Manuel Menezes

[F̳̿͟͞l̳̿͟͞i̳̿͟͞c̳̿͟͞k̳̿͟͞ ™ @Flick1_]

Interessant verhaal over de omegablokkade.

Een meteoroloog legt uit waarom het deze week zo warm is (en nee, het komt niet door klimaat- verandering

De omegablokkade — dat is de werkelijke meteorologische verklaring achter de extreme temperaturen die momenteel over een groot deel van het Europese continent worden gemeten. Terwijl grootmedia als de NOS de hitte vrijwel reflexmatig koppelen aan klimaatverandering en broeikasgassen, wijzen kritische wetenschappers op een veel nuchterder en beter onderbouwde verklaring: een hardnekkig weerpatroon in de hogere atmosfeer dat Europa al vaker in zijn greep heeft gehouden.

Wat is een omegablokkade precies?

Een omegablokkade is een specifiek patroon in de straalstroom — de krachtige windstroom op grote hoogte die het weer in onze breedtegraden grotendeels stuurt. De naam komt van de gelijkenis met de Griekse hoofdletter omega (Ω): een grote hogedrukrug in het midden, geflankeerd door twee lagedrukgebieden aan weerszijden. Dit patroon zorgt ervoor dat luchtmassa’s nauwelijks kunnen doorstromen en het weerpatroon wekenlang kan vaststaan.

In het geval van de huidige hittegolf wordt hete Saharalucht door het anticyclonale (met de klok mee draaiende) luchtstroompatroon noordwaarts getransporteerd richting West-Europa. Terwijl die luchtmassa stijgt en daalt onder de hogedrukrug, wordt ze adiabatisch samengedrukt — een puur fysisch proces dat de temperatuur verder doet oplopen. Geen CO2 aan te pas.

Meteoroloog Chris Martz trekt aan de bel.

De Amerikaanse meteoroloog Chris Martz deelde zijn analyse van het huidige weerpatroon uitgebreid via sociale media. Zijn conclusie is helder: deze omegablokkade heeft niets te maken met klimaatverandering of uitstoot van broeikasgassen. Het is een bekende, goed gedocumenteerde weerdynamiek die altijd al heeft plaatsgevonden en ook in een hypothetisch pre-industrieel klimaat tot recordhitte zou hebben geleid.

Martz wijst bovendien op een opvallende wetenschappelijke paradox. Er bestaan namelijk diverse studies die suggereren dat opwarming van de Arctis juist zou leiden tot minder frequente blokkerende weerpatronen zoals de omegablokkade, omdat het temperatuurverschil tussen de evenaar en de poolgebieden kleiner wordt. Dat staat haaks op de bewering dat klimaatverandering dit soort hittegolven veroorzaakt of versterkt. Martz erkent dat er debat bestaat over dit onderwerp, maar de eenvoudige klimaatboodschap die media uitdragen, is sowieso te kort door de bocht.

Europa vaker getroffen, maar waarom eigenlijk?

Dan is er nog een toename van zonnestraling die het aardoppervlak bereikt, doordat er minder bewolking is van lage en middelmatige wolkenlagen. Die afname van bewolking hangt deels samen met de strenge Europese luchtvervuilingsregels, die hebben geleid tot minder atmosferische aerosolen. Minder deeltjes in de lucht betekent minder wolkenvorming, meer direct zonlicht en dus hogere oppervlaktetemperaturen.

Met andere woorden: de eigen Europese milieuregulering draagt bij aan de toegenomen hitte. Dat is een ongemakkelijke conclusie die je in de reguliere media zelden zult tegenkomen.

Media kiezen sensatie boven wetenschappelijke nuance

Denktank Clintel, vertegenwoordigd door wetenschapsjournalist Marcel Crok, onderschrijft de analyse van Martz. De conclusie is simpel: wie de oorzaak van de Europese hitte wil begrijpen, kan beter een meteoroloog raadplegen dan een krantenredactie die op zoek is naar een clickbait-verhaal.

Het is inmiddels een vast patroon: zodra het ergens warm is, wordt de link met klimaatverandering gelegd, vrijwel zonder nuance, zelden met meteorologische onderbouwing en al helemaal niet met verwijzing naar mogelijke alternatieve verklaringen. Dat is geen journalistiek — dat is activisme vermomd als wetenschap.

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@wideawake_media How can we fire this con man?

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@Electroversenet Well the goal for EV should be to have more efficient motors, cheaper and more modern cars and less polluting than ICE cars, not CO2 reduction

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

The tide is turning over to the truth

[Anika @anika_climate]

🚨BREAKING!!! 46 IPCC Scientists REBEL: The Climate Narrative is Crumbling from Within!🚨

Forty-six scientists tied to the IPCC have stepped away or spoken out because their evidence-based views clashed with the official alarmist script. They weren’t “listened to.” Their data didn’t fit the doom-and-gloom story pushed in the Summaries for Policymakers. Don’t trust me, read their own words here! ⬇️

Dr. Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.’ This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Dr. John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

Dr. Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

Dr. Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

Dr. Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

Dr. Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

Dr. Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 ‘scientists’ who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr. Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

Dr. Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

Dr. John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Yet the grift rolls on. New grads, indoctrinated in universities, keep repackaging the same scares for the next generation. “Consensus!” “The Science says!” Endless control through manufactured ignorance.

Meanwhile, nature doesn’t care about the narrative. Natural forcings rule. The Sun is cooling. Jet stream gone meridional. Cosmic rays surging, seeding clouds. Result? Wild swings, then global cooling.
The emperor has no clothes, and the scientists who know it are finally speaking up. 🔥

Original work from The Dragons Breathe Substack:

https://t.co/uBUnVC1Bf2

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

What a stupid hoax this is.

[Mike Hudema @MikeHudema]

This NASA visualization shows the CO2 emitted into the earth's atmosphere + clarifies who is responsible for the climate crisis: we, the Global North.

There is not time to wait. #ActOnClimate

#climate #energy #renewables

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@victoria80atz 3 or 4

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

The 'temporal smoothing' effect seen in ice cores doesn't just hide spikes, it also obscures the massive thermal lag between the air and the deep ocean.

If CO₂ was the root cause of warming it would rise first. But it doesn't. CO₂ increases are almost always shown to lag behind temperatures, by as much as 700 to 1,000 years. This is caused by oceanic inertia. The oceans hold roughly 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere and also contain 90% of the planet's retained thermal energy. The oceans act as the master flywheel.

Historically, CO₂ levels have been shown to lag temperature rises by centuries. The ocean warms, and like a glass of soda left in the sun, CO₂ slowly outgasses into the gossamer thin film of our atmosphere.

Water is also 1,000 times denser and heavier than air. Oceans cover 71% of the planet's surface to an average depth of 2.3 miles. This is why the oceans have intertia. They are the powerhouse of the thermal world.

Ocean currents are slow yet ceaseless and it takes roughly 800 to 1,000 years for a parcel of water to complete this journey (called thermohaline circulation).

The weight placed on CO₂ levels at 0.042% of the atmosphere is really a thermodynamic rounding error. The oceans are the true climate drivers with a 1,000 year memory. Ice cores are just a low-resolution blurred history of the relationship between CO₂ and temperatures in the atmosphere.

This physical process cannot physically record short-term spikes.

We aren't necessarily seeing unprecedented changes happening. We are simply the first generation with the technology to see the flicker in high definition.

[Watts Up With That @wattsupwiththat]

𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗦𝗲𝗮 𝗜𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗧𝗼 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹
Antarctic sea ice is back to normal this year, crushing the climate alarmists' predictions of doom. They freaked out over a couple of low years, blaming global warming. But now it's averaged out, and that "decline" trend? Total statistical noise. We had record highs just a decade ago—how does that fit? Spoiler: it doesn't. Dive into the facts.

Read the full article:
https://t.co/PtDbvd5cgU

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

Brutal! Mas faltam as "comichões "... das estruturas que encomendam, etc etc.........

[FranX @franXtav]

COMUNICAÇÕES DE EMERGÊNCIA ROBUSTAS E REDUNTANTES PARA TODO O TERRITÓRIO NACIONAL

(substituição completa do SIRESP)

🛰️Um terminal Starlink com WiFi 6 ligados a baterias de lítio, apoiadas por um gerador, por cada:
- Junta de Freguesia (3091)
- Esquadra de PSP (456)
- Posto da GNR (505)
- Quartel de Bombeiros (3200)
- Comando da Polícia Maritima (33)
- Hospital (242)
- Centro de Saúde (1140)
TOTAL: 8,667 terminais

🛰️Um terminal Starlink Mini por cada:
- Carro de bombeiro (5700)
- Ambulância (1700)
- Carro da PSP (3000)
- Carro da GNR (6500)
TOTAL: 16,900 terminais

🛰️Um terminal Iridium Go para cada:
- Presidente de Câmara Municipal (308)
- Ministro e Secretário de Estado (59)
- Comandantes Distrital/Regional/Metro da PSP (20)
- Comandante Territorial da GNR (20)
TOTAL: 407 terminais

Custo dos terminais a preço de consumidor:
. Starlink - €350
. Starlink mini - €300
. Iridiun Go - €300

Custo de baterias e geradores (exemplo EcoFlow Smart Generator 3000 a gasolina e LPG com bateria de lítio): €1000

Mensalidades a preço de consumidor:
. Starlink Residencial (edifícios) - €40 com dados ilimitados
. Starlink Roam (vehículos) - €40 com limite de dados
. Iridium Go - €100 com limite de minutos

CUSTOS TOTAIS DO SISTEMA:

. Terminais Starlink - €3,033,450
. Terminais Starlink Mini - €5,070,000
. Terminais Iridium Go - €122,000
. Pack bateria de lítio e gerador a gasolina/LPG - €8,667,000

➡️Custo Total de Aquisição de Equipamentos - €16,892,550

. Mensalidades Starlink Residencial - €346,680
. Mensalidades Starlink Roam - €676,000
. Mensalidades Iridium - €40,700

➡️Custo Total de Comunicações - €1,063,380/mês ou €12,760,560/ano

✅Sim, é assim tão simples.

✅Sim, é assim tão barato.

😎De nada.

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@Aliya562219 100

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@oelma__ Sorry but I do. All 20!

[Not Jerome Powell @alifarhat79]

This is how markets work

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@sofiafonsoferre Congrats for this informative. Keep up the good work

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

O nosso Gugu vai ficar famoso: o ex-especialista em pântanos subiu um degrau, agora é o criador de buracos negros. Leiam abaixo

[Wall Street Mav @WallStreetMav]

The United Nations is facing “financial collapse” because of reduced funding by the USA and a few other countries not paying their annual dues.

This is a huge positive for everyone. The UN siphons money from the US, Europe and Japan … then funds NGOs with a mission to inflict chaos on the west.

NGOs funded by the UN were helping fund and direct millions of illegals on how to cross the southern border and enter the USA.

The UN is a complete waste of money and really should be defunded. At most it should merely be a place for international meetings and debate, but with zero funding to actually do anything.

[Cactus4X @Cactus4x]

@_MAGA_NEWS_ Finally someone said it!!

The most important european contribution to the world during the last decade:

[Helena Ferro de Gouveia @camalees]

Isto é indefensável.

[Sofia Afonso Ferreira @sofiafonsoferre]

@antonioguterres A UN é uma anedota e o Guterres é o coveiro.

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Our species evolved during an ice age, which has lasted 2.58 million years. Today's global temperatures are estimated to sit at a cool 15 degrees worldwide. This is more than 6 degrees 'colder' than the world's average temperature range of 18-25 degrees over most of the current Phanerozoic Eon (from 541 million years ago). Throughout geological history, the Earth has always been a hotter planet than today with only five significant ice ages. A 1.5 degree rise does not have disastrous consequences for today's natural world or for human society, which can be readily mitigated or nuanced. Ask yourself why it is suddenly a problem?

Earth has been in the Quaternary Ice Age for 2.58 million years; its climate cycling from frigid icehouse to warm interglacials, like the one we live in today. During the last glacial period (prior to 11,700 years ago) glaciers 2-2.5 miles deep covered much of north America and Eurasia. They left an indelible record written in rock: with deeply scarred landforms that created most of today's great lakes system. These ice age cycles reflect the orbital anomalies of earth's orbital journey around the sun, known as Milankovitch cycles. Temperatures have fluctuated by 5–6°C of warming and cooling every 100,000 or so years. Scientists agree that these cycles are driven by orbital variations, not by CO₂, which is a trace gas of 0.047% of the atmosphere - or 4 molecules of to every 10,000 molecules of every other gas. Think about that. Water vapour has a far more crucial place in the natural turbulence of the biosphere than CO₂; driving all weather, storms and rainfall.

Water vapour makes up 4% of the atmosphere in many areas of the world (100 times higher than CO₂). Water vapour plus clouds (clouds cover 68% of the surface) account for 50-70% of all the warming - not CO₂. Yet this sharp contrast is deeply obscured in crisis-laden statements from the UN, citing endlessly unrealistic claims like 'global boiling'. Milankovitch orbital cycles drive the recurring glaciations, followed by ice-sheet retreat, falling albedo and changes in ocean circulation. We are dominated by nature, whether we like it or not.

Earth has warmed by only by around 1.5 degrees in the 170 years since the end of the 500-year little ice age in Europe. That is not a crisis; it's recovery. We are still in that same ice age with the same ice cover we had two million years ago. It's not a fresh crisis caused by CO₂. The end point is that net zero is now costing $275 trillion (at $9.2 trillion a year) and so far nothing has changed. Will anything change? How will we know? Numerous crisis tipping points have been announced yet none ever occurred.

As I write today, coal, oil and gas provide around 81-82% of all primary energy. The likely disastrous consequences of this deception are impossible to imagine.

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@Arden_2210 45

[Manuel Menezes @ret2013]

@Mishi_2210 999