Submitted by MoiJaimeLesCrepes t3_zpjsmq in askscience
Looks like in general we're seeing more extreme weather pattern everywhere thanks to climate change.
What about atmospheric turbulence, the type encountered on an airplane? Are they any stronger than they were previously? Are they harder to predict? Are calm air turbulence (not associated to storms) commoner?
Relatedly, how may climate change impact pilots and the flying experience?
Thanks
Thanks, this made me feel better. I understand the science of aircraft, and the intensive training required of pilots - as well as the sophisticated engineering that props it all up. But I still get scared on bumpy planes - flew to Brazil from Spain last year and the whole flight felt like I was a sock in a tumble dryer.
Sounds like you were flying right through the ITCZ. Over the ocean, when we're not in radar contact, having to use HF communication and strict adherence to pre-assigned clearances, any deviating can be complicated (there are procedures for it though). Barring the AF447 crash, modern airliners are really good at handling turbulence and weather. I sleep quite easy, regardless of the bumps.
Airline Pilot here as well. I fly the SAM routes from Europe very often. Deviating the weather in the ITC is not a problem at all, thanks to CPDLC getting a revised clearance happens in literally no time. It’s still rough some times, but avoiding the core of the storms is not an issue really.
Look at you with your working CPDLC. Fancy man! Most of our fleet doesn't have it. You probably know that part of the world better anyway.
This is so interesting - thanks for the info! Somehow getting more information makes me more at ease. I travel pretty regularly between Europe and South America - has there been a noticeable increase in turbulence or unexpected weather patterns lately? Just curious if climate change is mussing up our pilots as well.
I don't think so. With so much variance in weather, el and la Nina years etc, it's hard to really say definitely. Don't think anyone is tracking aviation weather related trends like this, since the ride quality and effect on operation is so subjective
Ah yeah makes sense - thanks for getting back to me!
Do you know if airplane diversions due to weather are logged anywhere? It could be an interesting dataset.
I highly doubt it. They're so common and dependent on so many variables, I don't see much of a point. Airlines start and stop service due to demand, meaning an airport with increased service will inherently have more diversions, not necessarily weather related. Then you get different aircraft being added to a fleet while others being taken out (having different capabilities). Throw in a pandemic, el Niño, maybe a pilot shortage and some political unrest, and I just don't see how anything meaningful could be gleaned off such data. As for deviating around weather, it's as common as changing lanes on the freeway. It's just not tracked on a macro scale.
Edit; I sometimes get used to using aviation terms that may not be common for others. Deviating means flying around something (ie weather). Diverting means going to a different destination/airport entirely
Hi I studied physics, including geophysical fluid dynamics, and wrote my final project on this topic. Been a while but:
Global warming on the planetary scale will mean an increase in overall temperature on earth, and a likely increase in the rate of convection of air moving from the equator to the poles.
The earth's rate of rotation won't change so the accelerating effect caused by the coriolis force will not be any different, therefore things like the jet stream will still go at the same average speed.
However, the possibly faster rate of convection from the equator to the poles will likely result in more chaotic motion in the jet stream. This is already apparent in Rossby Waves), which is basically a "concertina" effect on the jet stream caused by angular vorcity (a kind of rational momentum) being conserved as the rotational path of wind around the earth moves from a wide equatorial path to the much shorter polar path. It just all bunches in as it approaches the pole.
If convection is happening faster from the equator to the poles, there will be a more pronounced concertina effect, i.e. much larger Rossby Waves, for which the main result is Arctic air being pulled much further south than is normal. For example, large Rossby Waves are the reason for it sometimes snowing in traditionally warm countries like Greece.
So global warming could make cold weather events happen nearer to the equator, which of course will bring out all the anti-global-warming nuts who will try to use it as an excuse for denying global warming is a thing, even though the cold weather events are caused by global warming.
As for aeroplane turbulence, I think the other answer from the professional pilot said it best. The strongest air flows in the jet stream will not change their overall maximum speed because the coriolis force from earth remains the same, therefore I can't foresee much difference in turbulence, not from a change of just a few degrees C anyway. But there will be problems with having to fly through areas of hotter/colder air.
thank you for this. Now I know why sometimes there's wintry weather that far from the poles!
The atmosphere accounts for about 60% of global energy transfer (oceans making up the other 40%) from the equator to the poles.
This 60% can be broadly divided into transfer via latent heat (the energy transfered by the evaporation and condensation of water) and "sensible" energy transfer (conduction and convection).
The impact of global climate change is positive "climate forcing," which is the difference between the energy received from the sun (approx 240 W per meter squared after about 30% is reflected due to albedo) and the energy re-emitted by Earth. This difference is due to the greenhouse effect.
Positive climate forcing (about +2 W per meter squared due to Co2 emissions, for example) results in rising global temps.
Felt turbulence, as you defined it, is the result of loads of factors (because the atmosphere is weird) but is widely the result of vertical wind shear. Temperature gradients (i.e energy transfer) contribute to vertical wind shear.
Furthermore, a study by Simon H. Lee et al (link here) established a clear link between anthropogenic climate change, steepening temperature gradients in the upper atmosphere, and vertical wind shear - turbulence.
So, TL:DR: yes, climate change is increasing felt turbulence due to its impact on temperature gradients in the atmosphere.
Apologies for formatting, on mobile.
Edit: formatting and fixes
Turbulence is more likely to occur when there are large temperature gradients in the atmosphere, such as when cold air is moving over a warm surface or when there is a front separating two air masses with different temperatures. As the Earth's climate changes, these temperature gradients may become more pronounced, leading to increased atmospheric turbulence.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Good question. In 1973 I was onboard a military aircraft in south east asia and it was a smooth flight. When landing we hit like a hole and the aircraft fell hundreds/thousands of feet. The pilot was just able to pull the aircraft up and we hit the runway hard. Several of us were injured. But there was nothing to warn us then. Now just a few days ago this happened: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/12/18/multiple-injuries-reported-after-plane-lands-honolulus-airport-following-apparent-turbulence/
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[deleted]
Milk_Dud t1_j0tr6kt wrote
Airline pilot here. Generally speaking, climate change results in more weather extremes, which will increase our workload. Stronger and more widespread thunderstorms means we'll be deviating potentially further and more often. Colder temperatures in uncommon areas means we'll be de-icing in places and times of the year we may not have used to before. Hotter summer temperatures which degrade aircraft performance means we'll be more restricted in the weight we can take. There are hard weather limits in our operations, and we may find we're hitting these limits more often.
But better engineering of new aircraft does provide certain reliefs. For example, more efficient and powerful engines give better climb performance and range. Lighter and stronger composite materials let us fly higher, many times above the weather. Better radar and detection systems allows us to paint a higher resolution picture of weather systems resulting in better decision making. But at the end of the day, these improvements won't allow us to just fly into a storm that's over the airport. And I hate to say it, but higher workload means more chance of error, degrading the margin of safety by a measurable amount. There is more risk, but at least it's not anything totally new. We've been dealing with these things for quite a while, and I think we're pretty dang good at navigating them by this point. As an example, microburst and windshear detection systems came to be after a couple high-profile crashes. Now we have these tools to avoid them entirely. It's not a total panacea, but sure does help.