|
Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
From today’s newspaper. A Qantas executive suggests the higher cancellation rate is due climate change. Federal government aviation data shows that in September, 76.2 per cent of flights across all airlines landed on time, compared to the long-term average of 82.3 per cent. On-time departures averaged 78.4 per cent, compared to a long-term average of 83.7 per cent. Cancellation rates were also up at 2.2 per cent compared to 1.5 per cent over the long term, and Qantas cancelled 3.3 per cent of flights in the month. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha........😂 |
Silly me and I thought it was due to sunspots.
|
Poor OTP affecting KPIs. Hmmm, Need a reason so it doesn’t affect the.Bonus... ahhh! Everyone else is blaming Climate Change, why not us!? |
Moronic. Why can’t people just accept that sometimes the weather differs from the historical average. Doesn’t mean it’s going to continue as the new norm 🤦🏼*♂️ |
Christ almighty! Would be cheaper to build every airport world wide as all over fields than to try and change what's been going on since the the planet was formed! I bet the other Airlines CEO's (better known as Cash Extraction Officers) are kicking themselves they didn't get in on the Climate Change fairy tale! |
It was Andrew David who made this claim... @ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/qantas-e...climate-change
|
Originally Posted by T-Vasis
(Post 10624321)
It was Andrew David who made this claim... @ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/qantas-e...climate-change
|
All pretty objective analysis and critique of Qantas’ statement by pilots. Indeed it must be a conspiracy by Qantas again. Sounds legit........ |
I burnt my toast this morning. Damn you, climate change! |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10624366)
Andrew David's aviation "insight" could be detailed on the back of a postage stamp with a crayon.
|
Well, Is not 'Our Continent' drifting NNE at the rate of about 15cm per year..?
THAT has just GOT to effect 'climate change'...… And.... I hear that the 'Tropic of Capricorn' is also drifting N by about 15 m per year....so the Earths 'Angle of Bank' is changing..? Wait for the 'climate change' from that ! Cheeeerrrsss…. |
Personally I blame same-sex marriage and new abortion laws.
|
Is there anywhere in the article linked to above where AD directly blames what scientists would call climate change (increased carbon in the atmosphere, greenhouse effect) for the change in prevailing winds in Sydney this year? Here’s his direct quotes from the article: "We have seen wind velocities 34 per cent higher than the average of the last 30 years, and it’s a prevailing westerly rather than the south-south-westerly we’ve seen in the past," "That’s led to runway closures, meaning (aircraft) movements are slowed." A lot of media figures with an agenda seem to be jumping on AD for nothing really. |
It’s not Climate “change” anymore it’s Climate “emergency”. |
Originally Posted by machtuk
(Post 10624456)
Hahahah I like that analogy of AD, he was a piece of work at Tigers also!
It might help. |
Originally Posted by Brisbane Sinner
(Post 10624524)
Personally I blame same-sex marriage and new abortion laws.
|
You need to take Climate Change seriously. It’s the hottest temperature ever, except, 1934, 1962, 1974, 1987, and 12 million years ago.
|
How about this as a cause as a novel idea. "The cause of the delay is spending too much on airport shops and too little too late on more runways."
|
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me. Aircraft fly because science works. Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science. Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world. |
Well of course the planet is warming, it has been since the last ice age. Fact. Situation normal... |
Originally Posted by Derfred
(Post 10624698)
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me. Aircraft fly because science works. Aircraft and indeed spacecraft have evolved since first flight because scientists worked out how they work, and how to make them fly faster, higher and more efficiently using... I hate to say it... science. Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: scientists must be full of ****.... this can’t be right because it might affect my nice little world. |
Now that science says something that economists don’t want to hear, the pilots all go right wing and agree with the economists: Would you fly an aircraft designed by an accountant rather than a aeronautical engineer? |
Originally Posted by tio540
(Post 10624728)
Yep, scientists gave the Wright Brothers all the data to build an aeroplane, And scientists said the world was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the world would warm 1.5 degrees if you leave an incandescent light on.
Modern science began with Copernicus, Gallileo et al in the 16th century, and no serious scientist has ever said that the Earth is flat or the universe revolves around the earth since then. In fact it has been widely known for about 2500 years that the earth is spherical, since the time of Pythagoras and Aristotle. |
People start going all “right wing” when information is shoved down their throat 24/7. The first to bleet would be the types you see getting around in Melbourne with multicoloured hair if we switched it all off and went back to cave living. Most people support doing the right thing when it comes to the environment and most people couldn’t care less what their neighbour does in their bedroom. They do care when media, politicians etc start ramming hysteria and propaganda down children’s throats for their own ideological gain. |
Originally Posted by Green.Dot
(Post 10623934)
Moronic. Why can’t people just accept that sometimes the weather differs from the historical average. Doesn’t mean it’s going to continue as the new norm 🤦🏼*♂️ |
As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.
fact 1. The earths climate is always changing, due to many factors from the suns activity, tectonic plate movement, the earths tilt etc. etc. as well as by biological organisms, anything from microbes, phytoplankton, and all the way up to humans. fact 2. Humans have been influencing micro climates for at least 30,000 years due to practices such as slash and burn, deforestation, damming etc. fact 3. Humans are certainly polluting the atmosphere with all sorts of gasses and particles, which at some point needs to be addressed and reversed if possible. The problem occurs when ideologies, political point scoring, beliefs, righteous anger and noble cause corruption take precedence over the facts and practical scientific solutions. |
The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me. For example; A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[7] Physicist Richard Feynman invoked the informal approach to communicating the basic principles of science in his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology (Feynman, 1985): [There is an] idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (pp. 311-312) When people question why the hypothesis are being presented as fact they are met with insults and statement like The scientific naivety of pilots constantly astounds me. |
Originally Posted by nonsense
(Post 10624964)
How long, and by how much, does weather need to differ before you would consider it a new norm?
|
Originally Posted by tio540
(Post 10625051)
The atmosphere contains 0.041% carbon dioxide. Not even 1/2 of one percent.
Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm? And I can tell you now, living in one of the most polluted parts of the world, creating cleaner technologies and removing coal fired power stations will not only potentially improve the environments health, but it’ll certainly improve the health of billions of people! |
I agree with anyone that says it’s a good idea to clean up our environment and significantly reduce pollution. Like every other poster I can’t ‘know’ that we are in a ‘climate emergency’. There appears to be no middle ground on this subject. |
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10625061)
Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm? Firefighters generally aren’t, like what another poster alluded to, “multicoloured hair types living in inner city Melbourne”, or as our Deputy PM and leader of the National Party called “raving inner city lunatics”. So if the experts in their field, acting on scientific evidence, who are trying to warn of the dangers are rudely dismissed by the second most important politician in this nation as a bunch a “raving lunatics” it seems there isn’t much politcial will to act and adapt to the “new norm”. |
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10625086)
23 former heads of Fire and Emergency Services in Australia have been trying to meet with the PM all year to warn of the “new norm” in regards to bushfires in this country (hotter, longer, earlier, less capacity to perform Hazard Reduction Burns) and the need to adapt to it by vastly expanding firefighting capability to counter it. He’s refused to. Firefighters generally aren’t, like what another poster alluded to, “multicoloured hair types living in inner city Melbourne”, or as our Deputy PM and leader of the National Party called “raving inner city lunatics”. So if the experts in their field, acting on scientific evidence, who are trying to warn of the dangers are rudely dismissed by the second most important politician in this nation as a bunch a “raving lunatics” it seems there isn’t much politcial will to act and adapt to the “new norm”. We get all worked up if things aren’t within our very limited norm. We are all living on a rather large molten core, covered by a thin crust, hurtling around a massive fusion reactor, the poles and continents are constantly moving, as this 3rd rock from the sun is in constant threat of either a super volcano awakening, Yellowstone Caldera, or one of the many very large lump of rocks currently flying around in space, whose orbits we have no idea of and are capable of species extinction. Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency means money transfer, from our pockets to theirs, that’s all. Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug. i wonder what the animals used to think way back before humans arrived, lightning strikes, forest fires, sure wish the humans would hurry up and build around here, so they will pour millions of dollars into protecting them and us? its a religion, nothing more, nothing less. |
Originally Posted by fltlt
(Post 10625128)
Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency means money transfer, from our pockets to theirs, that’s all. Here in CA the increase in fires used to be blamed on Climate Change, until the causes of most of them was ascertained, ill maintained utility transmission lines, homeless folks, car accidents and the odd firebug its a religion, nothing more, nothing less. |
So cute when they talk about "historic" measurements of the past 10,20,30 or even 200 years in regards to a planet that's some 2 billion years old :rolleyes:
|
Morno. If you are living in China you will be disappointed to hear China is adding 1171 new coal powered power stations to the 2363 coal powered power stations they already have. In Australia we are planning to shut down the remaining 6 coal powered power stations to save the world.
|
Originally Posted by B772
(Post 10625208)
Morno. If you are living in China you will be disappointed to hear China is adding 1171 new coal powered power stations to the 2363 coal powered power stations they already have. In Australia we are planning to shut down the remaining 6 coal powered power stations to save the world.
Wonder which government will be the first to inevitably raise taxes to counter those effects? |
Wonder which government will be the first to inevitably raise taxes to counter those effects? |
Originally Posted by morno
(Post 10625061)
But how do you know if that’s too much or not? Maybe 0.51% could mean catastrophic consequences. Look, man made or not, it’s happening. The main thing now is what are we doing to adapt to the new norm? And I can tell you now, living in one of the most polluted parts of the world, creating cleaner technologies and removing coal fired power stations will not only potentially improve the environments health, but it’ll certainly improve the health of billions of people! Only then, will you be taken serious that 0.05% carbon dioxide could be catastrophic. |
Originally Posted by tio540
(Post 10625291)
If you are serious, stop flying aeroplanes, stop taking international holidays, stop drinking imported coffee, and sell your 350 hp Audi.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.