P you once said that you avoid issues with subject matter that you are not familiar with? Why are you veering off that track? The intent of Mogg's theory was to discredit anything to do with MMCC which he is a dopey denier of, along with any other views of modern science. Surely you have picked up on the pattern of stupidity? Lets get back to the facts of what happened to the SA flight which caused the captain to make a distress call to ATC, and demolished a lot of the interior of the aircraft. That call and all that damage had zero to do with the number of other planes in the sky, it was all about the intensity of the clear air turbulence. That flight path and altitude has been flown by tens of thousands of commercial aircraft for 50 years or more. This was a very severe event which was way out of the realm of whats ordionary. Again, nothing to do with how many planes are in the sky. Moggs post was a brain phart to distract from changing meteorological conditions of rising warm air. Have you not read the science which says our climate is changing? Do you understand why we are going through a transition away from burning fossil fuels? I heard a interview with Captain Richard Champion de Crespigny of the A380 engine failure fame who said in his more than 40 years as a Qantas Captain flying those routes he has never once encountered turbulence as severe as the AS flight did. Again, his experiences over 40 years has zero to do with how many aircraft are in the air. There's your historical logging of turbulence intensity right there if you choose to accept it. P, stick with what you're familiar with whatever that is.
