Engineering360: "Climate Change to Increase Severe Aircraft Turbulence"

Wonderful information, yet again on climate change, still to be 100% confirmed, yet I see nothing pertaining to the changed wind paths due to buildings and tall structures and larger planes taking to the skies and creating turbulence.

I doubt this has much to do with climate change, but is more in line with changing land profiles creating more updrafts, that affect fast flowing high altitude air streams.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1631/jzus.A1100293

But climate change has become a good cop out for everything. If people used ships, the airflow would not be an issue for aircraft as there would be less flights in the air.

It is astounding to me that an engineering medium would publish this pseudoscience scaremongering drivel. I understand the political and mercenary motives for instilling panic and knee-jerk solutions for non-existent crises, but engineering is the last bastion of hard science. If there are ever to be habitats on the moon and Mars, engineers will build them--not theorists, political hacks, hyperactive meteorologists, armchair environmental activists or other cause-seeking nimrods--practical, intelligent engineers. Chicken Little stories are morality tales for children. The phobia fanatics have opted to spread the panic, and ignored to moral of the story.

I am always glad to read well-reasoned comments; perhaps you can show references to the sources of calculations supporting your viewpoints. The folks against whom you argue do really attempt to base their results on refined calculations including all the known facts they can stuff into programs within the ability of some of the most powerful available computers now existing. Do your sources provide an equally responsible basis for your positions? If they do, that could tip the whole discussion much more toward your position.

You are asking me to prove the lack of something. Anthropogenic "climate change" theory is based on supposition. It ignores cyclical weather and geophysical variables which are almost impossible to predict, and a large body of causality which is completely unknown. It has a very small temporal sample of comparative data. This, without factoring in bias, makes it a moot assertion. Humans do affect local climate. Pollution is real. Nature contributes its share. We can clean up air and water pollution. We can do any number of positive things to improve the environment, such as planting clover, using light colored aggregate on or streets and highways (which will also reduce accidents) and roofs. We can move to a hydrogen fuel economy. All these are positive actions that will improve life on earth, and we should definitely do them. But, regardless of anything we do, solar flares, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and biologic events like red tide will continue to result in habitat destruction and species die-off. Sea levels will rise and fall, droughts will intermittently be interrupted by flooding, polar ice will expand and contract, lightning will cause forest fires, sublimation will produce shifting tectonics, etc. When you can accurately predict all those things, you can determine the optimum biological loading of the earth ecosystem, and tailor human activities and animal life to achieve a zero sum energy cycle for the planet. Until then, grass roots activities can help local environments. Government programs will do nothing but raise taxes, restrict human freedom, disrupt habitat, pollute rivers and oceans, create economic havoc which will result in more hair-brained political saviors to rectify the problems their delusional brethren created.