirTrain-like boondoggle is proposed to take passengers east to Willits Field, to connect to the subway -- making a longer and more expensive trip than current transportation (Q70 bus to Jackson Heights subway nexus).
New York city is incapable of dealing with real problems in any rational way: "more shopping" is the answer.
The Greater New York City area has three major airports: Newark, LaGuardia, JFK. Each is rated "worst in class" for customer satisfaction for its category of airport in the USA. Transit to/from each of these airports is a major problem; the "AirTrain" to JFK starts/ends in a special station in Jamaica forcing another transfer, and often user confusion about ticketing, etc.
The current "plan" fior LGA is to rebuild the terminals to allow more shopping, but not deal with any of the fundamental problems. An AirTrain-like boondoggle is proposed to take passengers east to Willits Field, to connect to the subway -- making a longer and more expensive trip than current transportation (Q70 bus to Jackson Heights subway nexus).
New York city is incapable of dealing with real problems in any rational way: "more shopping" is the answer.
4
Whether or not Mr. Trump believes that climate change is real or just a Chinese hoax, his uninformed opinion means nothing to Mother Nature and the laws of physics.
48
More grounded flights, fewer emissions. Air travel is a significant contributor to global warming trends, so maybe "too hot to fly" is a good thing.
6
It's not about the size of the plane but the certification of the plane.
The smaller a/c can be certified for hotter weather takeoff. This is complex because it gets into performance in the case of an emergency (such as an engine failure) engine failure after V1 - the speed after which the flight is committed to takeoff. Before that speed, the aircraft also needs enough runway to stop in the case of an engine failure.
So the CRJ could be certified to 128 F, but it would likely mean that passengers would need to be bumped and a fuel stop during the flight if fuel also had to be reduced. I suspect that Bombardier engineering is receiving some rather "heated" e-mails from airlines operations these days.
The "range" issue is very simple and did not need a PhD to figure out. With a tailwind you can reduce speed to save fuel, but with a headwind you actually need to increase power (and speed) to save fuel (to reduce the time that you're subject to the headwind). But no amount of tailwind will ever "return" for the headwind losses. (see the "power curve" in your aviation textbooks - some senior H.S. / junior college calculus will show this clearly).
The smaller a/c can be certified for hotter weather takeoff. This is complex because it gets into performance in the case of an emergency (such as an engine failure) engine failure after V1 - the speed after which the flight is committed to takeoff. Before that speed, the aircraft also needs enough runway to stop in the case of an engine failure.
So the CRJ could be certified to 128 F, but it would likely mean that passengers would need to be bumped and a fuel stop during the flight if fuel also had to be reduced. I suspect that Bombardier engineering is receiving some rather "heated" e-mails from airlines operations these days.
The "range" issue is very simple and did not need a PhD to figure out. With a tailwind you can reduce speed to save fuel, but with a headwind you actually need to increase power (and speed) to save fuel (to reduce the time that you're subject to the headwind). But no amount of tailwind will ever "return" for the headwind losses. (see the "power curve" in your aviation textbooks - some senior H.S. / junior college calculus will show this clearly).
14
There may be other issues too -- there are long list of engineering decisions/tradeoffs that can affect operating limitations on takeoffs. Among them are that the aircraft must be able to execute an immediate return to landing if emergency requires it, and tire/brake limitations may be an issue here.
Landing an airplane near max gross on a very hot runway can blow tires -- engineering changes to improve margins can add a lot of weight to landing gear/wheel/brake/tire systems.
Landing an airplane near max gross on a very hot runway can blow tires -- engineering changes to improve margins can add a lot of weight to landing gear/wheel/brake/tire systems.
2
I join the chorus for high speed rail. Clean, efficient, comfortable. It's embarrassing to explain to folks who have it why we don't.
249
Your point is very well taken especially given this particular region and problem. Most affected are smaller planes on mainly short hop trips to bigger hubs like LA, SF, and so on not the longer flights out of Phoenix. High speed rail linking Phoenix-LA-Las Vegas-San Diego makes great sense. Once major rail project in California is finished it makes even more sense. Even a rail line from Phoenix to Tucson would help. All such rail connections are primarily in flat desert areas where construction is easier and cheaper and fewer problems of right away. However, the airlines and energy companies would not like it. Phoenix does not even have an Amtrack station any more. There is an expansion of lite rail in Mesa-Phoenix but even this is resisted by certain parts of the Phoenix area (especially Scottsdale) that want people to drive an use lots of gas.
1
Well, it certainly wasn't high speed rail then, but my father, nearly 90, remembers when the automobile companies lobbied to have the tracks from Philadelphia to the Jersey shore ripped out so people would by cars instead of taking the train. We've seen how that's turned out, time to swing back in the other direction.
High speed rail in Europe is fantastic - when it's not on strike. The relative absence of stress, the ability to get up and walk around, see beautiful scenery, for a very affordable price, and about the same time as a trip on a plane to the same destination once one factors in the trip to the airport, security etc. No lost luggage or humiliating pat-downs, and - bonus - you can bring liquids.
High speed rail in Europe is fantastic - when it's not on strike. The relative absence of stress, the ability to get up and walk around, see beautiful scenery, for a very affordable price, and about the same time as a trip on a plane to the same destination once one factors in the trip to the airport, security etc. No lost luggage or humiliating pat-downs, and - bonus - you can bring liquids.
1
The Boeings and Airbuses can still fly in air up to 127 F? No problem. We're good at least until 2019. After that, maybe we can glue ice packs to the wings or everybody can just take red-eyes. Until then, let's please allow the 3 people on earth who control the fossil fuel extraction supply chain to quadruple their fortunes.
59
"As the global climate changes, disruptions like these are likely to become more frequent..." You ain't seen nothing yet! For literally centuries, engineers have designed long-lived infrastructure, i.e., runways, roads, bridges, building water and wastewater systems, etc., based on the obscure but important assumption of "stationarity": past environmental conditions are reliable predictors of future environmental conditions. Global warming has changed all that. Expected ambient temperatures, range of storm intensity, length of droughts and heat waves, and more are now changing significantly and in ways that are not readily predictable. Non-stationarity is the new normal. Expect more cancelled flights as temperatures make aircraft takeoffs unsafe for the existing runway lengths. Expect more road buckling as temperature extremes overwhelm expansion joints. Expect more water shortages as reservoir capacities are unable to cope with extended droughts. Expect more flooding as rivers rise above historic levels.
Many of us in the engineering community are working to find ways to deal with it. But dealing with it means overhauling the entire system of engineering standards and practices for the built environment. That is a huge effort, but it's one that must be undertaken.
Many of us in the engineering community are working to find ways to deal with it. But dealing with it means overhauling the entire system of engineering standards and practices for the built environment. That is a huge effort, but it's one that must be undertaken.
92
Interesting article. So of course, it is the connectivity between flights that creates the largest problems in weather-related flight delays. This is one aspect where travel by car will be more reliable.
And reliability is paramount in this issue. Travelers need to know that they can arrive at their destinations as scheduled. I was on a British Airways flight from Heathrow to LAX last year. As it happened, we were almost 45 minutes ahead of our scheduled arrival time. Hoorah! Well, wait a moment: our plane taxied back and forth past several BA gates. Because we were so early, no gate was available! So we wound up sitting on the tarmac until our appointed time came up --- five minutes' late as it happened.
And reliability is paramount in this issue. Travelers need to know that they can arrive at their destinations as scheduled. I was on a British Airways flight from Heathrow to LAX last year. As it happened, we were almost 45 minutes ahead of our scheduled arrival time. Hoorah! Well, wait a moment: our plane taxied back and forth past several BA gates. Because we were so early, no gate was available! So we wound up sitting on the tarmac until our appointed time came up --- five minutes' late as it happened.
4
Temperature variation throughout the day is one reason flights to and from India have traditionally been scheduled in the middle of the night. Not only are there max temps for take off but even below that threshold decreased air density means decreased payloads, and thus more costs (less cargo) and shorter ranges (less fuel). Maybe the silver lining is that airlines will have to book fewer than the 110% of the seats that they now book!
6
Air molecules don't exist. Air is a mixture of different gases, some of which aren't even molecules, such as argon. It would be much more accurate for the diagram to just say denser or more concentrated air.
7
What difference does it make? You want him to make a list of all the compounds that are in the troposphere? This is mere pedantry.
1
“We tend to ignore the atmosphere and just think that the plane is flying through empty space, but of course, it’s not,” said Paul D. Williams. .
No duh. Who, on God's green Earth, thinks airplanes fly in a vacuum? Did we need a weatherman to tell us that?
No duh. Who, on God's green Earth, thinks airplanes fly in a vacuum? Did we need a weatherman to tell us that?
5
I suspect that if you surveyed people on that question you'd find that plenty of them have no earthly idea of how planes fly -- and I bet that several are in high government office, in the US (both parties) and elsewhere!
13
While this is being spun as a climate issue, I think this has more to do with airlines simply cramming more cargo and passengers into aircraft hence why we have more over booked flights.
1
There is no climate change. Always the same song. When warnings are right in front of you.
28
At DCA in the 60's, AA's BAC111s typically could not meet weight restrictions on hot days and were routinely required to make re-fueling stops at IAD, even for short-haul routes to BOS, LGA, CVG, etc.
The phenomenon this article purports to expose has less to do with global warming than it does aircraft engineers and airlines wanting to push the design envelope in the name of achieving higher payloads from RJs.
The phenomenon this article purports to expose has less to do with global warming than it does aircraft engineers and airlines wanting to push the design envelope in the name of achieving higher payloads from RJs.
3
Probably means Regional Jets
4
And that you don't want us to understand as it would show that Climate Change is part of the problem. Though I could understand the gist of it as I'm from BOS.
Took a flight from Boston to Vancouver last year. Only it was from BOS to Seattle, then cram us into a smaller plane to Vancouver. Which literally goes up on the steepest trajectory it can, then down on the steepest trajectory it can. More like an amusement park ride than a plane flight, pilot warned us that we might have to wait to disembark because we might arrive too soon (scheduled to take an hour, does it in around 1/2 that). We did.
On homeward bound the flight from Vancouver stopped in Minneapolis for close to 2 hours, then back to Boston. They are expanding Minneapolis as fast as they can (whole place a construction zone), because it used to be that the only planes landing there were going there. This was going eastward, with a tail wind.
Airlines are trying mightily to fly the smallest planes stuffed with the most people & cargo possible. So, they keep cutting what passengers can bring. Soon you will have to ground ship your luggage, & not be allowed to carry an extra handkerchief. Too much weight.
Took a flight from Boston to Vancouver last year. Only it was from BOS to Seattle, then cram us into a smaller plane to Vancouver. Which literally goes up on the steepest trajectory it can, then down on the steepest trajectory it can. More like an amusement park ride than a plane flight, pilot warned us that we might have to wait to disembark because we might arrive too soon (scheduled to take an hour, does it in around 1/2 that). We did.
On homeward bound the flight from Vancouver stopped in Minneapolis for close to 2 hours, then back to Boston. They are expanding Minneapolis as fast as they can (whole place a construction zone), because it used to be that the only planes landing there were going there. This was going eastward, with a tail wind.
Airlines are trying mightily to fly the smallest planes stuffed with the most people & cargo possible. So, they keep cutting what passengers can bring. Soon you will have to ground ship your luggage, & not be allowed to carry an extra handkerchief. Too much weight.
1
John,
The planes were designed before the current heat wave in Phoenix. Your "logic" is faulty.
The planes were designed before the current heat wave in Phoenix. Your "logic" is faulty.
2
A cynical side of me says, of course, the solution is to charge more to fly during the "best" hours, late day/ early morning.
Seriously, this is a serious problem for the US and world economy, as well as for individuals, including the poor souls who handle the lading and servicing of planes, working in what must feel like the inside of a frying pan.
Seriously, this is a serious problem for the US and world economy, as well as for individuals, including the poor souls who handle the lading and servicing of planes, working in what must feel like the inside of a frying pan.
5
In a warming climate why are Americans migrating south toward the heat rather than in the other direction?
7
Perhaps because the winters have become even more unbearable.
16
Because they don't know any better and haven't done the research. I've been in Phoenix when it was 123 degrees, but that was in August in the 1990's. It was regarded a a freak occurrence, not the norm. Eastern hot spots like Florida also have the problem of rising sea water and increased and more violent hurricanes.
4
not me, we are going to continue northward- where it will eventually resemble Hawaii.
An excellent article. There will be many “follow-on” results from climate change and we'll deal with them as best we can. The wealthy and wealthier nations will find ways to ameliorate the situation, until they can't. Our country foolishly withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, while the whole world suffers from human activity. Too bad the “leader of the free world” has chosen not to lead. We look not only foolish, but stupid.
287
How about some honest reporting? What planes could not fly? The very small commuter jets - the Bombardier CRJ models. The rest of the aircraft flew.
Hottest day? No. Hottest day yet in 2017. Do your research. This is not about climate change.
Hottest day? No. Hottest day yet in 2017. Do your research. This is not about climate change.
8
What part of "The problem in Phoenix primarily affected smaller jets operated by American’s regional partner airlines." were you unable to read?
The article does not explain why the particular airplanes are not approved for take-offs at the high temperatures; it does not stem from any intrinsic issue of "smallness."
The article does not explain why the particular airplanes are not approved for take-offs at the high temperatures; it does not stem from any intrinsic issue of "smallness."
14
The article does not contend that the flight delays were on "the hottest day." I am not sure what additional research you are advocating for.
Also, the statement: "This is not about climate change" is puzzling to me. Are you suggesting that increased heat-related flight delays are *not* a result of climate change? Or are you suggesting there is no such thing as climate change?
Also, the statement: "This is not about climate change" is puzzling to me. Are you suggesting that increased heat-related flight delays are *not* a result of climate change? Or are you suggesting there is no such thing as climate change?
37
The author did say it was the smaller regional planes that could not fly. The author did not say hottest day ever. You may wish to actually read the article and the science behind climate change before sticking your head in the sand.
55
At these temperatures, I imagine rail becomes problematic too. And one wonders if energy pipelines were built to function under these conditions. How does pavement hold up under such extreme conditions?
And now we begin to see how climate change will rearrange the population of the US. Imagine Phoenix as an island, cut off from travel and, more importantly, supplies except for a brief window in the wee hours, with its energy infrastructure becoming unreliable.
Many of its current residents will flee to easier climates, and its property values will plummet. In fact, I am amazed that property owners are not in the vanguard of climate-preservation efforts -- the wealth that will simply be erased by climate flight is staggering to contemplate.
And now we begin to see how climate change will rearrange the population of the US. Imagine Phoenix as an island, cut off from travel and, more importantly, supplies except for a brief window in the wee hours, with its energy infrastructure becoming unreliable.
Many of its current residents will flee to easier climates, and its property values will plummet. In fact, I am amazed that property owners are not in the vanguard of climate-preservation efforts -- the wealth that will simply be erased by climate flight is staggering to contemplate.
111
"Aviation is a major producer of carbon dioxide, responsible for about 2 percent of human-made emissions each year". Indeed. Although this article is about how climate change is affecting aviation, what should be examined instead is the opposite: how aviation is affecting climate change. Thousands and thousands of flights are in the air each day, every day. How is all that CO2 and heat changing the climate as compared with other forms of transportation? I think unlimited air travel may be a luxury we can no longer afford, if we're to protect the planet. More research certainly needs to be done.
78
2% is not insignificant, but it's still less than the contribution from other forms of transportation. land based transportation accounts for about 6.5 as much CO2 emissions. Sea transportation accounts for about 30% more than air. And naturally all of this pales in comparison to electricity generation. But to point the finger at air transportation misses the big contributors.
We'll get a much better return on investment by focusing our efforts on the largest contributors first.
We'll get a much better return on investment by focusing our efforts on the largest contributors first.
2
It's not the raw numbers, but the place that the polluting is taking place which concerns me. Is the release of CO2 and heat (and other pollutants) at 33,000 feet more damaging to the environment than at sea level? That's the question that needs to be answered, if it hasn't already.
2
@Dan: CO2 gets mixed across the atmosphere fairly quickly (timescales of a few months), so it doesn't matter where it's released. In terms of its effects on climate change, CO2 released at 33,000 feet is the same as CO2 released at the ground.
Regarding the heat released by airplanes: this is irrelevant to the global energy budget: it is orders of magnitude smaller than the energy fluxes associated with absorption of sunlight, radiation of IR energy to space by the atmosphere, etc. That said, airplane contrails can exert a significant effect on regional cloudiness patterns, which DOES affect how sunlight is absorbed and IR energy escapes to space. So that is a potentially important factor for climate change.
Regarding the heat released by airplanes: this is irrelevant to the global energy budget: it is orders of magnitude smaller than the energy fluxes associated with absorption of sunlight, radiation of IR energy to space by the atmosphere, etc. That said, airplane contrails can exert a significant effect on regional cloudiness patterns, which DOES affect how sunlight is absorbed and IR energy escapes to space. So that is a potentially important factor for climate change.
This is again another significant argument for high speed rail, particularly in the Northeast corridor. Even in wide open spaces in the West such as between Arizona and California, high speed rail can be an effective replacement for planes that cannot fly.
249
Yes Yes yes to high speed trains here in the USA!
68
If Americans experienced the pleasurable convenience of European and Japanese high speed rail, they would clamor for it. City center to city center in comfort without the 2 hour airport wait, the traffic clogged trek to the airport, and arrive at your destination in less time than a flight. European trains travel at twice the speed of Amtrak's fastest speed. Yet, sometimes Amtrak stops running due to heat warping the rails. This doesn't happen in Europe, although temperatures in Italy and Spain reach those in the US. What's the difference? We have to ask the engineers or metallurgists.
186
I like the idea of high speed rail. Can we put you down as a volunteer to have it run above your home?
1
We would do well to acknowledge the problem now and act on it, instead of hiding our eyes from the truth.
Earth's apex predator - and the apex predators that use power and wealth to gain more power and wealth within the human family - is about to get a comeuppance. Time to start paying attention and work together to solve problems.