Greenland by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash
By Jo Nova
We may be living through some of the best weather in the last 100,000 years
Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone reports on a new paper showing the incredible extreme climate shifts of Greenland. During the depths of the last ice age Greenland temperatures would swing abruptly by 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (or 30F) in the space of 30 years. And we’re panicking at the moment about warming at 0.13°C per decade.
These Dansgaard–Oeschger (D–O) events occurred 24 times from 120,000 years ago until 11,000 years ago. There were no humans living there at the time, as far as we know. The best estimate is that people first arrived in Greenland 4,500 years ago. As far as we know, it’s only Greenland that was gyrating wildly in temperature but the bare truth about climate scientists is the expert models can’t predict or explain any of this. So the seismic shifts came and went and went and came, and it had nothing to do with whether you turned the airconditioner on.
If any poor sodding homo sapiens did manage to wash up on Greenland during the peaks 30 or 40,000 years ago, their little villages would have been wiped out in a blink.
Click to enlarge.(Kypke and Ditlevsen)
After 100,000 years of savage cold and shocking volatility, the world warmed nicely into the wonderful Holocene period. Humans moved to Greenland, and things were green.
Unfortunately the warmth started to get rarer and rarer in the last few thousand years:
7,000 years of cooling in Greenland. UPDATE: This graph shows the ice-core data up until 1855. The last 150 years (1705 to 1855) are highlighted in red to show the warming as the Earth began coming out of the LIA.
But in the last 150 years we’ve warmed out of the Little Ice Age and despite humans building the first coal fired plant in 1880 and putting out 99% of all the carbon dioxide we’ve ever put out, the temperature there has barely moved at all. About 6,500 million people have been born on Earth since 1880 and it’s made hardly any difference.
Greenland surface temperatures ( Mikkelsen et al., 2018)
So despite the climate of Greenland being in the news every year, somehow the award winning journalists and the Nobel prize winning scientists forget to mention that the temperatures on Greenland have been largely stable recently despite humans emitting 1.7 trillion tons of CO2.They also fail to explain that Mother Nature is a thousand times more brutal than anything our cars, trains and planes have done.
But who cares about cause and effect? There’s always a way to make it look bad: Big Meaningless Numbers!
PS: Today in Greenland, a fisherman actually netted a fish with three eyes. Someone should tell the Australian Labor Party. They need it to explain their national energy policy.
REFERENCES
Kolja Kypke, Peter Ditlevsen (2024) On the representation of multiplicative noise in modeling Dansgaard–Oeschger events, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 466, October 2024, 134215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2024.134215
Mikkelsen, T. B., Grinsted, A., and Ditlevsen, P. (2018)Influence of temperature fluctuations on equilibrium ice sheet volume, The Cryosphere, 12, 39-47, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-39-2018, 2018. Full paper plus Supplement
Greenland photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash
Kenneth Richard also cites Matsumura et al., (2021):
Slow-down in summer warming over Greenland in the past decade linked to central Pacific El Niño
Shinji Matsumura, Koji Yamazaki & Kazuyoshi Suzuki (2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00329-x
I like this bit – “However, despite ongoing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emission”
Not going to plan huh?
230
It gets better:
Paraphrase – “We thought GHG forcing explained everything but it doesn’t. Now we’re having to learn about natural variation. We conclude that we don’t really know much about it after all these years of studying climate.”
340
…but we know it was all Tony Abbott’s fault, with assistance from Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton and Donald Trump!
260
Re “It gets better”.
Flash back to 1989
The Canberra Times Sat 23 Dec 1989 Page 6
Arctic ice cap may be thickening
140
” We conclude that we don’t really know much about it after all these years of studying climate. ”
Except they didn’t even allow discussion of natural causes, and expressly excluded it from their official research, so how can they claim to have studied climate?
After labelling those who questioned their certain “science” climate deniers, lawfare, censorship, and even hounding respected professors from their tenure, they now express surprise that their work is garbage.
Still no mention of clouds.
But they must be given the GIGO award of the century.
130
It just means that they have to take extra time to spin the data and its consequences so that it continues to support the “ongoing catastrophe” of anthropogenic climate change. We’ve already seen how both warming and cooling, both flood and drought, and other opposing outcomes have been blamed on human activity; this one simply surprised the CAGC evangelists, and they’re having to engage in more handwaving until they figure out how to make the environmental cups-and-balls trick produce their desired outcome.
50
Thanks again Jo and we know that Humans have a history of at least 300,000 years and for 99.9% of that time Human lives were brutal and short and under 30 years.
OWI Data uses the latest UN data to explain these very recent increases in Human life expectancy since 1770….
In 1770 life expectancy was about 28.5 years. Under 1 billion population.
In 1900 about 32 years. About 1.6 billion.
In 1950 about 46.5 years. 2.5 billion.
in 2022 about 72 years. About 8 billion.
And today deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by at least 98%.
This is easily the best time for Humans ever and by a long ,long way.
270
Here’s the link to OWI Data life expectancy since 1770.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
120
Please. Go back and examine the data. The life expectancy of an adult human has not changed much over centuries of time; what dropped the average life expectancy was a truly horrific rate of child and infant mortality, with up to half of all infants dying before their first birthday, and childhood diseases pulling the average lifespan down further. If someone managed to survive to adulthood, then barring accident or conflict, they could expect to live to 60 or more. If you start with 100 people being born, and half of them die before their first birthday, while the other half live to 60, the ‘average lifespan’ is 30. The vast majority of increase in average lifespan has been due to reductions in infant, childhood, and maternal mortality rates.
70
Macrotrends also uses UN data for life expectancy since 1950 and is slightly higher than OWI Data today.
But the UN expects Human life expectancy to be about 77 years in 2050 and about 82 years in 2100.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy
90
BTW here’s Bjorn Lomborg team’s graph showing extreme weather deaths from 1920 to 2022.
This is definitely the safest world for Humans in 300,000 years.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlZQTozXoAEyOAq.jpg
140
Here’s another WSJ article from Lomborg and the graph showing data that 8 times more people die from cold deaths compared to heat deaths around the world.
Does anyone really want to return to the brutal short lives that Humans endured in the Little Ice Age?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths-medical-journal-health-risk-energy-cost-fossil-fuels-11631741045
130
Twas blocked because I solved the puzzle too quickly. So I can’t read Lomborg’s piece.
50
Sorry Lawrie I should have said that he writes for the WSJ because I couldn’t read it either.
But they do show his graphs of hot and cold deaths and 8 to 1 for cold deaths is almost unknown or unmentionable if you read only their MSM.
50
Read it here:
https://archive.md/E03QZ
50
Try the WUWT article by Lomborg 3 October 2021, last graph: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/03/lomborg-on-intergenerational-inequities-in-exposure-to-climate-extremes/
41
Interesting. In the story ” As far as we know, it’s only Greenland that was gyrating wildly in temperature but the bare truth about climate scientists is the expert models can’t predict or explain any of this.” According to Britannica’s post on Dansgaard–Oeschger events “Among the surprises that have emerged from analyses of oxygen isotopes in ice cores (long cylinders of ice collected by drilling through glaciers and ice sheets) has been the recognition of very sudden, short-lived climate changes. Ice core records in samples extracted from Greenland, Antarctica, Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, and high mountain glaciers in South America show that these climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous.” “The Greenland ice cores, together with those taken from other regions, display the global distribution of each D-O event.” Or even the climate alarmists in chief NOAA, “Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events had a global footprint.“
Before we have the usual suspects trying dismiss D-O events because they were only local to Greenland, there are many sources that show D-O events had a global effect. In any case, those with climate derangement syndrome (CDS) will always try and claim that events that caused a temperature increase of 10 to 15 C, lasted 30 to 40 years, with long persisting after effects, are irrelevant because they were only local. Yet, these same people will claim that an increase of half a degree in one city, that lasts a couple of days, is PROOF of man made climate change. Absolute proof of CDS:)
180
It’s strange that expert models offer no explanation.
There was a time when educators described, in general terms, a negative feedback system which explained the wider variation of surface temperatures in polar regions.
Insolation involves greater surface heating in low latitudes. The atmosphere-earth system responds by variable poleward heat transfer by atmospheric circulation and ocean currents. The seasonal variation of polar ice cover is part of the process.
The process is modulated by many effects external to the Earth’s ocean-atmosphere system and over very long periods by sea-level changes and continental drift.
Climate change “science” appears to largely disregard that general explanation and to assume that particular anthropogenic factors provide a more convenient explanation.
More convenient to those who fund climate scientists and modellers.
100
‘D-O climatic oscillations typically consist of a rapid warming episode that unfolds over decades and is followed by a gradual cooling interval that extends across centuries or millennia.’
The mechanism must be connected to heat transport and probably triggered by the sun. D-O events come around roughly every 1470 years, are we there yet?
101
During interglacials the oscillation is called a Bond event and they have narrowed it down to a 1000 year cycle.
‘Bond events are North Atlantic ice rafting events that are tentatively linked to climate fluctuations in the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified. Bond events were previously believed to exhibit a roughly c. 1,500-year cycle, but the primary period of variability is now put at c. 1,000 years.’ (wiki)
It might be outlandish, the RWP, MWP and modern climate optimum are expressions of a cyclic phenomenon.
51
Whatever the problem global warming is the answer
110
Here’s the deaths per 100,000 from fires and burns from poor to wealthy countries and Canada are 0.4 and Aussies only 0.2 deaths in 2021.
But deaths for the world have also seen a big improvement since 1980 to 2021.
So much for the UN SEC General’s BS and fraud claims of boiling oceans etc.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fire-death-rates?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~Low-income+countries~High-income+countries~Upper-middle-income+countries~Lower-middle-income+countries~AUS~CAN
90
https://richardsonpost.com/cliff-reece/36391/climate-alarmism-is-the-real-threat-not-climate-change/
This is it in a nutshell (rather than a nutty cell). The message for the fanatics is or should be “relax stop fretting about something you cannot control”. C02 is not the problem YOU ARE!
130
https://principia-scientific.com/people-turning-away-from-the-news-in-their-droves/
It’s not “The News” it’s “Their News”
110
>”the expert models can’t predict or explain any of this”
I suggest the root of that problem stems from the fact, which is almost completely obscured by climate scientists by use of anomalies, that most expert climate models can’t get within cooee of observations even in the present day in absolute terms.
Slim chance then of modeling the absolute data in Mikkelsen et al Fig 2 in post from which the Figure 2 anomaly graph is derived.
#ShowYourStripes Day: What the ‘Warming Stripes’ Tell Us About Climate Change
https://earth.org/showyourstripes-day-what-the-warming-stripes-tell-us-about-climate-change/
Anomaly only. Also by Ed Hawkins:
Connecting Climate Model Projections of Global Temperature Change with the Real World
Ed Hawkins and Rowan Sutton (2016)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f97$002f6$002fbams-d-14-00154.1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f97%24002f6%24002fbams-d-14-00154.1.xml
Fig. 1.
(top) Global-mean 2-m air temperature from CMIP5 historical simulations (gray, 1861–2005) and various reanalysis estimates (colors) [Absolute]
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/97/6/full-bams-d-14-00154.1-f1.jpg
Maybe Ed can create ‘Failure Stripes’ to demonstrate the inability of most models to even come close to observations in absolute terms.
Keep in mind that without absolute observations there cannot be anomalies. You can produce anomalies from absolute but you cannot work backwards and produce absolute from anomalies once an aggregation is performed before averaging.
50
From the Jun 21st 2024 EARTH.ORG article previous:
At least Rockström is honest enough to admit he has no idea what is going on and climate models don’t either.
He is however, dead wrong about this – “And then 2024 starts, and it gets even warmer”
Not true. Best seen at Climate Pulse in either or both of Absolute or Anomaly.
No, 2024 did not get warmer. The anomaly began at +0.92 and is now +0.59 i.e. it has progressively cooled.
2023 hiked up radically after July 1. July 6 was “hottest ever”. Hiked up again after September 3 to maximum anomaly +1.1. 2024 reached maximum anomaly +1.0 February 8 but that was it, downhill since.
Barring 3-factor natural variation black swans there’s no chance of 2024 eclipsing 2023 now.
60
It’s called Greenland because it was once Green. Certainly greener than Iceland.
And Nova Scotia was new Scotland. And Cape Cod had the most massive unfished cod shoals ever seen. Soon thousands fishing boats were ferrying cod back to England. It was really what created early America, not tobacco or gold or fur. Everyone came, the Spanish, the Portuguese. It was the revolution before the industrial revolution. Fish supplies increase fifteen fold.
110
And warm as the CW gyre edge of the Gulf Stream travels on the great circle to Europe. So the waters and the climate are milder than away from the coast. Surprisingly a line(Great Circle) from Florida to Norway passing though Cape Cod is almost a straight on Google Earth and passes Greenland. While alarmists talk of disrupting this critical current, it is a consequence of the earth’s rotation and the CW gyre in the North Atlantic. Far from fragile, it is 100km wide and 1km deep at at 9km/hr the fastest ocean current on earth. And a very fast ride home for the fishermen with overladen ships.
This was also part of the reason Cromwell in 1652 was determined to conquer Western Island and Galway in particular, as it was the closest port for this immensely valuable trade. The English army took over the port and expelled the landed gentry who were driven out, the Irish-French Lynch family in particular. Wars are always about money. That never changes.
140
CW edge?
I’m probably being a bit thick but I can’t guess at that and google is no help.
60
Sorry Clock Wise. I use the abbreviation too often. And the English reverse is ACW, Anti Clockwise. Except that when I used this in America people had no idea. My students just looked blankly. They think anti clockwise means you hate clocks. The US phrase is Counter Clockwise or CCW.
Yes, thanks to Coriolis forces the gyres or circulating currents are CW in the Norther Hemisphere and CCW in the Southern. Sailors found the difference was up to two weeks for the round trip to America if you caught the Southern currents going West and the Gulf Stream going East. 9km/hr without a sail! In the middle was the deadly Sargasso sea where presumably Columbus was becalmed, a deadly problem on a ship with limited food and water for the time.
120
I should have worked it out but in all my long life it’s an abbreviation I’ve never encountered!
70
We still pull our eldest grandson’s leg about the Coriolis effect too!
50
For me, this reported huge variance in Greenland climate is just a reality check on the lack of a real understanding we have of the earths climate in general. There are other major forces affecting our weather/ climate and I think the atmosphere has very little effect on it. Sure, the sun has effects particularly on 100000 year scales, but down to thousand year periods there are other inputs. It’s sure as hell ain’t CO2 and criminal how much money and time has been wasted on that folly in the last 40 years. Most likely these 1000 year base effects are geothermal or cosmic even. Probably geothermal and it’s effects on the worlds oceans that has these great warming / cooling variances. Clue- the Earth has this incredibly large and hot inner core. Look down , not up.
120
The two major cycles which fully explain the measured (no proxy) temperatures of European cities for the last 250 years are the 60 year AMO/PDO Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillations and the De Vries 250 year solar cycle. And nothing else. You get a quite amazing fit and can see 12 turning points including the peak plateau around 2010. I would love them to update the graph.
And scientifically this makes sense as all the heat comes from the sun in the first place and the greatest store are the oceans with 99.9% of the mass and heat capacity. The insistence that the atmosphere controls the climates is quite nuts. The atmosphere is the climate but all weather and water come from the oceans. Using a chaotic secondary effect to predict the climate is silly. You have to study the causes, not the effects.
70
Stop funneling money to the CO2 catastrophists and divert it to a bunch of younger up and coming climate scientists ( I use that term loosely, by the way). Instruct them to research all possible causes/ indicators of climate variance other than the improbable CO2 hypothesis. Easier said than done.
30
Easily identify the Marxist! These are the people attempting to hide and smother history. MSM are prime contenders for this censure
100
I do note that most if not all the anti-nuke brigade have large investments in wind and solar. Since many also invest in the “news” it is not surprising that the anti-nuke crowd are widely reported. Never stand between a leftist and a bucket of subsidies. Beware Turnbull and Canon-Brookes.
130
And be careful not to step on a twig in a forest.
100
No credibility should be given to the climate alarmists, so called models.
They have no scientific backing as models and are simply another form of false advertising.
130
Chief among the climate alarmists would have to be those taxpayer syphons the ABC, the CSIRO and the BoM. Take away the taxpayer money and they may revert to real science and employ real scientists.
140
No, just sell them. And the SBS. All anachronisms, unnecessary and useless in a modern world. ANd if they are valuable, we the taxpayer get the money back. If they are worthless, why should we keep paying?
80
Might be a real challenge to engineer a market spike in any of those to make it look like they were worth commercial investment
50
But at a saving of perhaps $4Bn a year, the price of a new high efficiency coal power station every year, it is a sensible path. Of course they will all tell you that ‘the science’ says otherwise. It’s all about the money. With a coal power station you get quality of life. With public service science, you get misinformation that fits their political agenda.
50
Perhaps it has something to do with the magnetic pole shifts . Plenty of geothermal inputs possible too . Ross is right in that we don’t have enough data . It’s like trying to work out what a tree is from only a small piece of wood .
40
Some kind of internal dynamic.
‘The volcanic winter of 536 was the most severe and protracted episode of climatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years, was caused by at least three simultaneous eruptions of uncertain origin, with several possible locations proposed in various continents.’
(wiki)
41
Here’s the graphs from the 2015, 74 million Lancet study and clearly shows that cold is the biggest killer and particularly moderate cold.
Thirteen countries are shown and the moderate cold graphs are much higher and extreme and moderate heat deaths are very low by comparison.
Aussie graph is okay compared to most other countries and extreme heat deaths are very low.
Again why do the clueless Labor and Greens parties want to waste trillions of $ for the next 30 years on toxic W & S?
And why do they want to destroy our environment for a zero return?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521077/figure/fig2/
100
If you continue reading the supplementary materials in the Mikkelsen paper, you will see that they built an autoregressive model Tt+1 = c + aTt + σARWt. where (c,a,σAR) are parameters to be determined and Wt is white noise with unit variance and zero mean. The parameters (a,σAR) = (0.67,0.85).
Greenland is warming but has much higher annual variability than elsewhere. The ice melt is cooling the surrounding oceans, the ocean to the south of Greenland is the sole part of the world that is actually cooling.
There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the GISP2 ice cores: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
114
Often white noise, Wt, can be upgrade to grey noise, Gy, and this increases the variance substantially.
The ice cores then show an inverse divergence from the former mean and arrive at a positive logarithmic effect that locks in a constant result.
Very hard to decifer without a large computer similar to those used on the UNIPCCC climate models.
40
Is that high quality precuspient waffle? Very hard to descifer.
50
Congratulations, you got it first up.
The chasm of sarc can sometimes go unseen.
40
‘Climate models project that if emissions continue, by 2050, Greenland temperatures will exceed anything seen since the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago.’
* * chuckle * *
31
* * chuck * *
What models?
Those “things” claimed to be models are not legitimate.
Yes, they are illegitimate.
60
Simon >”Greenland is warming”
Not according to the graph Mikkelsen et al Figure 2:
Figure 2
https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/greenland-temperature.gif
Cooling 1855 to 1870
Warming 1870 to 1875/80
Flat 1880 to 1920.
Cooling from 1930 to 1990.
Warming from 1990 to 1995.
Flat 1995 to 2010.
That last spike 2010 came immediately back down to the same level as 1995, 1950s, 1880s to 1920.
Nothing to suggest any real change for 130 years.
50
Read the supplementary materials. There is an upward trend, it is less obvious because of the high variability.
15
Simon >”Read the supplementary materials. There is an upward trend”
I don’t need to look at the derived model – I just need to look at the observations the model is derived from.
https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/greenland-temperature.gif
There’s no upward trend.
But feel free to present the information you base your argument on.
Also, this continues in Sunday Open Thread with the same challenge extended here.
You might like to look at the entire thread the comment is in because it covers exactly the analysis you’re referring to, among other things.
20
Simon >”the ocean to the south of Greenland is the sole part of the world that is actually cooling”
Debateable:
Antarctic temperature variability and change from station data
Turner et al (2019)
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6378
Figure 10
The stacked and normalized temperatures for (a) the Peninsula and (b) East Antarctica.
The red lines on (a) show the linear trends for the periods 1979–1997 and 1999–2018
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/135032f4-390b-4e2e-bc30-3137da2829dc/joc6378-fig-0010-m.jpg
Insignificant cooling trend in the Peninsula (a) since a peak late 1990s. Similar for East Antarctica:
What is clear is that there’s no recent warming in either the Peninsula or East Antarctica.
60
Simon >”the ocean to the south of Greenland is the sole part of the world that is actually cooling”
Not forgetting that Matsumura et al (2021) at comment #1 disagree too:
Slow-down in summer warming over Greenland in the past decade linked to central Pacific El Niño
Shinji Matsumura, Koji Yamazaki & Kazuyoshi Suzuki (2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00329-x
And,
Fig. 1: Recent slow-down in summer warming over Greenland.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00329-x/figures/1
In the Fig 1(b) graph there’s also an inset graph of climate model radiative forcings (blue & red).
Problem is while the radiative forcings are increasing the obs anomaly is decreasing since 2012.
60
The Co2 Coalition Scientists also link to an article from Kenneth Richard about the Hannah et al 2021 study showing no temp increase in Greenland since 2001 and they link to some of the graphs for parts of Greenland that show warming in the 1930s to 1940s in the earlier parts of the 20th century.
https://co2coalition.org/news/its-official-greenland-has-not-warmed-since-2001-the-recent-sharp-warming-lasted-from-1981-2000/
70
“About 6,500 million people have been born on Earth since 1880 and it’s made hardly any difference.”
I would think that all 8000 million people have been born since 1880.
90
Plus those who have already died.
20
The Greenland core is by no means the only indicator of this sort. Tenaghi Phillipon in NE Greece was the source of a 200m core offering climate data covering 1.35 million years.
It similarly shows many many instances of rapid warming by many degrees typically followed by a slow return to colder temperatures over a millennium or so.
It also shows evidence of iccasional Heinrich Events in which the temperature plummeted. It’s thought these events were the consequence of ice sheets across North America calving then flooding the Atlantic with cold fresh water, disrupting warm ocean currents.
The whole idea of human contribution anything other than “lost in the noise” is so laughable as to be quite insane.
100
“Make Greenland Green Again!”
There’s a great slogan … someone could win an election with that.
I’m off to burn some fuel and do my bit (also keep warm).
100
Jo says:
Be careful what you wish for.
Fukushima-fallout in Greenland cod.
50
Buddist fish?
50
It’s not surprising that this bottom echelon near brain dead prime minister we’ve had foisted upon us by a globalist cabal draws inspiration from the bogus scribblings of Lobsang Rampa; Trotsky would disown him, surely.
50
Climate scam escalates, now ground temperatures are reason for climate alarmism.
More than 50°C, imagine, in Italy, what a heat, we will all die…
40
Wasn’t there a Climategate email about how hard it would be to get rid of Greenland in trying to lose the mediaeval warm period?
40
Hmmmm, near Avoch,
or wassit Avoch, in a school near here, “…temperatures would swing abruptly by 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (or 30F) in the space of 30 ….” SECONDS, perhaps is how the Mammoth dies with a mouthful of grass and a Daisy, due we’re told by discussion / conjecture, a sudden downdraft of severe cold Arctic air, Freezekilling the animal(s) to be preserved in the Russian Tundra / Taiga So nothing really new, only being re-discovered by another Generation, of “woke”.
Sudden downdrafts causing Aircraft chaos as per recent Media coverage.
20
Interesting
10