BLUEMOMENT

Hi everyone,

Just a few thoughts, you might be interested, or then again.....


SCIENCE VERSUS CONVENIENCE, WHICH ONE WINS?

Whilst the current situation regarding the volcanic ash cloud is an absolute nightmare for those who are trying to get home, not to say inconvenient for people who are flying abroad, there are some facts which are inescapable.

The airlines and airports are understandably disturbed about the continued closure of airspace over much of Europe and the UK and are desperate to get back in the air again. Financial havoc could be deposited by the ash cloud across the aviation industry which would have a massive impact for years to come.

However, the ash cloud is humbling. In this age of 'me', where we are able to do what we want, when we want to and go wherever we like in the world in the space of just a few hours, Mother nature throwing a metaphorical spanner in the works is a reminder that humans aren't so big after all.

Western populations tend to look upon those in developing countries who suffer natural disasters with a sense of pity at the plight of such economic backwaters; "if only they had more money, they could buy there way out of this situation" is often the intonation of commentators on such events.

Eyjafjallajokull has shown us, here in the prosperous west, that our way of life is also vulnerable to the vagaries of nature, and a role of Gaia's dice can deliver a potentially devastating combination of seismological and meteorological circumstances.

But that is not the main point of this feature. I'm becoming increasingly concerned by the 'we must do something' attitude being extolled by airlines and business. Science is being bought into question and, although journalists may have got completely the wrong end of the stick (nothing unusual there in my experience), it seems that a head of steam (excuse the pun) is building to destroy the very ash forecast data which airlines pay so much to have produced.

The facts are simple:

1. Ash is bad for aircraft. There have been several examples of aircraft losing engines, and total failure of flights almost occurring because of flights going through volcanic ash.
2. Manufacturers recommend (according to BBC news) that aircraft do not fly in ash
3. Volcanic eruptions are sporadic and so the ash does not enter the atmosphere as one continuous stream
4. Forecasts of how the ash will move, and at what height are necessarily based on model data which will look at the current extent of the eruption, the height the ash cloud extends to and combine this with upper wind information.
5. Models can be fallible and because of the very nature of the eruption detecting ash at differing levels and spotting windows within it will be virtually impossible to achieve.

The upshot of this is that an assessment has to be made based on the best available information. Just because this assessment does not produce the answer we would like is no reason to begin rubbishing the science or organisations behind the prediction.

Airlines have conducted test flights to see if they encountered ash, and apparently did not do so. We need to know what equipment these flights carried, were there detectors on board to 'sniff' out the gases? Flights sent out by the UK Meteorological Office are reported invisible ash at differing levels and this is exactly what one would expect.

So whilst no words can describe the inconvenience being caused to hundreds of thousands of people at the present time, and the impact this ongoing event could have if it lasts to the end of the week, safety and science must remain at the very core of this story and not be ignore for the sake of convenience.

**ends**

weatherman wrote:safety and science must remain at the very core of this story and not be ignore for the sake of convenience.

Exactly!

Just as a matter of interest, would these minute particles have a similar effect to rain "seeding"?

Yesterday, Sunday, we noticed some high level "trails", slightly similar to aircraft vapour trails at c35,000', except there were no planes (apart from a couple of low level single engine jobs and a helicopter). I presume the prosaic explanation is that these are fairly normal phenomena, but I did wonder whether condensation would form around the particles as they started to fall. Is that possible?



A couple of hours after that photo was taken we were bombarded by hailstones while still in perfect sunshine. But then, that's Scotland.

Hi Shard,

Great picture.

The particles may well have a seeding effect in so much as introducing more nuclei into the atmosphere for condensation to take place.

I wouldn't link it to an event like a hail storm, but they will no dobt have some effect.

Simon

weatherman wrote: The facts are simple:

1. Ash is bad for aircraft. There have been several examples of aircraft losing engines, and total failure of flights almost occurring because of flights going through volcanic ash. I read about flight 9 and it was truly a very lucky escape. Do we know how much ash they flew through? Do we know how much ash is bad for aircraft? I suspect that there is a level where the damage, though measurable, is managable with inreased maintenance.
2. Manufacturers recommend (according to BBC news) that aircraft do not fly in ash well they would, planes are designed to fly in nice clean air, again how much ash can they cope with? Non isn't an answer I would accept.
3. Volcanic eruptions are sporadic and so the ash does not enter the atmosphere as one continuous stream
4. Forecasts of how the ash will move, and at what height are necessarily based on model data which will look at the current extent of the eruption, the height the ash cloud extends to and combine this with upper wind information.
5. Models can be fallible and because of the very nature of the eruption detecting ash at differing levels and spotting windows within it will be virtually impossible to achieve.

The upshot of this is that an assessment has to be made based on the best available information. Just because this assessment does not produce the answer we would like is no reason to begin rubbishing the science or organisations behind the prediction.

**ends**

I don't trust the airlines as far as I can throw them but I'm wondering if there is a zero tolerance to risk being applied here. I wouldn't know where to put the acceptable risk either, loose a plane every 100 yrs, 1000yrs 10 yrs, I suppose it depends on if you are on that plane. The money the airlines are loosing they would probably say one a year, they have lost enough to buy several new planes already.

Yes. The hailstorm was just the usual localised stuff for the time of year in a strong northerly airstream.



In the course of a couple of hours we had F6 dropping to no wind at all, then back to a 5, sunshine, and hail. And blooming cold throughout - but a great sailing weekend for us (with a bit of motoring thrown in).