Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones

Old 3rd Jun 2019, 14:09
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The science behind climate change is well above my pay grade. What I do know is that these people must comply with the rule of law. Without laws we have chaos and anarchy. There are plenty of laws I don't agree with but I abide by them because that is how a civilised society works.

Perhaps ER should rather turn their attention to the polls and affect change that way.
Kennytheking is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 14:32
  #82 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,743
Received 703 Likes on 208 Posts
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
Sooo!
Some morons wants to torpedo me and my nice shiny Jet into London with drones and some of You think this is cool!
Fantastic!
BSU, the likelihood of you, a whale eater of renown, being harpooned by a DJI is pretty remote. I wouldn't lose too much sleep on it, and think of the war story you would get if you were to have a drone strike. The thing about drones is that they appear a nuisance, and they are if you are sunbathing topless, but some very smart people have spent a fair bit of time thinking things through, and it is an ill advised activity to zip around in restricted airspace with a quad copter. The defences are about a decade ahead of the drones at this time, befitting the potential headline risk that they pose. Now in other areas of the world, less interest may have been expended on the issue, but the public have some smart chaps protecting your shiny equipment on final. The less said about drone defence the better, it is a dark art, but it is active and has some rather prompt consequences to players.

Headlines of mayhem at Heathrow is healthy for the public anxiety, it helps fund the dark arts, and adds column inches to the tabloids and Fox.

Choppers are the high risk vehicles, not from malicious intent, just from incompetence and non compliance of the odd occasional drone drivers sharing the lower but higher fun levels.
fdr is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 15:05
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow. This is not the content I expected when I opened this thread. However, as has been acknowledged in some posts, above, climate change (or whatever you want to call it) is entirely driven by population growth. it doesn't matter whether you think the problem is more flying, more driving, more manufacturing, more meat eating, less forests etc etc this is all driven by population growth. So, only as and when ER, the Greens, the Sainted Emma T etc come out and campaign for people to have less children will I start to take them seriously and I will not, under any circumstances, be lectured on climate change by anyone with more than two children.
willy wombat is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 15:18
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks FDR

May I call You Franklin?
So the drones are taken care of. That is good, remind me to report back to You after the next NATO exercise in Norway.
Migratory birds it turns out.
Nuff said.
Yeh the war story after smashing a drone, absolutely on my list to do.
Been laser attacked and bird record is 10 seagulls in one go, but not much cred to be had.
Got to go, the sun is out, getting a tan!

Regards
Cpt B
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 17:25
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 566
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by willy wombat
Wow. ........ So, only as and when ER, the Greens, the Sainted Emma T etc come out and campaign for people to have less children will I start to take them seriously and I will not, under any circumstances, be lectured on climate change by anyone with more than two children.
Well said WW. Not had kids of my own so "doing my bit" to bring the world population down thereby reducing global warming.

Mind you, have inherited several step-kids along the way (I know, what a Wally I am), all of whom are quite happy to lecture us oldies on such "green" matters on a regular basis. One slight problem - the education system seems to not have included instruction (us oldies clearly have no idea whatsoever and are not allowed to make such suggestions on such matters it seems - learned that the hard way!) on the relationship between light switches being left on overnight and power wastage. I regularly find at least their bathroom light on at any time of the day or night along with a bedroom light. Fortunately, only one left living at home now - and we are all counting down the days, mark you!!!!

Best was when eldest last staged a visit "gracing us" with both her "presence" and "wisdom" as only a 25 yr old can. Went down in the morning to let the cat out (assuming it had been let in/left in overnight). Trogged down stairs to find, not only bathroom light left on overnight, but top landing/stairs light, hallway light, dining room light AND kitchen light - oh, and lounge light. Excuse from delightful eldest? "Well, you can't expect us to get safely up stairs in the dark!". I did not even bother asking why they had simply not turned the lights off as they made their way upstairs - just as I do every night - though why all those lights were needed to "safely get upstairs" in the first place was beyond me anyway!

Some generations are just not worth discussing such matters with ...... besides, they are all to busy supporting the latest "Extinction Rebellion" or whatever the latest fad is to have time to do their bit! TBH, I just blame their Mother as they were all well into their teens when I "won" them ........

"Rant mode set to "Off"" - H 'n' H heads off to calm down again!
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 20:19
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 68
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes
(quotes trident3A): "It's possible to love aviation and at the same time realise that we cannot continue expanding."

Aviation is fun, challenging, mind broadening, brings cultures together, etc. But most of it is non-essential. What do we need a third runway for? To free up 27L and R so more people can go to Thailand for 2 weeks?

It's pretty clear that we're facing a serious climate problem. We've known about this since the 70s and b***er all's been done really. Yes we've done a few things on power generation. But transport? All we've seen is more cars, more planes. So although I don't think shutting down Heathrow with drones is a good idea, you can see where they're coming from, because no other form of protest seems to be working.
Homo Sapiens struggled for hundreds of thousands of years to gain a foothold -- two steps forward, one (or two) back -- almost dying out countless times, you can bet. Then along came the Industrial Revolution and BOOM. In my wee lifetime the world human population has Tripled.

Science now accepts the Anthropocene (the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment) as an actual geological era, i.e. if homo sapiens were to disappear tomorrow, a future geology-practising species could idenitify it. And guess what: it coincides with the "Anthropocene extinction", one of the most significant extinction events in the history of the Earth. Just coincidence? I think not. And the polar ice caps are melting like crazy and sea levels are rising in corresponding fashion. Coincidence? I think not.

Unbridled Growthism has painted us into quite a corner. But people, being people, are always big into Denial. Any ostrich hole will do. Personally I think it's too late in any case. But it's true, we're in uncharted waters. Nobody really knows how these things develop. No endeavour is as complex as climatology. So as good little Denialists we seize on that: "They throw figures around as if they knew what they were talking about!" Well, Nobody really knows. But then, anyone 20 years ago who had predicted the scale of polar ice melt we're seeing now would have been hooted down in similar fashion. The news on the ground is not good.

I don't blame these kids for raising hell. The third runway at LHR is a (no pun intended) concrete example of out-of-control Growthism. It's a symbol. I perfectly understand their anger and their unwillingness to allow "business as usual" to yet again pretend we can carry on this way.
VFR Only Please is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 21:53
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by VFR Only Please
Then along came the Industrial Revolution and BOOM.

Science now accepts the Anthropocene (the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment) as an actual geological era,....
And the polar ice caps are melting like crazy and sea levels are rising in corresponding fashion. Coincidence? I think not.

But then, anyone 20 years ago who had predicted the scale of polar ice melt we're seeing now would have been hooted down in similar fashion..
You are happy to carry on repeating the same nauseating bollox ad infinitum???

The polar ice caps are NOT melting.
Antarctic now has record amounts of ice, which is why the MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck fast in it.

The north west passage was more easily open in the 1930s than it is today.
Sea levels are NOT rising. (no faster than the past 200yrs from well documented tidal records gauges).
US Hurricane activity is at a 30 year low, and the sky is not falling.
The earth has been COOLING for the last 18 years (an inconvenient fact called a "PAUSE"), but the cult of the warmist and their indoctrination of their kids knows no shame.

I love the first sentence.....along came the industrial revolution...BOOM, indeed it was.

YES,- coincident with the arrival of the CANNON, Bonaparte's wars, which shredded British forests, then the rapid arrival of high explosives, cordite and the evolution of the gun into the MACHINE GUN which caused mechanised mayhem and slaughter in the mud of Flanders.
Thanks to the same industrial processes the USA was able to produce the first GUN BASED atomic weapons, that wonderful industrial revolution made it possible to kill 10s of 1000s of Japanese in one FLASH.

They then got started on nuclear testing on such a vast industrial scale you can now DATE or trace fake wines if claimed pre 1945, by checking the amounts of radio caesium in the stuff.

It's wonderful to read the greeny bollox every time it comes out, because there's one proveable phenomenon, they haven't got the slightest clue WTF they are on about!
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 22:50
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The amount of (sometimes angry) denialism in this thread, by aviation professionals is disturbing. People here should really know better.

Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
You are happy to carry on repeating the same nauseating bollox ad infinitum???
VFR, in the cited post, is "spouting" nothing but widely-understood fact. Not even widely-accepted theory, just fact.

The polar ice caps are NOT melting.
Oh, yes, indeed, they absolutely and inarguable are melting. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes with an easy Google search to make that clear to anyone willing to pay attention to reliable sources. Here are a few, quickly grabbed from a search for recent articles:

Melting Ice Caps are a National Security Risk

The Big Thaw

Arctic Sea Ice Decline

Antarctic now has record amounts of ice, which is why the MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck fast in it.
An incident in which a single vessel becomes ice-bound is utterly unrelated to the overall status of the ice of Antarctica, which is nothing like your claim.

Nearly 25% of West Antarctic Ice in Danger of Collapse

Seriously, it would be a good idea to do a bit of careful research and reassessment of your views on this subject before continuing to accuse others of "greeny bollux."
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2019, 23:01
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can shoot down drones with AK-47s and Barrett the 2.5 kilometer range sniper long rifle. Anti-aircraft guns will smash drones kilometers away. Look how Libya's Haftar's forces have easily acquired 1000's of Toyota jeeps with anti-aircraft guns. But people who are using drones near airports must be in jail for 10 years.

LehMehh is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 00:43
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,191
Received 235 Likes on 128 Posts
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
Sea levels are NOT rising. (no faster than the past 200yrs from well documented tidal records gauges).
To continue with the up_down_n_out nonsense debunking:

Wrong, Sea Levels are rising:

Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

US Hurricane activity is at a 30 year low, and the sky is not falling.
Global Warming and Hurricanes

The earth has been COOLING for the last 18 years (an inconvenient fact called a "PAUSE"), but the cult of the warmist and their indoctrination of their kids knows no shame.
This is total nonsense. There is zero evidence of this. I donít know which conspiracy site youíre getting that from but itís totally wrong:

Global Temperature

There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.

It's wonderful to read the greeny bollox every time it comes out, because there's one proveable phenomenon, they haven't got the slightest clue WTF they are on about!
Every statement posted here by someone explaining the science on climate change is backed up by peer reviewed studies from prestigious universities or organisations like NASA or the NOAA. You havenít even given a typical denier source like some poorly written website obviously funded by a fossil fuel company.

Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
The amount of (sometimes angry) denialism in this thread, by aviation professionals is disturbing. People here should really know better.

Seriously, it would be a good idea to do a bit of careful research and reassessment of your views on this subject before continuing to accuse others of "greeny bollux."
Itís either down to:

People who are older and donít think theyíll be affected by any real catastrophic effects of climate change when they occur.

Those financially well off who believe theyíll be unfairly taxed by any attempts to rectify climate change.

Those with investments in fossil fuel industries (at the moment aviation relies heavily on fossil fuels so it may explain the denialism from some here).

Or those who have a deep seated hatred of left wing politics and perceive environmentalism as leftism (even though the science in this is apolitical as you can get).

​​​​​

Last edited by dr dre; 4th Jun 2019 at 00:54.
dr dre is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 03:21
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.



The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
Edited to add that the 2015 article is from the NASA website.



According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Where does this NASA study fit in to the above arguments?
Edited to add that the 2015 article is from the NASA website.
73qanda is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 03:28
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 494
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Hate to let data get in the way of a good story

Originally Posted by dr dre


To continue with the up_down_n_out nonsense debunking:

Wrong, Sea Levels are rising:

Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

Has been for the last 150 years - can you tell me where the impact of global warming is on this data?




20driver is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 03:40
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, totalpolar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Also, can anyone point out where the above article is incorrect? Which parts of the above article are incorrect and how do we know that?
I’m ready to be convinced that we are at the start of a ‘climate crisis’ but I do need to be convinced with some data that isn’t a projection from a model with millions of lines of code. So if someone can show me why the above article is incorrect I’d honestly appreciate it. Oldngrounded and dr dre?
73qanda is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 03:40
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out
You are happy to carry on repeating the same nauseating bollox ad infinitum???

The polar ice caps are NOT melting....
Antarctic now has record amounts of ice, which is why the MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck fast in it.


It's wonderful to read the greeny bollox every time it comes out, because there's one proveable phenomenon, they haven't got the slightest clue WTF they are on about!
You do realize that the record amount of ice in the ocean is actually a sign of a warming artic, as glaciers on land melt, they "calve" meaning that bits of them fall off into the ocean. The ice sheets "float" along meltwater underneath them. The average temperature of the Artic has risen five degrees since 1970. There is really no question that the ice caps are melting, if you wish you can claim that it is part of something other than climate change but if you think that there is more ice in the artic than 1970 you are perhaps the one who most resembles your last sentence.
Water pilot is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 03:51
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
but if you think that there is more ice in the artic than 1970 you are perhaps the one who most resembles your last sentence.
Ok cool, that’s an opinion, but how do you explain the 2015 NASA study saying the opposite ( for Antarctica)?
I’m not trying to bait you, I honestly want to know, why did the NASA study find an increase in volume?
73qanda is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 03:59
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Water pilot
You do realize that the record amount of ice in the ocean is actually a sign of a warming artic . . .
A good point, but note that the poster was referring to an incident with the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy, which was trapped in Antarctic ice, five or so years ago. Of course the point you make applies equally to the ice down there:
Antarctic Ship Rescue . . .

[. . .] But expedition leader Chris Turney said that the team's situation may have been in part due to warming oceans, which broke an iceberg into smaller pieces that the wind then swept against the ship, according to FoxNews.com.

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added by email that 'any comments about overall ice shrinking or increasing are absurd in this situation. . . .'
Emphasis added.

OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 04:07
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,191
Received 235 Likes on 128 Posts
Originally Posted by 73qanda

Ok cool, that’s an opinion, but how do you explain the 2015 NASA study saying the opposite ( for Antarctica)?
I’m not trying to bait you, I honestly want to know, why did the NASA study find an increase in volume?
Debunked here:

Why this 2015 NASA study is beloved by climate change skeptics

Basically, there were questions about the reliability of the methods of measurement used in that study which some scientists consider to be unreliable. And that the measurements were only conducted in one part of the continent.

Multiple subsequent studies conducted within the last 1-2 years, including ones by NASA, are showing a verified loss of ice in Antarctica.

You see questioning the way science is conducted amongst your colleagues, and then verifying conclusions with your own studies and having your colleagues review them again is called peer review for all you deniers out there.

And even the author of the 2015 study, NASA scientist Jay Zwally, is NOT a climate skeptic. He is in agreement with the IPCC conclusions and has said that his 2015 study is NOT to be used by deniers as evidence of a "warming hoax". These are his comments about the study:

"When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about," he told Scientific American.

He also seemed aware some people would weaponize the study for political purposes.

"I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he said. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming."
dr dre is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 04:07
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 73qanda
. . .but how do you explain the 2015 NASA study saying the opposite ( for Antarctica)?
Iím not trying to bait you, I honestly want to know, why did the NASA study find an increase in volume?
Lots of people have been asking that question. Here's is a good place to help start thinking about the answer:

Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice? Nature May Have Just Settled The Debate
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 04:19
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 73qanda
Also, can anyone point out where the above article is incorrect? Which parts of the above article are incorrect and how do we know that?


Well, for a start, you quoted this snippet: "In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean."
Contrast that with this, from NOAA, last September:

2018 Arctic sea ice minimum continues longer trend

Arctic sea ice has probably reached its annual minimum for 2018, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Sea ice extent dipped to 1.77 million square miles (4.59 million square kilometers) on September 19, and again on September 23. After that, ice extent began to rise, signaling an end to the summer melt season. The 2018 minimum was nowhere near the record-low extent of 1.31 million square miles (3.39 million square kilometers) recorded on September 17, 2012, but it was nowhere near the 1981Ė2010 average, either. It was tied with 2008 and 2010 for the sixth-lowest extent in the nearly 40-year satellite record. The 12 lowest Arctic sea ice minimums have all occurred in the last 12 years.

More
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2019, 04:19
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,191
Received 235 Likes on 128 Posts
The pertinent point in the above article:

Zwally still stands by his 2015 study, but in an interview last week, he said nature has recently changed the equation. His team is crunching numbers from the past two years, looking at ice melting and snowfall rates in Antarctica. And they found something startling.

The melt rates in West Antarctica just increased significantly.
The chief scientist of that 2015 study is in agreement with the IPCC conclusion about climate change, is not a climate skeptic, has said his 2015 study is not to be used as evidence of a "warming hoax" and has conducted subsequent research stating that the rates of Antarctic melting are on the rise. This is why he has called climate change a "serious problem we need to do something about" like 99.84% of all other qualified scientists.

I've noticed that's a trend. Deniers, who go from claiming organisations like NASA are part of a "Globalist conspiracy" that create fake data to create a "warming hoax" to solidly latching onto the few studies published again by NASA that they believe confirms their beliefs, without a hint of irony that they believe the data from NASA confirming climate change is falsified. In addition to ignoring the study's authors who say their studies are NOT to be used for climate change denial

Last edited by dr dre; 4th Jun 2019 at 04:31.
dr dre is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.