A group of Korean polar scientists have made the astonishing discovery that summer temperatures in Antarctica plunged by a massive 1°C in just 20 years from 1979-1999 and have since been on pause. Perhaps discovery is too strong a word. The work, which was published recently in a Nature journal, confirms that warming has rather passed Antarctica by in the era of mass global heating psychosis. Other scientists have noted that Antarctica has show very little warming over the last 70 years of accurate recordings. All of these findings are ignored in the mainstream media, where a simplistic opinion that humans control the climate by using hydrocarbons is the main driver of panic designed to implement the evil Net Zero project. Plunging temperatures and inconvenient pauses in Antarctica over 45 years do not play well at a time when carbon dioxide atmospheric levels rose from near-denudation 337 parts per million to 420.
The Korean scientists provide two sets of data to back up their cooling discovery. Recordings from ground stations show cooling of 0.53C a decade between 1979-99 and -0.004C a decade from the turn of the century. ‘Reanalysis’ data is produced with the help of computer models and these frequently show greater warming. In this case the cooling trend is less, but both sets of data show a distinct cooling trend since 1979.
In the graph above, the dashed-dotted and black solid lines correspond to the results from 20 station observations and the ‘reanalysis’ data respectively. The two illustrations below the graph show clearly the degrees of cooling that were detected across the continent. The orange line refers to the stratospheric final warming onset data (SFWOD), which is one of a number of important natural climatic influences which the scientists examined in trying to explain the temperature changes. Meanwhile, the illustrations of temperature change correspond well with a similar one published by Singh and Polvani. It was noted in this 2021 paper that warming had been “nearly non-existent” over the last seven decades.
Singh and Polvani also observed that Antarctica sea ice has “modestly expanded” over the same period, and these findings have been confirmed in other scientific work. Last month, the Daily Sceptic reported on the work of four environmental scientists who found that sea ice around Antarctica has “slowly increased” since the start of continuous satellite recordings in 1979. That doesn’t of course mean that there aren’t short-term cyclical variations in the extent of the ice and these provide a field day for alarmists. A recent “mind-blowing” variation led the science editor of the Financial Times Clive Cookson to exclaim that the entire area “faces a catastrophic cascade of extreme environmental events… that will affect climate around the world”.
All is not lost in alarmists circles since they still have an area in western Antarctica they can point at to whip up their politicised climate fear mongering. The area is clearly seen in the maps above showing higher recent temperatures. But quite why a well-mixed atmospheric trace gas with warming properties should only affect one part of the massive ice-covered continent is not clear – no matter, it is the best evidence of ‘global warming’ available. Those who look for the more obvious natural causes of climate change note the presence of volcanoes. Following recent discoveries, there are now 138 identified volcanoes in the West Antarctica Rift System with heights ranging from 300 to 12,600 ft. In 2021, Dziadek et al noted that the “elevated geothermal heat flow band” is exerting a “profound influence on the flow dynamics of the Western Antarctica Ice Sheet”. The area is home to the Thwaites ‘Doomsday’ Glacier, a key poster alarm story with fears of imminent collapse and sea level rise. But scientists have shown that there are significant cycles of ice production in the area that stretch back thousands of years.
Other climatic influences on Antarctica were recently highlighted by a group of New Zealand scientists who noted that the ozone hole high above the continent was as large as ever, despite a 35-year ban on the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFU). UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres claimed that the world should be encouraged by an inspiring example of political will and apply the same will to healing the planet. The ozone CFU scare was considered a great triumph in Green alarmist circles – still is, just a shame about the facts. The opening of the ozone layer in the spring seems to be largely a natural phenomenon. The temperatures at this time along with wind patterns are said to greatly effect the event. Dynamic changes from the higher reaches of the atmosphere with the polar vortex affecting climatic conditions are also noted by both New Zealand and Korean scientists.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Same Harvard that fired Professor of Medicine Martin Kulldorff for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration…
https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramples-the-truth
“…I am no longer a professor of medicine at Harvard. The Harvard motto is Veritas, Latin for truth. But, as I discovered, truth can get you fired.”
For the record, Dr Kulldorff is now at Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom.
Touché Harvard – Harvard’s loss is Hillsdale’s gain.
Trump is gradually cutting off the money supplies. Once reality hits,the rats will be turning on each other and the minority interests fighting amongst themselves.
If you argue that Trump is doing his best to reverse the Obamafication of America then cutting off the supply of support at the nest is an effective way of killing what has become a parasitical culture.
To me universities are a system of selection, picking out from the mass of population the people who will serve as the cadres and intelligentsia of the establishment.
The Ivy League schools, Oxford, Cambridge, SciencePo, etc.. are there to pick out and prepare those who might serve at the very top.
Obviously it’s not a perfect system. Some people slip through and use it for their own purposes.
Trump, to his credit, taking a chainsaw to the entire system. Changing how the cadres of the future are indoctrinated is pretty important.
I agree, it does seem that they have been infiltrated by the left who have manipulated education to their own ends, they have loaded the system with dumbed down subjects which in reality appear to be better served as vocational training.
It does appear that lefty thinking has seeped into all areas of life. Academic freedom is the most important aspect of education for without it we will descend into the darkness of totalitarian rule. If we can’t rely on academics to freely go about their business within a lawful framework then we are lost.
But there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think many scientists have been hiding behind dogmatic ideologies and have become fearful of losing their livelihoods, this seems to be coming to an end and I watch the Hillsdale channel on Youtube and would recommend it to anyone who wants to listen to various subjects.I generalise by necessity so it may be worth looking up Hillsdale and judge for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/@hillsdalecollege
You need to differentiate between Natural Scientists, while not perfect, do keep their mistakes away from the fabric of society, and Social Scientists, who often wander into the unsocial, with some encamping there.
Yes, you make a good point, but If you check out Hillsdale, many of the vids are interviews and discussion with people studying Natural sciences who have been sidelined, or simply ignored by various bodies for studying subjects that contravene “accepted” science. It’s a wealth of information that is slowly coming to the forefront. Quantum physics, consciousness, brain function and soon.
I am acquainted with the college, and their courses. The problem is what to do about the other ‘institutions of higher learning’. I see it as Oratory beats Wisdom, but even the Ancient Greeks knew that, though it has morphed into a battle of Narratives. But that is the problem, even though everyone has a valid view point, on every subject, it would help if at least some of the subject under discussion was understood beforehand, by the participants voicing opinions, and not questions. It leads to the problem of mistaking Science, a mode of enquiry, with The Science, handled down to the Deplorables, who are expected to accept it, without question.
I haven’t yet had ‘Climate Denier’ tattooed on my forehead (so that my children and grandchildren will know just how evil I have been), so all is not lost.
On the subject of Quantum Physics, Jacob Barandes is ploughing a new furrow, with Stocastic Processes. If I could understand it, I could pass comment on it!
If universities are unfree then the people will also be unfree. Most interesting article confirming this contemporary experience of a disrupted society.
“The intellectually least disordered part of any university is the natural scientific side.” But “they [scientists] do not take great interest in the university as a whole”.
What a coincidence!
And then I see the author is a ‘Professor in the Department of Political Science’.
Political Science?
Isn’t that where universities have gone wrong: confusing Science, a mode of enquiry, with the aspirations of the confused?
Universities in general, particularly Humanities Departments, have always been somewhat left-leaning in their outlook. “Hard Science” Departments like those of Mathematics, Engineering and Pure Sciences perhaps more objective in their doctrine.
Lately, the “Hard Sciences” have become more and more infiltrated by MadLeft thinking with the result that we are where we are today, and it has taken a Court judgement to advocate on the nature of a woman, for example.
This infiltration has led to the politicisation of science (which is not exclusively a new phenomenon, consider the Nazis and their race “studies”).
It is however counter-productive, science needs to be absolutely objective and free from external bias to be of value. Mathematics and Physics are rigid and exist within strict rules – and any attempt to deviate from that leads to failure on various scales (as we are also contemporary witnesses to).
Although I agree in many ways I think that physics are now considered perhaps too rigid to explain recent scientific discoveries. I watched a video yesterday of an interview of Federico Faggin, who has a respected reputation in semiconductors. He puts forward ideas that quantum physics can’t be explained by current mathematical models and that contemporary physicists try to fit the latest findings using methods that can no longer explain the quantum world. He points out that the subject of quantum entanglement was not treated seriously because Einstein thought it was wrong. He delves into consciousness, which in many ways coincides with studies by Iain McGilchrist and Rupert Sheldrake.
So whether you agree or not, these people should be listened to but unfortunately in many ways some of them are sidelined. But just consider the feud between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke of the way people like RobertOppenheimer were treated and then consider that climate scientists insanely say that science is settled and they are backed by the main stream media and governments across the world.
I see it as our duty to question everything and listen to all opposing views, but of course people are free to disagree as long as they do so openly and not in the way we have experienced in the past 30(at least) years. But as Faggin says, “Free will exists”.
Go for it, Donald!
I started “Uni” in 1999. After six months, I had walked out. Waste of time and money. Went and learned real skills on the job and kept up learning German in the meantime.
It was the same for my peers, but most of them went along to get along (except they didn’t and just incurred a load of student debt, credit card debt and an unhealthy sense of entitlement and superiority.
This correction (fingers crossed) is well overdue. May it flow over to the UK.
“[G]roundbreaking innovations”? Garber writes in garbled American English. It makes as much sense as, “lived experience”. I wonder how he got the job; on his knees perhaps.
See The New Idea of a University too, by Duke Maskell and Ian Robinson. Doesn’t so much foretell the death of the university as describe the condition of the corpse (which hasn’t improved in the 24 years since the book was published).