The American Met Society is not my own facts. The following articles and papers are not my own facts.
You people need to stop being sheep and believing all the garbage that come sout of your tv. Have you seen CC? Have you been to the tropics, the arctic? Have you seen these places they are doing studies? I guess all these scientists are wrong, and the ones on tv with no or questionable science to back it, and complete refusal to present their info to a panel with others, are correct.
If they were truly confident in their data, they would let it speak for itself. There would be no need to defend it or try to convince anyone as its validity would be clear.
If they refuse to debate then their info doesn't stand. Common debate rules, and common sense. From a philosophical standpoint, if you won't discuss opposing views and wont share information and take it into consideration, then 1 of 2 things happened. You are a liar, or your info wont stand up under scrutiny.
Slow-down in summer warming over Greenland in the past decade linked to central Pacific El Niño
Shinji Matsumura,
Koji Yamazaki &
Kazuyoshi Suzuki Research Paper.
Slow-down in summer warming over Greenland in the past decade linked to central Pacific El Niño - Communications Earth & Environment
New study finds that NATURAL FACTORS cause Antarctic ice sheet to retract and EXPAND
12/03/2024
A
comprehensive new study paints a different picture of the “climate crisis.” Sea ice isn’t in a perpetual state of decline, as we are led to believe. The latest study investigates the natural variability in ice shelves in the Antarctic Sea and finds that human activity has no noticeable effect on the ice retreating and expanding. The study, published earlier this year, challenges the prevailing narrative about the impacts of global warming on sea ice, offering new insights into the complex interactions between atmospheric and oceanic factors that shape Antarctica’s ice cover.
Natural factors drive fluctuations in sea ice
Antarctic sea ice plays a crucial role in Earth’s climate system. Each year, the sea ice expands and contracts over approximately 16 million square kilometers, influencing global ocean circulation through processes like brine rejection and freshwater input, which affect the Southern Ocean’s primary productivity and heat exchanges.
This new study provides an in-depth analysis of these sea ice fluctuations using a statistical method called low-frequency component analysis, which revealed distinct modes of sea ice variability. One of the driving factors identified is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which enhances the strength of the circumpolar westerlies and leads to surface cooling via increased northward Ekman heat transport. The IPO explains much of the long-term gradual increase in sea ice.
A second factor, tied to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Southern Annular Mode (SAM), accounts for variability in the Ross Sea, while a third factor, linked to the eastern Pacific and the Amundsen Sea Low, explains much of the pan-Antarctic Sea ice variability. This third factor is particularly significant, as it also correlates with periods of abrupt ice loss.
Climate changes are natural and do not pose an “existential threat” to humanity
Since satellite records began in 1979, Antarctic Sea ice has exhibited significant variability. A gradual increase in sea ice extent was observed from 2000 to 2014, which researchers have largely attributed to decadal climate variability, including Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, which strengthens circumpolar westerlies, causing surface cooling via increased northward Ekman heat transport. Other factors such as increased freshwater input from ice shelf melt and changes in ocean circulation have also been proposed as contributors to the gradual expansion.
However, the period from 2016 to 2019 saw a dramatic and abrupt decrease in sea ice, particularly in the Weddell Sea, the Indian sector, and the Ross Sea. This sudden decline has been linked to weakened circumpolar westerlies, driven by shifts in the Southern Annular Mode and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, alongside the effects of ocean preconditioning that led to a build-up of subsurface heat. This variability, including both the gradual expansion and sudden declines, has posed challenges for climate models, which struggle to accurately replicate the magnitude and patterns of Antarctic Sea ice trends.
These findings highlight the
complexity of the Earth’s climate cycles and suggest that natural climate factors are far more influential than human activities in shaping ice cover. The global “Net Zero” carbon narrative, which is used to justify extreme climate policies, faces increasing scrutiny as governments conspire to limit farming and energy production, and control economies, family size and human behavior. We inhabit a living, breathing planet that has it’s own processes, which we still don’t fully understand.
THE SCIENCE IS RATTLED: Methane emissions are increasing thanks to microbes, not fossil fuels, study shows
10/29/2024
Although climate alarmists love to blame fossil fuels for the recent growth in methane emissions seen around the world, a new and very thorough study shows that
microbes are the real culprit.
Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas that has made up around one third of the earth’s warming since the time of industrialization. The atmosphere may not contain as much methane as it does carbon dioxide, but the key thing to note is that methane can trap around 30 times more heat than CO2 does across a century.
With the concentrations of methane in the air nearly tripling since the 1700s, this is a topic of great interest to climate scientists.
The research was carried out by scientists from
University of Colorado Boulder, who analyzed air samples collected by Boulder’s Global Monitoring Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 22 sites around the world roughly every one to two weeks. By isolating different components of the collected air, including methane and carbon dioxide, they can use the carbon isotopes in each sample to identify its source.
NOAA reported the biggest jump in methane in 2020 since it started collecting this data in 1983, and the trend continued in 2021. Study lead author Sylvia Michel also noticed that the carbon-13 isotope in these samples has been dropping over 17 years, so she sought to identify the cause.
“Understanding where the methane is coming from helps us guide effective mitigation strategies. We need to know more about those emissions to understand what kind of climate future to expect,” Michel noted.
Her team modeled various emissions scenarios to find out which one would create the type of isotopic signature that actually took place, and they found that the dramatic rise in atmospheric methane recorded between 2020 and 2022 was actually the result of microbial sources. In fact, microbes have been playing a growing role in methane emissions since 2007; by 2020, they were making up an incredible 90% of these emissions.
A scientist for the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at
CU Boulder and NOAA, Xin Lan, explained where those blaming fossil fuels have been going wrong.
“Some prior studies have suggested that human activities, especially fossil fuels, were the primary source of methane growth in recent years. These studies failed to look at the isotope profile of methane, which could lead to a different conclusion and an incomplete picture of global methane emissions,” she said.
Next, the researchers plan to employ advanced methodologies and tools to further break down the exact microbial sources of the methane. Although microbes associated with human-related activities such as agriculture, landfills, and livestock farming also contribute, one
big source of methane emissions from microbes is wetlands.
Microbes in tree bark absorb a surprising amount of methane
Interestingly, a study that was recently published in the journal
Nature revealed that the microbes in tree bark are actually quite good at
absorbing methane, taking up between 25 and 50 million metric tons of it each year.
Although the specific amount of methane they capture depends on the species of the tree and its growing environment, they concluded that trees capture a lot more methane than they emit. This suggests that reforestation efforts could be very
beneficial to the environment in the long run.
Climate scientists whine about being criticized over questionable findings
11/01/2024
The field of climate science is quickly being overrun by those who seem willing to forego the whole science aspect of it in favor of promoting political narratives and using emotional manipulation to get their way, and never has that been more evident than in a recent
piece in The Guardian in which climate scientists whined about people questioning their findings.
The researchers in question participated in a
Guardian survey of experts earlier this year in which they shared feelings of extreme fear about what they believed was a failure on the part of the world to do something about future rises in temperatures. They said that they were ridiculed by some scientists after expressing their distress and were told they were not qualified to participate in these discussions.
They were accused of letting emotions cloud their judgment, and one even said that those who dismissed her fears as alarmist were, according to
The Guardian, “speaking frequently from a position of privilege in western countries, with little direct experience of the effects of the climate crisis.”
They’re also attacking those who scrutinize them as “toxic,” shifting the focus away from their scientific integrity to their emotions and trying to make critics seem like the bad guys.
One of them, Dr. Shobha Maharaj, seemed to think – or wanted people to think – the issue was actually her skin color and gender rather than questions about science, stating: “Being a woman of colour from the global south and a scientist, I’m used to having everything I say pushed back against, so I didn’t at first find the trolling at all surprising, but I did find it concerning.”
Apparently, these scientists believe that their predictions should just be blindly accepted and that any criticism is somehow racist or coming from a position of privilege. When someone dares to ask deeper questions about the facts or doesn’t jump right on board with their doomsday scenarios, their reaction is to whine about it and talk about how people are hurting their feelings.
Shouldn’t the science be able to speak for itself?
If they were truly confident in their data, they would let it speak for itself. There would be no need to defend it or try to convince anyone as its validity would be clear. Now, instead of presenting further evidence to appease critics, they are appealing for public sympathy. This is not doing much to inspire confidence in their scientific claims.
Their complaints about social media, with one scientist being upset about being labeled a “liar,” are also quite ridiculous. These platforms are places for people to share ideas and debate the topics of the day, but these scientists are acting like social media should be a safe place where they cannot be criticized.
Of course, we all know where this is headed: complaining that people are “abusing” someone online is often a precursor to having them censored so that their opposing views will not get any airtime. A good scientist would engage with criticism and present evidence defending their position rather than simply act like a victim and try to silence those who question them.
Ultimately, criticism and revision are essential parts of the scientific method. When the predictions made by a
climate model do not end up panning out, shouldn’t a scientist want to develop better models that do not repeat the same mistakes of the previous ones instead of attacking those who criticize them?
This is why there is derision. Instead of considering, you will just refuse the info. I mean the govts are so trustworthy, why would they lie about this? Lol>
Keep drinking the coolaid!
