Two guest contributors: Yaya Canada and Ontario Geofish
Yaya correctly identifies the "climate change" term as a catch all for all sorts of unrelated occurrences. Rather then "catch all" I'm going to clean up the "climate change" catch basin.
First Up Geofish: Clear-Air Convection Strikes Again- Turbulence strikes again
In the 70's they used to study clear air convection. They used lasers and found huge convection cells of very high velocity. But all that was destroyed when the 'greenhouse gas' religion came to nasa. Now they don't do a thing, because to admit to this type of convection is to cast doubt on the carbon hypothesis.The reports cited severe turbulence hit by an Air Canada Flight. Immediately the carbon cult came out with.. “Air turbulence could triple due to climate change”
For there can be no greenhouse effect if you have convection. It's like having no glass in your greenhouse.....
As Geofish points out...
ps. a clear-air convection cell is a dry thunderhead. No plane goes into that. But, as there are more planes in the air, we'll see more of this.
More planes in the air, more likelihood of turbulence troubles.
Why immediately employ the climate change meme? Other then to keep catapulting the propaganda? Over and over to reinforce the thought in your mind.
When one should look at the most obvious and probable explanation- More planes in the air = Greater chances of running into "turbulence"
FYI: Britannica- Clear Air Turbulence
"Clear-air turbulence (CAT), erratic air currents that occur in cloudless air between altitudes of 6,000 and 15,000 metres (20,000 and 49,000 feet) and constitute a hazard to aircraft. This turbulence can be caused by small-scale (i.e., hundreds of metres and less) wind velocity gradients around the jet stream, where rapidly moving air is close to much slower air. It is most severe over mountainous areas and also occurs in the vicinity of thunderstorms.
Clear-air turbulence has not been known to cause aircraft to crash, but serious damage to airliners and many injuries to passengers have been reported. Detection for warning purposes is difficult and is usually based on pilot reports. Forward-looking infrared Doppler laser radar (called lidar) offers hope of alerting pilots to approaching clear-air turbulence"
Now Yaya - Plan 2014 & Lake Ontario flooding. The International Joint Commission?... lacks therapeutic value.
"Did you know about the International Joint Commission's long-time interest in regulating the water levels in the Great Lakes region? I sure didn't. But I don't think it should be as left out of the flooding equation as Trudeau seems to want it to be. He clearly likes us to focus on "climate change" so that the money-making "CO2 solutions" can proceed and he can "grow (somebody's) economy".
Now here's some history of what Governor Cuomo (above) was angry about: It's called Plan 2014.
"Plan 2014 has been an utter disaster for Lake Ontario taxpayers and communities since it was approved in the final minutes of the Obama administration," Collins said. "Both the property damage and overflow of debris into Lake Ontario that I inspected today could have been avoided. I came here today to assure local officials and Lake Ontario homeowners that I am working with the Trump administration to reform the IJC and repeal Plan 2014 as soon as possible."
Plan 2014 VS Plan 1958D
“Until 2017, the outflows of Lake Ontario were controlled by Plan 1958D. Some years saw lower lake levels, some years saw higher lake levels, but we never saw floods at our property.Since Plan 2014 began, in 2016, flooding in Lake Ontario has become a real and severe problem
For 16 years, the International Joint Commission, a joint American-Canadian body that oversees the levels of Lake Ontario, led studies, meetings and reviews. In 2016, representatives of the two sides finally agreed to a new plan for controlling the outflows. The new plan was called Plan 2014.
While Plan 2014 was being promoted, speakers said the new plan would bring “higher highs and lower lows.” The higher highs would be only inches higher and the lower lows would be only inches lower. We were told that the higher highs and lower lows would improve the health of the Lake Ontario environment.”
Lake Ontario is high. Lake Erie is high.
Temporary dock being installed to beat high water level in Port Colborne (Lake Erie)
|most of the other dock/launch is underwater|
Certainly the extreme high levels of water in Lake Erie are contributing to the height of the water in Lake Ontario. But the outward flow of Lake Ontario has been changed under Plan 2014. Surely, Great Lake levels had been high when Plan 1958D was still in effect?
Therefore the question that has to be asked: Is Plan 2014 the reason for high Lake Ontario levels? Is Plan 2014 a bad plan? Having nothing to do with "climate change"?
Digression: "Climate Change/Man made Global Warming" was supposed to bring decreased Great Lake levels as the heat sped up/increased the evaporation of water from the lakes- wrong.
In closing like the more turbulence/more planes in the sky connection, the flooding in Lake Ontario could just as well be due to inadequate planning brought on by Plan 2014.
Having zero to do with the catch basin overflowing with "climate change' rubbish