正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

For decades, climate models assumed that bare ice, the exposed surface left behind when seasonal snow melts, was impermeable. Every drop of summer melt was thought to run straight into the ocean. But new research shows bare ice can actually absorb, retain, and even refreeze meltwater. Field data show...

10,758 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Greenland Temperature Study Challenges Climate Narratives: The Data Speaks | Climate Conservative Consumer Recent analysis of MODIS satellite data (2000–2019) reveals Greenland’s surface temperatures remained remarkably stable, challenging narratives of rapid Arctic warming. The study, covering 31,464 observations across 36 sub-regions, found minimal long-term trends—only a slight cooling of ~0.05°C per decade, with three of four regions showing no significant change and the South region cooling slightly. This contrasts with expectations of accelerated warming, though seasonal patterns remained consistent. The findings suggest factors beyond surface temperature, such as ocean currents or ice dynamics, may drive observed ice sheet changes. Ice-free areas showed higher average temperatures than ice-covered regions but neither displayed significant warming, challenging assumptions that ice-free regions would warm faster. The study aligns with other research indicating slowed warming since the 1990s, complicating climate model assumptions. While MODIS data has limitations (e.g., cloud cover), the results highlight complex Arctic climate dynamics, urging reevaluation of ice melt drivers and their implications for sea level projections. The analysis divided Greenland into four primary regions (North, Central-North, Central-South, South), each with nine sub-regions, using statistical methods to isolate long-term trends from seasonal variability. These results underscore the need for honest integration of such findings into climate science discourse, emphasizing the complexity of Arctic climate dynamics and demanding reassessment of current climate models. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

129,879 次观看 • 1 年前

Al Gore said we had 10 years to save the planet… 19 years ago. Let’s check the scoreboard on his apocalyptic 2006 predictions. 1/ In 2006, Al Gore stood on his iconic ladder and gave a masterclass in climate fearmongering. He claimed Greenland & Antarctica were disintegrating, that "maps of the world will have to be redrawn," and showed graphics of major cities flooding. The media treated it as gospel. 2/ So, what’s happened since his dire warning? Greenland Ice Mass: - Gore’s claim: Imminent breakup and melt, causing catastrophic sea level rise. - The Reality: While Greenland has lost ice, it's a far cry from "maps being redrawn." - From 1992-2023, Greenland contributed ~13.7 mm to sea level rise. That's about half an inch over 31 years. 3/ Sea Level Rise: - Gore’s implication: Feet of sea level rise, drowning Florida, Shanghai, and the Netherlands. - The Reality: The global average sea level has risen at a steady, linear rate of about 3.4 mm per year for decades. No alarming acceleration. Since 2006, it's risen about 2.3 inches total. 4/ Let's be clear: A 2-3 inch rise over 18 years is a concern for long-term planning, but it is not the "redraw the world maps" catastrophe Gore sold to the public. His graphics were science-fiction, not science. 5/ The real tragedy of Gore’s doom-peddling? It created a generation of climate policy based on panic, not pragmatism. It shut down scientific debate and funneled trillions into inefficient solutions based on failed models. When the predictions fail so spectacularly, you have to question the motive. 6/ The climate is complex, and our understanding evolves. But the "settled science" of 2006, used to justify a radical restructuring of the global economy, was wildly, demonstrably wrong. It’s not denial to point out when a prophecy fails. It’s accountability. What's your take?

Camus

26,216 次观看 • 7 个月前